Scourge of War Boards

Again Gentlemen, my warmest greetings:

Sadly, I have once again had connectivity failure while in the process of writing responses to the Forum. For whatever reason, I appear to be limited to about a twenty to thirty minute window of opportunity in which to respond. But I blame no one, the fault could easily be my own as I am not exactly a computer expert.

I do so very much appreciate dale's and others' comments on this topic; but my apparent time constraints unfortunately limit my ability to clear up the growing misunderstandings my initial post seems to have caused. I deeply regret this, I assure you.

Technically, what seems to be happening is, after my name and password are accepted and I am informed I am logged-on, at some point thereafter (ruefully always after I've sent my post), I receive the message "Administrator has disabled public write access" and am again presented with the login screen.

So to be brief, I am in complete agreement with the viewpoints expressed thus far, any comments to the contrary are simply the result of misunderstandings of my apparently poorly-worded initial post; and I am so, so terribly disappointed that I am unable to clear these matters up or otherwise contribute constructively to this or other Forum topics.

Please forgive, but I do not know anything about the nature or purpose of the above "Karma" feature. Is this an anonymous method of expressing approval or disapproval of someone? Does my -1 rating above somehow mean, as I fear, that I have offended someone?

I assure you gentlemen, I have and have expressed nothing but the highest respect for everyone on the design team and for everyone that I have encountered in the Forum. I am an elderly man of deep religious convictions quick to find fault within myself and slow to seek fault in my fellows. Please, indicate to me where it is that I have committed some offense in my postings; in what way may I improve myself and to whom do I owe my most humble apologies for having offended?

Contritely,

Odox

And again my warmest:

Quite coincidentally I'm sure, an article on this very topic exists in support of my dear dale's (and perhaps surprisingly, my own) most recent comments:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gray06122009.html

All the best,

Odox

Odox wrote:

And again my warmest:

Quite coincidentally I'm sure, an article on this very topic exists in support of my dear dale's (and perhaps surprisingly, my own) most recent comments:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gray06122009.html

All the best,

Odox

The karma feature is as you described it. I was thinking of removing it a while back, but for the most part people enjoy it. I wouldn't put too much weight in it. We are a community that thrives on alternate viewpoints. We like to disagree and argue. Our only rule is that everyone behave like gentlemen, and you certainly do. Sometimes we behave like adolescents , but we always remain civil and respectful of each other. So no worries.

I wish I had some insite into your login problems. I really have no idea why you would get logged off. I stay logged in for months at a time. If I think of anything, I'll be sure to let you know. You could try a different browser and see if that helps.

Hey Odox,

I enjoyed reading you link.

Greg B)

Greetings Gentlemen,

Sorry I am getting in here very late, I have just registered in the community. I no expert at all on the background causes of the Civil War and have found this thread very interesting. I especially liked Gfran64's post that included the following:

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories

I think the root of the issue was economic. The root of the economics was slavery. The root of the slavery problem was whether negroes (as they were called then) were people or not. If they were people, the bill of rights guaranteed that they should not be deprived of life, liberty or property. If they were simpley property like a wagon or a horse, then slave owners could not be deprived of their source of income. I think "States Rights" and the like were simplify euphamisms veiling that basic dilemma for the South.

The answer, I believe, is clear. However, due to the strong economic interest in negroes not being considered people, war was probably inevitable once there was sufficient moral indigantion in non-slaving holding states or an attempt to apply constitutional rights to all homo-sapiens in the US.

O. O. Howard,

Perhaps my avatar and your avatar could go glove shopping together.


Regards,

Greg B)

Gfran64 wrote:

O. O. Howard,

Perhaps my avatar and your avatar could go glove shopping together.


Regards,

Greg B)

Splendid Idea!

The whole expansion of the South into Central America was really all a pipe dream. The Filibusters were more or less crackpots.

With such armies, I believe that the Confederacy could stretch to Cape Horn..., though would Napoleon III let them march through Mexico without a fight?

Without any doubt, Lincoln caused the Civil War.

When the Colonies formed to become the United States, North Carolina refused to join. In order to entice them in, they were given a "get out of jail free card." Virgina then asked for the same concession. Many in Virginia, including Patrick Henry, were vehemently opposed to joining the other colonies.

Virginia and North Carolina voted first not to secede. However, they believed the other states had the right to do so and refused to fight. When steps were initiated to take there case to the Supreme Court, Lincoln refused to allow them to meet. He knew that they might say that secession was Constitutional, but he knew they would find that Virgina and North Carolina could secede. Virginia and North Carolina only seceded after they were attacked.

If Lincoln would have granted Virginia and North Carolina neutral status, then Tennessee would not have seceded. The north would have destroyed the other Confederate states in only several months. Or, there might have been some form of compromise.

During the war this was general knowledge. Remember Sherman told his men to be on their best behavior when they crossed the from South Carolina into North Carolina. Why? Because North Carolina was not one of the instigators of the war.

It also needs to remembered that Lincoln was not against slavery. At a peace conference with Vice President Stephens he offered to pay partial reparations for the slaves and allow the South to immediately reenter the Union. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments would never have been passed. Slavery would have continued in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Also remember Lincoln was not for allowing blacks to vote. In his last speech, he mentioned maybe allowing soldiers to vote only, not the entire black population.

If Lincoln had not been assassinated, slavery would have continued in the above mentioned states, only black soldiers would have voted, and Grant would have lost the election of 1868. Booth really screwed things up for the South!

Burymeonthefield