Freedom To Fascism

[jasonglh]

Poor choice of words on my part. WWII began for the American public on Dec 7, 1941. Before that I don't think the general public paid that much attention to what was going on outside the USA.

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by sg1987

Man, you guys are just killing the ignorant Southerner stereotype….

as we should...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by jasonglh

Poor choice of words on my part. WWII began for the American public on Dec 7, 1941. Before that I don't think the general public paid that much attention to what was going on outside the USA.

I disagree.

The war in Europe was being watched closely by most Americans. The war in Asia was being monitored to a lesser extent, except for the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The desire to join the war may have been distant prior to that, but Americans knew what was going on and were concerned.

TR

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I disagree.

The war in Europe was being watched closely by most Americans. The war in Asia was being monitored to a lesser extent, except for the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The desire to join the war may have been distant prior to that, but Americans knew what was going on and were concerned.

TR

Exactly. The Isolationist movement was huge in the US prior to our involvement. In fact, I believe that FDR promised that the US would not get involved in the European problem or the Japanese expansion.

IMO, although privately, he was hoping that the attack on the USS Kearney and the sinking of the USS Reuben James, prior to the Japanese attack of 7Dec41, would inflame the nation into wanting to go to war. He knew that the Isolationists were very strong in this country and knew that the only way for the US to get involved in the war, is if we, or our military were attacked in some manner. It is also my opinion that he and his administration knew of the pending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

.....Not looking to quibble, but the home territory of virtually every state of the Confereracy was touched significantly by Union troops before the end of the war ...TR

No quibbling from me. Even here in NC the northern half of the coastal area was occupied for almost the entire war. Major and minor skirmishing up and down the inlets and rivers. Lots of bushwacking in the western mountains also. VA east of Petersburg and south of Washington another bloodbath.

I was talking about the majority of the land mass. Even Sherman going from Atlanta to the Sea and back up through the Carolinas covering a 20 to 60 mile front only touched a small part of the true area.

The campaigns in the mid-section, TN, targeted Major cities, rail centers, rivers and similar lines of communications. Again only a small part of the true area.

Along the Mississippi large sections were occupied after the fall of New Orleans and Vicksburg.

One of the reasons Sherman did away with his supply tail was to cut down on guarding it. As the Union cut deaper into the South more and more troops were detailed to guard the supply lines/rail lines. Attacks by small forces on a larger Army's supply lines?

The point I was making was that the parts with longer, stronger occupation seem to have less of the modern animosity than the deep south states.

Pete

[PSM]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Well in case you missed the news flash, all four of those states' elected representative bodies voted to secede, and were treated just like the rest of the Confederate states.

TR

I am aware of that. The lack of a rhetorical question mark on my keyboard is a handicap.

I do believe that those four states had the right to secede. They were in communication with the other states in rebellion. If the other states had declined to secede, I wonder if those Southern founding States would have followed through with their vote. We can not know the answer, but, since that period of our history is so pivotal, we continue to analyze it...as we should.

Pat

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but from what I have read in Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom," and from what I know, the income tax has been ruled legal and constitutional multiple times, but the thing is that the amount of income tax needed for the government to fund the national defense and take care of infrastructure that the market doesn't handle, and to protect our freedoms in general, is far less than the amount of income tax that people actually pay. He said that income tax is far higher because of the increased size and power of the Federal Government and all the various social programs they have that they need to fund.

That brings us back on track. Some rambling thoughts:

The Constitution empowers the federal government to do four things:

Regulate interstate commerce;
Conduct foreign affairs;
Provide for the common defense;
Collect taxes to pay for the first three.

Everything else was left to the states. Somewhere in the last 200+ years we've wandered pretty far afield. Most of what the government does today is extra-constitutional (and expensive).

What is the Bill of Rights worth today? The Ninth and Tenth Ammendments might as well not exist, the Second is under continuous attack, the First has been abridged, the Fourth and Fifth only count if you have a great (expensive) lawyer and the rest are so obscure I can't remember them off the top of my head. (That ought to incite comment )

Conspiracy theories are a waste of time. Who was it that said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity (or words to that effect)"? As I've already pointed out, the people have the government they want/deserve. Until the "people" want something different, this is the path we'll follow.

I'm having a great time watching the first season of HBO's Rome series. We saw an episode at a friend's house (don't get HBO at home) and the wife promptly ordered the DVDs from Amazon. A lot of interesting parallels. Hopefully our Republic (what's left of it) doesn't follow the same path into decline.

FWIW - Peregrino

Sir TR, and others who want to answer, why is it not possible to consider the decision to secede as an usurpation of power (or other threat to internal stability, making a precedent) which the union should legitimately react to for its preservation? I need to re-read the constitution to recall what it says about secession, insurgency and internal instability, but the above question is reasonable after coming halfway through the Federalist Papers. I understand the secession had big backing from the people of seceding states, though.

On animosity: Was the conduct in Union territory markedly different on both sides, resulting in lesser degree of continued animosity?

Originally Posted by Peregrino

That brings us back on track.

Well, sorry 'bout that.

Disregard my post if you want to stay on topic.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Martin

On animosity: Was the conduct in Union territory markedly different on both sides, resulting in lesser degree of continued animosity?

The North was not occupied for 12 years, with to more or less degree, appointed leadership and loss of a significant part of their Constitutional rights.

Look up "Reconstruction".

The sad part is that Lincoln would have been quicker to heal the wounds, had he not been assassinated.

TR

[CRad]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

... but how long do you think we have had a personal income tax?

How were services funded before that?

TR

1861 - it paid for one side of the War between the States.

The North needed to pay for a bond issue and income tax guaranteed a source of income.

The South used loans and the printing press.


The Tax History Museum is a wonderful thing.
http://www.tax.org/Museum/default.htm

[CoLawman]

This seems to be an appropriate area for this news piece.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17009569/


Updated: 12:49 p.m. MT Feb 6, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday that Congress should consider a tax to fund the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending.

A former Democrat who supports the Iraq war and backs President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, Lieberman said the proposed increase in the Pentagon's budget for next fiscal year will squeeze funding for critical domestic programs.

"I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. "I mean people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it."