A Class War

[9thvacav]

Neil,

All I can say is, in my opinion, the war was sparked due to differences of lifestyles & inability to understand those lifestyles. Specifically however, in the ruling class, in the political class and in the government the big issue was money - where wealth came from, who got to keep it and who got the say in how it was spent.

Calling up of troops to put down the "rebellion" was a key factor in the war. Yes, some states had seceded already and others believed that secession was an option but one they would rather avoid if possible.

As someone who lives rurally can attest you have a tendency to love your family, the land, your neighbors and your community first, then comes the wider circle of your county, state, region and finally nation. This plays no small part in the "states rights" issue. In all states, people from rural areas vote differently in elections and have different concerns, they feel they are not being represented fairly by the masses in the cities. Southern Oregon and Northern California made an effort in the last century to "secede" from their respective states to become another state (the state of Jefferson) because they felt they were not being fairly represented.

Lin Ahearn

[thea_447]

Neil had addressed a few points to me on which I'd like to venture an opinion:
In regard to Lincoln's generous proposal for remuneration for slaves in the South, I find it shows he did indeed have a sense of humor when one notes the dates he proposed this to Congress. It was rather late to try to salvage any kind of cooperation with the South at that point since they were already at war, but did lend a certain facade to this endeavor. And holding the border states would have been a key motive if martial law wouldn't do the trick. It would have been even more humorous had his agreeability to "being taxed for such a purpose" extended to the Southern states who had already paid for these blacks. As onorous as it sounds today, I remind you that in the 1860s this was viewed in an entirely different light.

Before anyone wants to take me to task about the Northerners already viewing this as wrong, I would be glad to point out, in another post, the way Northerners handled the issue of slavery and their slow abolishment of the system, whereby they lost no money, and also the very fact that they wanted nothing to do with these black people they were so anxious, purportedly, to free.

As for Sherman keeping his troops in line, I suggest some light reading of their actions in Roswell, Georgia where over four hundred young women and children were kept in the open town square for nearly a week. At the same town, the guards found their way to the liquor stores...no further comment needed, use your imagination.

More than two thousand women and children were sent in to the North in a destitute condition, and were hired out to perform work at a price that was at no more than subsistence level, making them virtual white slaves for the Yankees. The papers in the area advertised them as if they were any other common commodity for sale. I would venture to say some Northerners were singing a few choruses about the "grapes of wrath", etc.

I invite you all to look to details of Marion County, Missouri,New Manchester, Georgia or Tennessee or Louisiana during this same period.}}}
But I would point a finger towards a Capt. Turchin , who after his men were allowed to live and do as they pleased in the Negro quarters in Athens,Alabama for WEEKS, was court-martialed but later promoted to a much higher rank. These are just a few of the incidents I could relate but they I suppose, all would fall under the realm of the new term you've given me, Neil, "A Significant Emotional Moment."

The North went to war to "prove" that the right of secession didn't exist. But after "winning" that war, they required the South to surrender its right of secession in order to rejoin the Union. And in order to take their place in the Union, from which the North had fought a war to "prove" that they could not legally leave, Southern states were required to give up the right of secession and to write it into their state constitutions, surrendering forever this right.
This is an oxymoron. How can a state give up that which it never had? The very acts of the Northern government proved that the South did actually have the right to secede.

[unionblue]

Thea, nothing I can say can make war pretty or nice or fair. Again I say those civilians in Sherman's line of march caught a lot of grief, but it could have been far worse.

I would point out an article by Lee Kennett, the historian, author and biographer who wrote the book, "Sherman: A Soldier's Life."

In that article Mr. Kennett states: "Being a Southerner by birth and upbringing, I began my work (on his research for his book on Sherman) with a vague, inherited dislike of the man; 10 years and two books later, I have not been converted into an ardent admirer. There were flaws of character in the general: a certain instability, a consuming preoccupation with his own image, and as a soldier a sometimes disturbing way of dealing with those under his command or control."

All this being said, I am pretty sure Sherman should not be considered the "bete noire" of Southern history, much less saluted as "the Attila of the West," the title H.L. Mencken accorded him.

I tend to agree with Mr. Kennett, that there is just not enough factual evidence to accord Sherman the reputation that has been heaped on him by history and those in the present time that make him out to be some kind war-criminal.

As for Lincoln's timing with his offer to use compenstation during the war being some kind of sick joke, that again is just not the case. Lincoln was trying to save lives by ending the war, even if it meant spending money instead of lives.

But if the timing bothers you, how about government attempts before the war to pay Southerners for their slaves? Henry Clay tried the very thing with his Distribution Plan, introduced into Congress in June of 1832! Clay sought to transfer the federal budget surplus to the States by a calculation of population made on the basis of the three-fifths rule. He urged that southern states give 'special consideration' to devoting this money to either colonizing or emancipating their slaves. I guess no one else saw the humor in this situation either as the initiative fell into the hands of aggressive slaveholders who did not share the Mr. Clay's views. (From the book, "The Origins of The American Civil War" by Brian Holden Reid, chapter two, page 84.)

And Thea, the term is "Significant Emotional Event" not "Moment" and I will concede all of the events you describe happening to those civilians did happen. It was not pleasant nor agreeable, even devestating to those involved. But it could have been much, much worse.

Was there resentment and anger over the destruction caused by the march to the sea? You betcha. Is war terrible? Yes, it is, or it would be called 'peace' instead. You cannot declare war unless you have the means and the desire to carry it through and to suffer it's consequences. The people of Georgia paid the price of war and war, no matter how you slice it, deal it or wage it, is not fair. I include a web site that contains Sherman's reply to the Mayor of Atlanta when he asked Sherman to modify his order for all the people of that city to leave,

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....erman_1864.htm

a part of which I will quote for you hear: "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it;" Sherman goes on to say, "...that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds of thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies, and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of families of rebel soldiers left in our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate it horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance."

What I try to get across here is the idea that one needs to look a little bit closer and a bit less emotionally at the facts of the march. I also wish to point out that at least on three occassions before and during the war, the US government offered to buy the slaves from the South, and in fact, offer compensation which you stated in your previous post, you could not understand why the North had not done so. Does this alter your opinion in any way with this fact presented to you?

I admit, I don't see any chance in changing your thoughts on Sherman, but what about that one point?

Lastly, why wouldn't the North demand that the Southern States give up the right to secede? From what I understand, were not those very same states, who had been defeated on the battlefield, still trying to keep things the same in their states by still restricting black sufferage, voting, etc.? I will do more research on this and get back to you with it, as I am only winging it here. Maybe the idea was to ensure those states got the idea once and for all? And the right to secede had been decided once and for all, on the battlefield.

Until that time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 14, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 14, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 14, 2003)

[unionblue]

Mr. Ahearn, I submit for your consideration the following:

"In conclusion, it is clear that the South was not a 'distinctive' region of the United States, but it enjoyed various levels of contrast with other regions. How can these contrasting features be delineated, and what was their significance? The most obvious contrast was in demography. The black presence was something that marked out the South. The total white population in 1860 was 8,097,500, and this was balanced against a black population of 3,953,700 slaves and 262,000 free blacks. That this population might rise and overthrow the rule of whites was an ominipresent fear. It accounted for the intense fear of action by 'agitators' from outside the region, and also the assumption that 'the North' was a good deal more united and hostile than it actually was. But although the South was increasingly regarded as 'under siege' and that its institutions were threatened, it is difficult to see, other than in relation to slavery and its ramifications, in what lay the uniqueness of these institutions. Certainly there were economic differences: small pockets of industrialization can be found in the South, but these were tiny compared with developments in Pennsylvania or New York state. There were cultural and social differences, with an emphasis in the South on educating a privileged upper middle class and neglecting the education of the great mass of poor whites. Urbanization was much more advanced in the North that in the South.

Yet, if these features are examined closely the atypicality of the great majority of them disappear. They seem rather differences in style, or emphasis, than in substance. In 1860, the North, too, was predominantly rural, and the bulk of the white population consisted of small farmers....The South was not a distinctive but a self-conscious section. That is to say, this self-consciousness was the product of political and social sources, differences arising mainly from the peculiar institution, rather than from any sense of cultural separateness. This came later to explain (or to justify) the increasing divergence." (From the book, "The Origins Of The American Civil War", by Brian Reid, Chapter Three, pages 99-101.)

Although Mr. Reid says it pretty high-toned, it seems the idea of lifestyles wasn't that much of a factor. Most everybody in the United States of the time lived rurally, on small farms and were farmers.

Now, I do tend to agree about the money part, especially when it concerns the ruling class in the South, but not so much in the national government in your idea who spent the money or who kept it. The national government had been held by the South right up until Lincoln, to include Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. If the South had not spilt the Democratic ticket with it's insistance on an admendment/law to have the Federal government protect slavery throughout the entire Union, Stephen Douglas would have more than likely won the 1860 Presidential race defeating Lincoln. So, no, not a money issue and I know you are not alluding to the tariff issue.

Calling out the troops? No, no one did that for several months and yet the South went ahead and seized armories, post offices, forts, ports, custom houses, arms, etc., etc., and still the North did nothing in the way of an offensive manuver. When were the troops called on by Lincoln? Oh, yes. That little matter to do with the firing on Ft. Sumpter.

Again, who called upon all of those men who loved their families, land, neighbors and communities to defend their country? In what way were they not being fairly represented? Again I repeat, the South had the national government in its back pocket. No way could the Republican party or Lincoln could have legislated anything against the South's wishes.

I do not wish to appear to be sarcastic, but the only way money enters into this to my way of thinking is defending ones states rights to keep slaves and all the money one has invested into that property.

Mr. Ahearn, thank you for your time and your responses. Please do not feel that I am trying to offend or that I take offense at your opinions. Sometimes my fingers rush over these keys so that my poor brain doesn't lose it's concentration.

I in no way mean no disrespect to the men who fought for their homes and their lands when the fought the forces of the Union. But I feel much the same way Grant did when he said of them, "Never have braver men fought for a worse cause." or something to that effect.

I sign off now, drunk with fatigue and the desperate need for sleep. Any errors in this post are mine and mine alone. I await your reply.

Sincerely,
Unionblue}

[unionblue]

Thea, I have found a site on the internet that details Sherman's actions during the march to the sea and possible legal action that was considered against him, tying in with your statement on the order written by Lincoln's man. I may have to eat some of my words, but I am looking it over and will get back to you soon.

Sincerely,
Unionblue}


(Message edited by Unionblue on February 14, 2003)

[unionblue]

Thea, nope, was wrong, seems the site I had found dealt with Sherman's actions during the March to the Sea by MODERN standards of land warfare and therefore does not apply to his actions at that time.

However I did take your lead and look up the Lieber Code or General Order No. 100, the Law of War Sherman was supposed to abide by. Made very interesting reading.

Under Section X. Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion it states:

ARTICLE 155. "All enemies in regular are divided into two general classes - that is to say, into combatants and noncombatants, or unarmed citizens of the hostile government.

The MILITARY COMMANDER of the legitimate government, in a war of rebellion, distinguishes between the loyal citizen in the revolted portion of the country and the disloyal citizen. The disloyal citizens may further be classified into those citizens known to sympathize with the rebellion without positively aiding it, and those who, WITHOUT TAKING UP ARMS, give positive aid and comfort to the rebellious enemy without being bodily forced thereto."

ART. 156. "Common justice and plain expediency require that the military commander protect the manifestly loyal citizens, in revolted territories, against the hardships of the war as much as the common misfortune of all war admits.

The commander will throw THE BURDEN OF THE WAR, as much as lies within his power, ON THE DISLOYAL CITIZENS, of the revolted portion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police that the noncombatant enemies have to suffer in regular war; and if he deems it appropriate, or if his government demands of him that every citizen shall, by an oath of allegiance, or by some other manifest act, declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, HE MAY EXPEL, TRANSFER, IMPRISON, OR FINE THE REVOLTED CITIZENS WHO REFUSE TO PLEDGE THEMSELVES ANEW AS CITIZENS OBEDIENT TO THE LAW AND LOYAL TO THE GOVERNMENT."

It also appears I may have been to quick to call Sherman in violation of this general order when it came to notifying a town 24 hours in advance when it was to be fired upon by cannon.

ART. 19. "Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. BUT IT IS NO INFRACTION OF THE COMMON LAW to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity."

Now on articles 38 and 44, you may have some justification.

Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity."

ART. 44. "All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior."

Hate to sound like a lawyer, Thea, but Art. 38 makes it seem as though the Union Army could seize your property out of military necessity and Sherman's march could make a case for that. The receipts part sounds like it was pretty much ignored, that much I will grant.

As for ART. 44, it seems to all accounts that there just wasn't that much murder and rape going on. Robbery, pillage and sacking, yes, so maybe you could tag Sherman with this one, but remember he gave orders before his march that this was not to be, but entrusted it to his subordinate commanders to carry it out.

So, here we stand and after what I have read, Sherman still comes out as following the Laws of War under General Order No. 100.

Did I miss something? I await your response.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea, one last thing on an earlier post on this thread. You mentioned the Morril Tariff as a cause of the war. Again, after some research, I can't see how this one Tariff was any kind of cause for the war.

First off, there is the timing of the passage of the Morril Tariff. It was passed AFTER the South had already seceded; South Carolina had left the Union on Dec. 20th, 1860. The bill passed in the Senate-before Lincoln was President-because 14 Southern senators walked out in advance and they could have blocked the bill if they had stayed.
The Morrill tariff was not passed until three months after South Carolina and six other states had left the Union.

One other thing, if tariffs were an important issue to the South, why weren't they mentioned in any of the debates between Stephen Douglas and Lincoln during that famous series of debates? Not once are tariffs, banks, internal improvements, corruption and other staples of American politics mentioned. Why would such an important item that could lead to war never mentioned?

And remember, the South did not want public opinion distracted from the main idea of secession, slavery, so talk on tariffs was avoided.

Just another observation.

Unionblue

[thea_447]

Dear Neil,
I notice that you have posted many things that are very interesting to me.
And I will respond when I can. I'm going in the hospital tomorrow for back surgery and have not been able to sit with this back brace on for very long.
But I find this so STIMULATING.
Give me some time, and I will get back to all your points.
Thanks for giving me some things to think about and also for listening to my views. That's most gracious.
Till we meet again...
Thea}}}

[hoosier]

You're having back surgery?

Gee, I guess I can't ask you to come help shovel the snow out of my driveway.

Hope the surgery goes well and you can be back with us soon.

[thea_447]

Hi,
Just wanted to throw some stuff on the table before I am off for back surgery tomorrow...(oh, and Mr. Harrison, I really feel bad that I won't be able to shovel that snow for you...perhaps you could come south and pick some cotton for me instead...ROFL!

From The Sworn Testimony of John B. Baldwin, Washington D.C., Feb. 10, 1866. This document can be read in its entirety in the book, America's Caesar, Greg L. Durand, Crown Rights Book Company, Wiggins, Mississippi, 2001.

4 April 1861
Colonel Baldwin of Virginia Warns Lincoln
On April 4 1861 Colonel Bldwin of Virginia was selected by the Virginia convention, a convention of Pro-Union men, to represent them in the presence of the President, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had requested that a Virginia Union man visit his office and speak the sentiments of the Virginia convention.
Baldwin urged President Lincoln to appeal to the American people to settle the questions disturbing the Union in the spirit in which the Constitution was made. He also urged him to withdraw the forces from Sumter and Pickens and declare that he was doing so for the sake of peace.
Baldwin said, "If you take that position, there is national feeling enough in the seceded States themselves and all over the country to rally to your support, and you would gather more friends than any man in the country ever has."
Lincoln replied, "That is not what I am thinking about. If I could be satisfied that I am right, and that I do what is right, I do not care whether people stand by me or not."
Colonel Baldwin continued to plead for a peaceful settlement, but Lincoln's main concern was revenue:
"What about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" queried Lincoln.
Baldwin asked him how much he expected to collect.
"Fifty or sixty millions," answered Lincoln.
Baldwin commented, "Why, sir, four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary, but I do not believe it will be necessary, because I believe you can settle on the basis I suggest."
Lincoln expressed concern about feeding the troops at Ft. Sumter and Baldwin told him, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already."
Baldwin ended his plea with, "Sir, I tell you, before God and man, that if there is a gun fired at Ft. Sumter this thing is gone. And I wish to say to you, Mr. President, with all the solemnity I can possibly summon, that if you intend to do anything to settle this matter you must do it promptly. I think another fortnight will be too late. You have the power now to settle it. You have the choice to make, and you have got to make it very soon. You have, I believe, the power to place yourself up by the side of Washington himself, as the savior of your country, or, by taking a different course of policy, to send down your name on the page of history notorious forever as a man so odious to the American people that, rather than submit to his domination, they would overthrow the best government that God ever allowed to exist."
To his urgings for a peaceful settlement Lincoln made no pledge or reply. Colonel Baldwin went back to Virginia with no assurance for a step in the direction of a peaceful settlement.
+++++++++

This tidbit comes from Charles Adams book, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession":
Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war.
Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption. Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence - including remarkable editorial cartoons and political speeches - to support his thesis that the war was really about government revenue.

Consider this item from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, Mar. 2, 1861 edition:>
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no more money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
"What then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"

This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

Marx was wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original American revolutionaries.
+++++++++

This was not a civil war. A civil war is when two or more factions contend for control of one government. At no time did the South intend or attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. The Southern states simply withdrew from what they correctly viewed as a voluntary union. They formed their own union and adopted their own constitution. The U.S. Government remained intact. There were just fewer states, but everything else remained exactly as it was. Of course, with as much bitterness and hatred of the South as there was in the North, the Northerners would have tried Confederates for treason if there had been any grounds. There weren't, and the South's worst enemy knew that.

Lincoln's invasion of the South was entirely without any constitutional authority. And it's also plain that Lincoln did not seek to preserve the Union to end slavery. Just read his first inaugural address.
Lincoln didn't want to lose the tax revenue generated by the South. As Northern states gained a majority in both houses, they began to use the South as a cash cow.
Most Southerns who exported cotton bartered the cotton in Europe for goods. When the protective tariffs were imposed, that meant Southerners had to pay them. To make matters worse, the North would then use the revenue for pork-barrel porjects in its states. The South was faced with either paying high tariffs and receiving no benefits from the revenue or buying artificially high-priced Northern goods.
Southerners correct view was that, because the federal government was merely the agent of all the states, whatever money it spent should be of equal benefit. Their position on public lands was that they belonged to all the people and the federal government had no authority to give the lands away to private interests. Northerners had announced they would not be bound by the Constitution. What you had was the rise of modern nationalism fighting the original republic founded by the American Revolution.

Secession was the right of all states, but it was ignored by Lincoln and other Northern politicians. By the 1830's the large Northern cities were already hotbeds of socialism and statism in general. They hijacked the abolitionist movement which had, for all practical purposes, succeeded and transformed it into a perverted sense of "equality" as its goal.
Additionally, mechanization of agriculture made slavery obsolete by the 1870's. It was already dying a natural death.

Three Northern States even had slavery during the Civil War, but it was fought over principle.
It was fought over States rights, something that other states seemed to have forgotten about with the dilution by the federal government.
This is part and parcel of being educated and endoctrinated with propaganda and revisionist history.
We first had a Confederate Government and George Washington was president. Certain factions, finding it too weak, arranged for an assembly to write up and form a new federal government. Rhode Island, for example wouldn't join the union until the "Bill of Rights" (1st 10 Amendments) was passed, to guarantee it protection from the foreign government, the federal government. The federal government is a government of specifically delegated powers, those given it by the States and the People respectively. Any power not given it is retained by the States, and one main power was the Police Power.
The feds pierced that with the Commerce clause, and most recently by federal Tax violations.

But, back to the Civil War: slavery became a camouflage for warring on it's own people by the U.S. and it was over encroachment of federal power.
After that came the 14th Amendment. Then the big mistake: the voting in of an Amendment allowing direct taxation by the federal government, (Income tax).
Now we have a fictionalized doctrine whereby the "Bill of Rights" is incorporated in the the 14th (and if need be, the 4th) and this Shield of the Bill of Rights is used as a sword against the States instead of a shield against federal power. The fears of the founding fathers have become a reality. We have let in hordes of half moderate people here and more Penal application has to be applied which diminishes our freedoms out of necessity.

The "Mason Dixon" Tax was imposed on the South after the Civil War as reparations, which continued until Eisenhower's Administration. No factories were built in the South to avoid the Tax. Now, after decades upon decades, the South is normal, with Northerners, for the last 4 decades streaming down here.

The South lost the war, just barely, when they were out armied and outnumbered 6 to one and out of supplies, etc. and Robert E. Lee, son of Lighthorse Harry Lee, Martha Washington's brother, rode his white horse home. He was a cousin of Queen Victoria. (With a horse, you could plow a few acres; no horse, not even an acre.) Rebel soldiers had to walk home. By the way, Gen. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia.

Slavery was going out anyway, but it was good press copy and excellent propoganda, but what about slavery in the Northern states? Ever heard of the "Black Code"? Read about that sometime.

The federal government is doing many things that would have caused a near rebellion or war, but the American traditions have been watered down and what was fought for for centuries are being vitiagated and this is endured by a modern pleasure bent weak moraled citizen. The federal government is now exercising the Police Power which it was not meant to have, given that power by court decisions....and it all started with the Civil War.
++++++++
I know that I have not covered the points in your responses, Neil, but I wanted to "stay in the discussion" so I'm sharing these few things.
I'll be back as soon as this procedure on my back is over and I'm up and at 'em again.
Till we meet again...
Thea