Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (8921)	7/25/1999 10:02:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

So, you think that Lincoln was wrong to force the southern ("Confederate") states to remain in the Union in 1861? Abraham Lincoln warned the South in his Inaugural Address: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.... You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it." peicommerce.com Btw, this whole link has an interesting history of money that some might enjoy. Regards, Ron

To: Sam who wrote (8921)	7/25/1999 10:07:00 PM
From: mdmdm	Respond to of 9980

I vote to expel Oregon from the Union.

To: Sam who wrote (8921)	7/27/1999 8:28:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Sam- Your analogy is severely flawed. Lincoln may have been justified in stopping the session of the Confederate states because the central issue was slavery: to a considerable extent, that is what the Confederacy sought to preserve (even though they were uneasy about it- their constitution forbade its extensions into new territories). So on that basis, the Union fought for the right cause in that tragic war. (BTW, does not render Lincoln's resort to military conscription morally acceptable). <<Or that it would be OK if, say, the good folks who inhabit the northern parts of Alaska wished to establish their own nation, they should be allowed to?>> Oh, that's easy: Absolutely. And I thought I addressed that in my post to Bosco. If the folks in northern Alaska, through some reasonable expression of popular will, chose to succeed, well neither Bill Clinton, Henry Shelton, nor you have the right to force them into an unwanted union. Had I been living 150 years ago, I might have been willing to risk my precious hide to end slavery: but no way would I do so to coerce Alaskans- or Texans or Virginians, for that matter- into a nation of which they do not wish to be a part. To do so would be iniquitous. I have the sense that the freedom upon which this nation (the USA) was forged means rather little to you. Do the words "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with another ..." mean anything to you?? You might be interested in reading what the gentleman who wrote those words thought was the reason governments were instituted among men. Need I point out that the government in Taipai does a much better job of addressing those concerns without bullying its populace than does that of Beijing. Do I presume that the fact that the government in Taipai receives the sanction of its populace through the medium of the electoral process means nothing to you? Nor, I'm getting the impression, does the fact that the dictators in Beijing feel no need to obtain the consent of so much as a plurality of those it governs concern you. I do wonder wherein lies your moral compass. Allow me to ask you a question in return. By what moral authority do you think the dictators in Beijing have the right to impose their authority on a people who do not want it? Larry