|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Thu Jun 12, 2025 10:42 am
The All-New Improved 24hr Thread
| Author |
Message |
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
onemac
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:14 pm
Posts: 1598
Location: Right here...... Right now.......
|
Hum.................................................................
_________________
Eternally optimistic in a 'glass half empty' sort of way....
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
mars-bar-man
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 940
Location: Pompy
|
Louisiana Purchase
Several great American Statesmen were pivotal in shaping and molding the government of the United States. History has since forgotten some of these founding fathers. The ones remembered throughout history are those we hold up for their accomplishments. Thomas Jefferson is one of the American Statesmen that stands out from the rest as being one of the greatest contributors to our present form of government. Historian Robert Tucker described Jefferson's life as being a paradox. He was a slave holder that was not necessarily in favor of this form of servitude. He also associated himself with the yeoman farmer, yet he traveled in company with a cosmopolitan flair. So it is to this President that we look to as he faced one of his greatest dilemmas. Jefferson, the third President of the United States, remembered primarily for two great accomplishments: he authored the Declaration of Independence and made the greatest land acquisition in our nation's history, the Louisiana Purchase. Both subjects, have been written about extensively, yet one question persists, did Thomas Jefferson exceed his fiduciary duty to the Constitution of the United States when he started the proceedings that led to the Louisiana Purchase? Thomas Jefferson was a pragmatic, articulate, and, at times, capricious leader of a young nation that had recently gained its freedom from the monarchical Great Britain. Jefferson, a Democratic Republican, made his ascension to the presidency at a time when the Federalist Party was in decline. The Louisiana Purchase would bring a great deal of discomfort to the Party. The only opposition to the purchase would consequently be the Federalist Party which, ironically, had always been in favor of a broad construction of the Constitution. The broad constructionist believed that the Constitution held implied powers to the central government. The people who interpreted the Constitution in this fashion backed the notion of strong centralization of power. The strict constructionist, like Jefferson, believed that if something in the Constitution was not described then it was unconstitutional. They also feared the abuse of power obtainable by the central government by a broad interpretation of the Constitution. Since 1493, France and Spain alternately held the Louisiana Territory. Towards the end of the 18th century the jurisdiction of the territory was under Spanish rule. New troubles were brewing on the European continent and the Americans feared that the Louisiana Territory would fall into the hands of the British. This would place the British on three sides of the Americans and they were prepared to go to war to avoid this. The Spaniards, uncertain of their British ally and fearing an insurrection from within the Louisiana Territory, signed the Treaty of San Lorenzo or Pinckney's Treaty with the Americans in 1795. Under terms of the treaty, Americans were allowed to deposit goods for overseas shipment at the port of New Orleans free of duty. The Spanish also ceded control of the Ohio River Valley to the Americans. This pleased the majority of Americans who were in favor of westward expansion, many of who were by now settling illegally in the Louisiana Territory. Securing the Mississippi River for commercial purposes was of the greatest importance to most Americans at the time. The desired peace of the country to be protected from outside interference was also the goal of those in favor of expansion. In 1799 Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the French government and assumed control of France and her colonies. Bonaparte was anxious to build a western empire, Bonaparte saw the conquest of the Caribbean island of Santo Domingo as his first step in his western expansion efforts. From Santo Domingo the French could support troops that they intended to post in New Orleans. By early 1801 American whites made up more than half of the population in upper Louisiana. In 1802 the first migration of Americans west of the Mississippi River begun and by now the Americans looked to wrest the Louisiana Territory away from the Spanish. To this dream of conquest of the Spaniards by Americans is to what Jefferson responded. He was not alone in his supposition of the need for expansion. Indeed, the one area that Jefferson and his long time nemesis, and staunch Federalist, Alexander Hamilton agreed upon was territorial expansion. In 1798, Hamilton informed a fellow Federalist, Timothy Pickering, of the necessity of acquiring the Louisiana territory. Hamilton suggested to negotiate, and endeavor to purchase; and if this fails, to go to war in order to procure the desideratum. With Hamilton's desire to maintain a strong militia one perhaps, could draw the conclusion, that Hamilton would have preferred the latter, to go to war. Jefferson sought to obtain the desired territory through diplomatic channels. Although Jefferson was not beyond using the threat of war or developing an alliance with Great Britain in order to achieve his objectives, he preferred a peaceful means to gain the desired territory. After the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787, Jefferson entered the federal government by virtue of his appointment by George Washington to the position of Secretary of State. Under this aegis, Jefferson's duties included diplomatic relations with France. During this time, Jefferson maintained an affinity with France and believed that the two countries shared a common foe in Great Britain. This changed after the ascension of Napoleon Bonaparte to Head Consul, at which time America's relations with France began to cool. America and France terminated their alliance during President John Adams' administration. Since 1798 French vessels had captured American ships and imprisoned the crews. The so called Quasi War with France ended when the Franco-American Convention of 1800 concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Morfontaine. The treaty, designed to protect America's right of neutrality, allowed for free shipping of American goods, and a restricted contraband list. For France the treaty ended hostilities with America and put American claims of indemnity for spoliation against the French on hold for the seizing of American vessels. The Treaty of Morfontaine was ratified by the United States Senate shortly after Jefferson's inauguration as President . One day after signing the Treaty of Morfontaine French diplomats requested the Spanish government to cede the Louisiana Territory to France. In the second Treaty of San Ildefonso Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory to France under French threats of garrisoning an army in Spain with the pretext of invading Portugal. Although Jefferson had always viewed Great Britain as being America's greatest threat, as the newly elected president, he was now confronted with a powerful belligerent nation poised to move into the Louisiana Territory. Jefferson, after hearing the news of the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory by France, simply refused to recognize the transfer of the territory. When Jefferson addressed the Seventh Congress in 1802, it was apparent that France had indeed acquired Louisiana, and Jefferson was forced to acknowledge the Treaty of San Ildefonso. Fearing the establishment of a French empire on the western shores of the Mississippi River, American diplomats were dispatched in an attempt to procure the Floridas and New Orleans from the French. On January 11, 1803 Jefferson requested the Senate to name James Monroe as 'minister extraordinary' to France and Spain. Secretary of State James Madison then instructed Robert R. Livingston, United States Minister to France, to try to persuade the French into transferring the Floridas to the United States. If Livingston found that the Spanish still held claim to the Floridas he was instructed to work in concert with United States Diplomat to Spain, Charles Pinckney. Because the United States was not sure which country had dominion over Louisiana and the Floridas, it sent diplomats to both countries in order to achieve their objectives. At the time neither Jefferson nor Madison realized that they had placed in motion the vehicle that would lead to the Louisiana Purchase. While the Americans pondered the prospect of having the French moving into the area across the Mississippi River, the French were embroiled in a violent struggle on the island of Santo Domingo. The conquest of Santo Domingo was to be the first step in building France's western empire. The determined resistance of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo made them an unwitting ally of the Americans. The decimation of Napoleon's troops in this unfriendly environment would be the pivotal point of capitulation for the French Emperor. Napoleon had wasted supplies and man power in the futile attempt to take the Caribbean Island which ended in the defeat of the French. Coinciding with the calamity on Santo Domingo new aggressions were building on the European continent between France and England. Jefferson was not beyond threatening an alliance with the English as a way to force Napoleon into relinquishing his control over the Louisiana Territory. Little did Jefferson know that such an alliance was unnecessary, for at the same time that he was attempting to force Napoleon's hand, the Emperor was determined to keep Louisiana away from the English. In April of 1803, James Monroe was dispatched to Paris under the pretext of assisting in the negotiations started by Livingston. Monroe was unaware of the fact that Napoleon had already become determined to release Louisiana to the Americans. On April 10, 1803, seeking favor with the Americans, Napoleon carried on the following discourse with his minister, Barbe Marbois. Napoleon was not one for procrastinating. On the morning of April 11, 1803, Livingston was quickly summoned to the French Court. French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand- Perigord offered up the entire Louisiana Territory. At first Livingston balked, suggesting that the Americans were only interested in New Orleans and Florida. On the next day Monroe reached Paris. Livingston in an attempt to achieve the fait accompli prior to Monroe's knowledge of the treaty, tried to persuade Talleyrand into repeating the offer. This effort on the part of Livingston met with Talleyrand's silence. Although Monroe had reached Paris prepared to take up the negotiations for the Louisiana Territory, the agreement was made in large part by Livingston. Livingston quickly brought Monroe up to speed over the nature of the negotiations. While at dinner on the evening of April 12, 1803, they encountered the French diplomat Marbois. Monroe, weary from his journey to Paris, retired in short order and Livingston carried on the conversation with Marbois. Later that evening the two diplomates effectually secured the bargain. The only remaining difficulty was the settlement of the price before Napoleon had a chance to change his mind. The Americans and Napoleon agreed to a price which amounted to roughly fifteen million dollars, to be procured through the sale of bonds. The stipulation that called for the immediate incorporation into the Union would be the subject of future debate in the United States. The lack of specific boundaries of the Louisiana Territory would also be a topic for future discussion with the French and Americans. Hence, Livingston and Monroe were able to report from Paris on 13 May 1803, that the purchase had been completed, minus the desired region of Florida, which remained under the dominion of Spain. Negotiations with the Spanish continued over this area and in 1819 the Americans would receive all of Florida from Spain in the Treaty of Adams-Obis. In early July 1803, the news of the Louisiana Purchase reached American shores via the New England Federalist, Rufus King. Once in Boston, King wasted no time in relaying the information to long time friend George Cabot. Cabot believed the sale to be advantageous to the French. Cabot believed that the French were simply giving up territory that they were incapable of defending and looking to better their relations with America. Cabot, unaware of Napoleon's discussion with Marbois, had correctly ascertained Napoleon's motivation. The harshest criticism of the purchase came from Jefferson's arch rival, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton believed that it was through pure serendipity that Monroe and Livingston walked away with the treaty rather then any skill on their part. Hamilton viewed the western territories as only being beneficial to Spain and that we could possibly use the territory as barter to obtain the Floridas. Henry Adams suggested that it was only due to the desperate courage of five hundred thousand Haitian negroes who would not be enslaved that enabled the United States to procure the Louisiana Territory. The probability exists that had Napoleon's armies successfully conquered the island of Santo Domingo, they would have had a base of operations in the western hemisphere. From there they could have easily made their way to the port of New Orleans and successfully closed the mouth of the Mississippi River to American commerce. Jefferson's party greeted the news with jubilation. Accolades poured into the Federal Capital at Washington from Jefferson's constituents. Future President Andrew Jackson sent his congratulations to Jefferson. John Adams would eventually make public his views on the matter several years after the fact. In a letter to one of his constituents, Benjamin Rush, Adams was pleased with the purchase of Louisiana, because, without it, we could never have secured and commanded the navigation of the Mississippi. Hence, one venerable old Federalist broke party lines and sided with the Jeffersonians. In a July 17, 1803 letter to his friend Daniel Clarke, Jefferson describes his attitude of the purchase. The cession of Louisiana by France to the United States, a cession which will give as much satisfaction to the inhabitants of that province as it does to us. Jefferson also used this device to convey his intention of convening the Eighth Congress of the United States as early as October 17, 1803 in order to consider ratification of the treaty, which occurred on November 25, 1803. The constitutional debates that followed would bring great concern to President Jefferson. For sometime, he believed the Constitution had been violated, by making the purchase. This has been an area of debate because the Constitution does not specify how the United States can gain territory. It only covers provisions of territory already in the domain of the United States at the time of its signing. To some, the ambiguous nature of the Constitution appeared to be intentional on the part of the writers. Subsequent to ratification of the treaty by Congress, Henry W. Livingston petitioned Gouverneur Morris, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Federal convention, in an attempt to ascertain the intention of the framers of the constitution on this point. This paper restriction that Morris so casually referred to would bring many uneasy hours to Jefferson. If Jefferson were to maintain his strict constructionist view of the Constitution, he would have to stick to every word of it. As we have seen, no where in the Constitution does it delegate how the United States is to procure new territory. Yet, one must consider that the constitution was but sixteen years old at the time, and that the old Articles of Confederation were still fresh in the minds of American politicians. Contained in Article eleven of the Articles of Confederation was the passage that, Canada was to be admitted to the United States and also to be entitled to all the advantages of the Union. So to the majority of politicians the United States should simply absorb the Louisiana Territory into the Nation. While Congress prepared to convene on October 17, 1803, Jefferson considered his options. He could either ask congress to amend the Constitution to allow the new territory into the Union, or quietly submit the treaty for ratification. Attorney General Levi Lincoln suggested that Jefferson boldly announce and defend the constitutionality of the purchase in his message to Congress. Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was quick to discount this suggestion with his own opinion on the subject. Gallatin noted that if it was unlawful for the United States Government to acquire territory then it would be just as unlawful for individual states to do so. Gallatin went on to advise Jefferson that the United States as a nation has the right to acquire territory and that when the territory was gained by way of treaty the same constituted authorities in whom the treaty making power is vested have a constitutional right to sanction the acquisition, and once a territory has been acquired Congress has the power of either of admitting into the Union as a new state, or of annexing to a State with the consent of that state, or of making regulations for the government of such territory. This interpretation of the Constitution was perhaps as liberal and broad as the Federalists themselves might have made. Gallatin was not alone in his interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas Paine took the occasion to voice his opinion on the matter in a letter to Jefferson. Paine's letter, along with the position that Gallatin held, slowly worked to change Jefferson's mind on the constitutional issue. He still held to the idea that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to incorporate the Louisiana Territory into the Union. This was due to Jefferson's strict constructionist views towards the constitution. Accordingly, Jefferson drafted two amendments to the Constitution, but finally on advice of his constituents never submitted either of them to Congress for debate. Jefferson was not alone in his assumption that a constitutional amendment was required to absorb the new territory into the Union. Massachusetts Senator John Quincy Adams also drafted an amendment to the Constitution. Adams believed that the consent of the people of both the United States and those in the Louisiana territory was necessary to allow the latter into the Union. Adams invited Secretary of State James Madison and fellow Senate member Timothy Pickering to review the proposed amendment. Neither Madison or Pickering approved of the amendment yet both agreed on the correctness of the principle. Madison considered that the words of the amendment should simply read, Louisiana is admitted as a part of the Union. The simplicity of Madison's suggestion is admirable during a time of seeming confusion. Jefferson, beyond all else, insisted on preserving the integrity of the Constitution. He said that when an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. Jefferson realized at the time that future generations would look to his actions as an example and he certainly did not want to make the constitution a blank paper by construction. Jefferson believed it the duty of the government is to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the people. Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate . The Republicans outnumbered the Federalist in both houses of Congress, ensuring ratification of the treaty. Ratification was not easy. Republican John Randolph, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, submitted a resolution to pass the treaty of cession. Federalist Congressman, Gaylord Griswold requested documentation from the President to prove that the French indeed held the territory and were in a position to sell. Randolph denounced the request as useless, dangerous, & an encroachment on the prerogatives of the Executive. This tactic worked for the Republicans, and Griswold was defeated by the slim margin of fifty-nine to fifty-seven. Although the Republicans had managed to thwart the Federalists on this account, there was indeed some concern of France's right to sell the territory. Secretary of State James Madison had previously received a communiqué from the Spanish envoy, Marques de Casa Yrujo, claiming that the French had never carried out the provisions of the treaty of San Ildefonso. Whether the French had actually held up their end of the bargain with Spain was not the American's concern. What did concern the Americans was whether the French had ever received the transfer of ownership of the territory from Spain. Madison was reassured on the matter when Louis Andre Pichon, French charge d'affaires, delivered the order signed on October 15, 1802 by the Spanish King, Charles IV, that ceded the Louisiana territory to France. The following day Griswold again led the debate for the Federalists. Griswold implied that the framers of the Constitution, carried their ideas to the time when there might be an extended population; but they did not carry them to the time when an addition might be made to the Union of a territory equal to the whole United States, which additional territory might overbalance the existing territory, and thereby the rights of the present citizens of the United States be swallowed up and lost. Randolph again responded to Griswold's complaint, reasoning that the Constitution could not restrict the country to particular limits because at the time of the framing of the Constitution the boundary was unsettled on the northeastern, northwestern, and southern frontiers. This was a complete about race for Randolph who, like Jefferson, had previously been in favor of a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. It seems that broad construction fever had settled upon the vast majority of the Republicans. Federalist Roger Griswold of Connecticut next took up the debate and rebuked Gaylord Griswold's assertions. Roger Griswold argued that a new territory may undoubtedly be obtained by conquest and by purchase; but neither the conquest nor the purchase can incorporate them into the Union. Griswold suggested that the new territory should be retained in the form of colonies and governed as such, but that the President and Senate could not admit a foreign people in the Union as a State. Joseph H. Nicholson, Republican Congressman from Maryland, took up the debate and argued that the United States as a sovereign nation had a right to acquire new territory. Nicholson asserted that under the terms of the Constitution, the right to declare war was given to congress; the right to make treaties, to the President and Senate. This basically supported the position that Griswold had held. The point that Nicholson was trying to make was that the United States government alone had the power to make treaties. Advocates of States' rights issues shuddered at such a centralizing of power assertion as this. Republican Congressman Caesar A. Rodney of Delaware next took up the attack. Rodney cited the necessary and proper clause and many strict constructionist viewed this clause as being the most dangerous medium of a centralized government. Rodney stated Have we not also vested in us every power necessary for carrying such a treaty into effect...? This virtually ended the debate in the House of Representatives. After only one day of discussion on the floor, the treaty had been ratified. In the vote, ninety Republicans supported Randolph with their votes, and twenty-five Federalists alone protested. In so doing, the Republicans had now in fact taken up the position formerly held by the Federalist. The centralizing of power placed in the hands of the Federal government would have made many of the Republicans consider seceding from the Union only a few years earlier. Now that such ideas supported their needs they embraced this notion as if they had conceived it on their own. On November 2, 1803, debates started in the Senate over the treaty. Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts led the debate for the Federalists. Pickering agreed with the suggestion that the United States had the right to purchase or conquer new territories. He also believed that the government had the right to govern new territories but he ascertained that neither the President nor Congress could incorporate this territory in the Union, nor could the incorporation lawfully be effected even by an ordinary amendment to the Constitution. Pickering also said that he believes the assent of each individual State to be necessary for the admission of a foreign country as an associate in the Union. The point Pickering was arguing was the states' rights issue. The reason the Federalists had taken up this side of the argument was an attempt to protect their rights. The Federalist party had long since been losing ground to the Republicans and they feared being squeezed out of policy making procedures all together. The debate over states' rights was pushed on by Republican Senator John Taylor from Caroline, Virginia. Taylor also voiced his objection to the increased powers of the central government. He believed that the United States government...had bought a foreign people without their consent and without consulting the States, and pledged itself to incorporate this people in the Union. Taylor consequently agreed that the government could make treaties, but should appeal to the public for a broadening of its powers. Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut followed Taylor and perhaps put forth the best argument of all the Federalists. Tracy said I have no doubt but we can obtain territory either by conquest or compact,....but to admit the inhabitants into the Union , to make citizens of them, and States, by treaty, we cannot constitutionally do. Thus the portion of the treaty that required the inhabitants of the Louisiana territory to become admitted to the Union became the greatest point of dissension between the two parties. John Breckenridge from Kentucky answered Tracy's argument. Breckenridge asserted that the admission by treaty of a foreign State was less dangerous, and therefore more constitutional, than such ownership of foreign territory. Breckenridge maintained the position that if the Union were to accept Tracy's argument that America could incorporate ten millions of inhabitants,and thereby destroy our government. Then certainly the thing would be possible if Congress would do it and the people consent to it....The true construction must depend on the manifest import of the instrument and the good sense of the community. The Senate, after two days of debate, ratified the treaty by a vote of twenty-four to seven. The dissenters were the New England Federalists including Hamilton's long time friend Timothy Pickering. The Federalists feared that the enormity of the area purchased would consequently reduce their power in the government as the acquisition would upset the balance of power between the New England States and the Western States. The general consensus at the time of a lasting peace with foreign powers and control of the Mississippi River over rode the constitutional issue. The inhabitants of the Louisiana Territory would be treated as nationals of the United States. The western territory would eventually become the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma and much of Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. Jefferson stated his views of the purchase perhaps best in a letter to Doctor Joseph Priestly. I look to this duplication of area for the extending a government so free and economical as ours, as a great achievement to the mass of happiness which is to ensue. The government had done just that, retained the freedom of the existing States, while at the same time liberating the Louisiana territory from the despotism of European powers. For Napoleon, the sale of the Louisiana Territory set a precedent in his loss of national appeal. No true Frenchman could forgive the emperor for trading away such a vast empire for so paltry a sum. Napoleon blamed the loss of the North American territory on the affair of Santo Domingo and called it his Louisianicide. The Republicans, in order to ratify the treaty of cession, took on the broad construction views that had been held by the Federalist party. At the same time the majority of the Federalists attempted to adhere to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. This change of views occured in order to meet their respective agendas. The Republicans wanted the territory and considered an alliance with England in necessary. The Federalists knew that as the country continued to grow ever westward that the New England States would lose the power that they held with the rest of the Nation. The Federalist party was by now in decline on a national level and the Louisiana Purchase added to their decline. The Federalists had lost so much favor in the new Nation that they never regained the presidency. Rufus King from New York in 1816 was the last presidential candidate put forth by the Federalist party. Jefferson redefined the nature of the executive office during his presidency. The Louisiana Purchase effectively broadened presidential power and put more authority into the hands of the central government. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the existing United States and set a precedent for expansion. It has been viewed as the progenitor of the Monroe Doctrine. Under provisions of the Doctorine, the American continents are not to be considered as subjects for future colonization. The constitutional issue, decided oddly enough by a man that Jefferson despised as much as he did Hamilton. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, viewed by Jefferson with a repugnance tinged by a shade of some deeper feeling, almost akin to fear. Marshall believed that by Jefferson weakening the office of President it would increase his personal power. In 1828 under the direction of Chief Justice John Marshall the Supreme Court found that the Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or treaty. Thus the issue was finally put to rest after twenty-five years of uncertainty.
_________________Just your friendly neighbourhood mars-bar-man.flickr
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
onemac
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:14 pm
Posts: 1598
Location: Right here...... Right now.......
|
_________________
Eternally optimistic in a 'glass half empty' sort of way....
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
|
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
|
|
mars-bar-man
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 940
Location: Pompy
|
The Diversity Myth
The idea that "diversity" is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May, 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, "The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great." A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, "With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us." In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, "The expedition that Columbus . . . began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492."
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, "And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever."
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February, 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. "We didn't have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today," said Mrs. Clinton. "I'm sad we didn't have it, because it would have been a great value, as I'm sure you will discover."
Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity--at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting--is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.
Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc.--a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because skepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."
Of course it is only white societies--and white groups within multi-racial societies--that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.
Immigration
Despite President Clinton's view that "diversity" started with Columbus, for most of its history the United States was self-consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . ."
This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, nor was Jay an eccentric. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were all explicit about wanting the United States to be a white country, and in 1790 the first federal naturalization law required that applicants for citizenship be "free white persons." Until 1965, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to the United States and become citizens (an exception being made for the descendants of slaves). Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep the United States a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.
Once the country made the fatal assumption that race was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow. Congress abolished not only Jim Crow and legal segregation but, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, put an end to free association as well. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all nations, was a grand gesture of anti-racism, a kind of civil rights law for the entire world.
As has been pointed out in such books as Lawrence Auster's The Path to National Suicide and Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation, the backers of the immigration bill were at pains to explain that it would have little effect on the country. "Under the proposed bill," explained Senator Edward Kennedy, "the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area." The senator suggested that, at most, 62,000 people a year might immigrate.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power."
The point here is not that the backers were wrong about the bill--even though in 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. The point is that "diversity" of the kind that immigration is now said to bless us with was never even hinted at as one of the law's benefits.
No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in California by 1998. In 1965, before the discovery that "diversity is our strength," most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.
Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. "Racism" looms ever larger as the greatest moral offense a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be "racist." There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1965 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become a "strength," despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.
This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.
Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for "inclusiveness" almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against "lookism," and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel-chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.
Occasionally a mainstream author sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to his professional respectability, columnist Scott McConnell of the New York Post has pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. "Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?" he asks.
Advantages of Diversity
On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America?
If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports.
The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy--and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.
Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter.
The fact that millions of Mexicans now live in the United States does not make our products more attractive to anybody--certainly not to Mexico, which already has plenty of the things Mexicans know how to make. "Diversity" adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.
Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary Americans remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1965. Perhaps they have now heard of the Cinco de Mayo festival, but even if they live in California or Texas how many Americans know that it commemorates a Mexican military victory against the French?
Immigrants do not teach us about Cervantes or Borges or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artifact immigrants bring with them is their language--which increasingly becomes an Americanized farrago that would astonish their countrymen--but the so-called "culture" of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, and truculence.
High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized American city has an opera company but it wasn't established by Italians.
What, in the way of authentic culture have Miami's dwindling non-Hispanic whites gained from the fact that the city is now nearly 70 percent Hispanic? Are the art galleries, concerts, museums, and literature of Los Angeles improved by the fact that its population is now nearly half Hispanic? How has the culture of Washington, D.C. or Detroit been enriched by majority-black populations? If immigration and diversity bring cultural enrichment, why is that the places being the most intensively enriched are the places where whites least want to live? Like the trade argument, the "cultural enrichment" argument collapses with a pinprick.
It is true that since 1965 more American school children have begun to study Spanish, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.
Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even William Clinton would claim that getting an authentic Thai restaurant in every city is a major national objective.
Public Services
At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Hispanic officers patrolling black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?
On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across America it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force--touted as one of the wonders of diversity--becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.
The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Hispanic judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary "role models" for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multi-racialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.
Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organizations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Hispanic, and even white officers.
Many government agencies and private companies hire professional "diversity managers" to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is a strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about which management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.
Maria Riefler has trained Nestle, Walt Disney, Chrysler and Chevron. She likes to divide employees into groups that represent the body and the "triune brain." This is supposed to help them understand how "stereotypes are hidden deep within the primitive part of ourselves."
It is a very peculiar "strength" that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighborhoods, "diversity training" is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.
This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.
These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. American companies are hard-headed about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that "diversity" improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.
Just how big a headache diversity actually is for companies is clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination. In just one month--November, 1996--"diversity" made quite a lot of news. Texaco agreed to spend $176 million on black victims of company "racism," and lawyers for the firm that sued Texaco were getting about ten calls a day from people asking how to file for discrimination settlements. Just a few days later, 22 former employees of the nation's largest printing company, R.R. Donnelley and Sons, sued over what they claimed was $500 million worth of racism.
In the same month, both the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms settled multi-million dollar class action discrimination suits brought by blacks. Likewise in November, three blacks brought a class action suit against an Avis Rent-A-Car franchise with outlets in North and South Carolina, claiming they had been turned away because of race. Within the month, the owner of Avis said it would break its contract with the franchisee, and hired a law firm to check up on other Avis operators. Every one of these cases, which are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging, is a consequence of racial diversity--and these were just the cases that made the news.
It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organizations that exist in the United States only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and every state and local equivalents of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other "diversity" issues.
Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and mayoral commissions fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these would be necessary in a nation of a single race. There must be tens of thousands of Americans consuming hundreds of millions of dollars every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.
Indeed, Tom McClintock, a former candidate for controller of the state of California estimated that before the 1996 state ballot initiative was approved to abolish racial preferences, the annual cost just to administer California's affirmative action programs was from $343 million to $677 million. This figure did not include the cost of private preference programs or the cost of state and local anti-discrimination machinery, none of which was affected by the 1996 measure.
If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of "civil-rights" law that Americans show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.
Other Races
Generally speaking, whatever timid opposition to diversity that ever arises is characterized as the whining of resentful, ignorant whites. Non-whites are thought to have a better appreciation of the importance of inclusiveness. This is just so much more nonsense. Now that immigration has added Hispanics and Asians to the traditional black-white racial mix, fault lines are forming in all directions.
Though we are told over and over that it is ignorance and lack of contact that cause antipathy, it is groups that have the most contact that most dislike each other. This is why "outreach" and "bridge building" do not work, as even the New York Times unintentionally revealed in a June 18, 1990 headline: "Ethnic Feuding Divides Parade for Harmony."
The idea that hostility is cured through contact is now enshrined as part of the diversity myth. George Orwell touched on this in his essay, England Your England:
"During the war of 1914-1918 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired."
In America one need not go overseas to have contact with foreigners. What has been the result? In Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City, blacks have tried to drive Korean merchants out of their neighborhoods. They firebomb stores, assault shop keepers, and mount boycotts against "people who don't look like us." In Los Angeles, relations were so bad that in 1986 a Black-Korean Alliance was formed to reduce tensions. It staggered on uselessly until late 1992, when it was dissolved in mutual recrimination and accusations. The more blacks and Koreans talked to each other the angrier they got.
There are now schools and school districts completely dominated by blacks and Hispanics, which have race wars involving no whites at all. Some examples? Locke High School in Los Angeles is almost exactly half-black and half-Hispanic. In February, 1996, 50 police officers had to be called in to break up a pitched battle involving hundreds of students. After order was finally restored and school dismissed, police in riot gear had to keep students from rejoining battle in the streets. What touched off the battle? Hispanics were annoyed--certainly not "enriched"--by the February observances of Black History Month.
A similar incident took place at Los Angeles' North Hollywood High School, when it took police in riot gear to calm a melee that started when an estimated 200 to 700 black and Hispanic students pitched into each other. The spark was reportedly a clash over what kind of music to play at the homecoming dance, neither side having felt particularly "inclusive."
Norman Thomas High School is located at Park Avenue and 33rd Street in Manhattan. In 1992, tension between blacks and Hispanics erupted into a free-for-all involving both boys and girls. "The only thing people cared about was skin color," explained one 16-year-old. The New York City Board of Education has "rapid mobilization guards" for just such emergencies.
Farragut High School in Chicago is two-thirds Hispanic and one third black. Recently, racial tension built up to what the principal called "total polarization," and it became dangerous to let students mix without police supervision. At the height of the tension, extracurricular activities were canceled for 30 days and the school's homecoming football game had to be played without a single student in the stands, for fear they would attack each other.
In Huntsville, Texas, Hispanic students say they need to arm themselves against violent blacks. In Dallas, Hispanic parents say their children are afraid to go to school for fear of attacks by blacks. Tensions of this kind are usually reported only in local newspapers, and are probably quite widespread.
There is the same racial animosity in jails. Guards keep some cell blocks in a near-constant state of lock-down because blacks and Hispanics kill each other if they are allowed to mingle. Life in prison is more intensely integrated than anywhere else in the country. If diversity is such a good thing why is racial segregation always one of the top demands when prisoners list their grievances?
Of course, high-school fistfights and jailhouse brawls are nothing compared to what can happen when diversity really goes wrong. In the summer of 1967, 83 people were killed and nearly 2,000 injured when blacks rioted all across the country. The national guard had to be called out to stop violence in Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, northern New Jersey, and Detroit.
Nor are race riots a relic from the 1960s. The single worst outbreak in the nation's history was in Los Angeles in 1992, when rioters killed 58 people and injured more than 2,300. They also burned 5,300 buildings, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage. There was smaller-scale violence--all of it directed at whites--in Atlanta, Las Vegas, New York City, and Richmond and San Jose, California.
The Los Angeles riots showed that Hispanics can behave as badly as blacks. Although the grievance was ostensibly about a miscarriage of justice for the black criminal, Rodney King, more than half of the 15,000 people arrested for looting were Hispanic.
"Diversity" can pit one set of Hispanics against another. Puerto Ricans in Miami have rioted, claiming to have been excluded by the city's Cuban power structure. "Cubans get everything; we get nothing," explained one rioter. The greater the diversity, the more varied the possibilities for disaffection and violence.
There has been a Sahara of hot air about why blacks riot, with the official pronouncement on reasons dating back to the Kerner Commission Report of 1968: "[T]he most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of white Americans toward black Americans." Whatever one may think of this finding, there is one conclusion no one can deny: Race riots cannot happen without racial diversity.
An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit the United States is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to "diversity," that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.
Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, Americans have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy. Unlike language or religion, race cannot change. Differences between men that are written deep into their bodies will always be a source of friction.
The Diversity Double Standard
Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of "racism" cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California is only a little more outspoken than most when its students meet every morning and pledge to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."
The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations--Canada, the United States, and Australia--that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.
Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better-run and more successful than its West African neighbors, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.
Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.
Hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans sneak into the United States every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central Americans, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegals. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.
Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in America, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.
Of course, in a world-wide context, every human group is a minority. There are many more of everyone else than there are Hispanics or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.
It is only whites who have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites who think it may be "racist" to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of biology, the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.
E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, "two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area." (emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: "To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other."
Human nature is part of animal nature. Racial diversity, which only whites promote--and always at their own expense--is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group's fate will be the "disaster and oblivion" Prof. Hall so confidently predicts.
_________________Just your friendly neighbourhood mars-bar-man.flickr
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
|
|
onemac
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:14 pm
Posts: 1598
Location: Right here...... Right now.......
|
I read that...
_________________
Eternally optimistic in a 'glass half empty' sort of way....
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
mars-bar-man
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 940
Location: Pompy
|
MOAR? Terms of Service Agreement
Free For Essays Terms of Service under which this web site is available for use. Please read this carefully. By accessing and using this web site you accept and agree to be bound, without limitation or qualification, by these Terms and any other terms and conditions that may apply. The Company may, at its sole discretion, modify or revise these Terms at any time by updating this posting. You are bound by any such modification or revision and should therefore visit this page periodically to review the Terms. By using the Web Site after we have made any modification or revision, you agree to be bound by the revised terms. If you do not accept any of the Terms stated here, do not use this web site. Free For Essays retains the right to deny access to anyone at its complete discretion for any reason, including but not limited to violation of these Terms.
You acknowledge that any Essays you view from the Site are being delivered to you AS IS, with no warranties. The Company makes no representation or warranty to you regarding the accuracy of any information contained in any Essay, the completeness of any essays, or the copyrights in any Essay.
The Material on the Free For Essays Web Site contains inaccuracies and typographical errors. The Company makes no representations about the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the Material or about the results to be obtained from using the Web Site and the Material. You expressly agree that any use of the Web
Site and the Material is entirely at your own risk. We reserve the right to make periodic changes to the Free For Essays Web Site, and these changes may be made at any time without notice. Most of the Material on the Web Site is provided and maintained by third parties. This third party Material may not be screened by Free For Essays prior to its
inclusion on the Web Site. You expressly agree that Free For Essays is not liable or responsible for any defamatory, offensive, or illegal conduct of other subscribers or third parties.
Upon your submission of any Essay, all rights in any such Essay become our sole and exclusive property, subject to the rights of licensees under these Terms.
You represent and warrant to us that any paper you submit to the Site does not infringe the rights of any third parties. You agree to hold us harmless from any damages, costs, expenses, fees, penalties or assessments that we suffer as a result of your breach of this paragraph.
You acknowledge and agree that the license granted under these Terms does not permit you to utilize any Essay for any commercial or for-profit purpose. The papers contained within our web site are for research purposes only! You may not turn in our papers as your own work! You must cite our website as your source! Turning in a
paper from our web site as your own is plagiarism and is illegal!
You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Free For Essays, its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from and against any claims, actions, or demands, including without limitation reasonable legal and accounting fees, alleging or resulting from your use of the Material or your breach of the terms of this Agreement.
We reserve the right at all times to edit, refuse to post, or to remove any information or materials posted on the Site.
We are not responsible for unavailability of the Site due to factors beyond our control, including (but not limited to) acts of God, technical or system problems. In addition, we are not responsible for your inability to access the Site website due to problems with respect to your ISP or any equipment that you may chose to utilize in accessing the Site.
The Company may use the information it obtains relating to you, including your IP address, name, e-mail address, mailing address, and use of the Web Site, for its business and marketing purposes. Your personal information will be treated in compliance with our Privacy Policy.
Your use of the Free For Essays Web Site is at your own risk. If you are dissatisfied with any of the Materials or other contents of the Web Site or with these Terms and Conditions, your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue use of the Web Site.
Under no circumstances shall Free For Essays be liable to any user on account of that user's use of the Web Site. Such limitation of liability shall apply to prevent recovery of any and all damages, including, without limitation, direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, punitive and exemplary damages arising from any use of Free For Essays, including any damages that may be incurred by third parties.
_________________Just your friendly neighbourhood mars-bar-man.flickr
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
|
|
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
|
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
|
|
mars-bar-man
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 940
Location: Pompy
|
 PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!PIE!!_________________Just your friendly neighbourhood mars-bar-man.flickr
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
Paul1965
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
|
_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem
|
| Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
