HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:58:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov19.192404.11248@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
> In article <Bxy12o.Dxw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
# #	I would contend, and the Supreme Court agrees, that militial
# #	weapons are the only ones protected. By the way, the ACLU position
# #	is the fraudulent ' the 2'nd protects the National Guard's right
# #	to arms' which is patently absurd, as well as explicitly addressed
# #	in another S.C. ruling. In other words you are full of shit, and
# #	haven't read 1) any of the relavent S.C. ruling, and 2) The
# #	ACLU position paper that addresses the question.
# 
# Note that nowhere in my original posting did I state my opinion on
# the right to keep and bear arms. 
# 
# Strangely enough, I have read both Miller and the relevant ACLU position
# paper, as well as a number of other relevant documents. Perhaps your
# reading of the ACLU position paper is correct and I'm mistaken, but
# I didn't read it the way you did.
# 
# You might benefit from reading the precise definition of the militia
# contained in the Federal Code. The National Guard is the Organized
# Militia.
# 
# You definitely need to learn to read. Most people find that reading all
# of a document helps. You assume what the document will say, read only
# those portions that agree with your assumption, and ignore the rest. 

As you have just demonstrated.  The unorganized militia is also
defined in that same section, and includes all male U.S. citizens who
are between 18 and 45.

# Stephen Graham



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky soc.history:9535 misc.legal:20146
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:55:08 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov18.045033.11484@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13221@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #Remember how the 14th Amendment
> #was perverted to find that corporations were "persons", and therefore
> #exempted?
> 
> Funny, I was taught in high school that corporations were legal
> persons from the beginning.
> 
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

They may have been so; I said nothing that indicated otherwise.
But the decision that corporations were "persons" protected by
the 14th Amendment is a perversion of the original legislative
intent.  I agree with the result, but that's NOT what the 14th
Amendment was passed to do.  The purpose was to protect the
freedmen from state laws, and from the unwillingness of the
states to enforce existing laws against the Klan and other
thugs.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Xref: sparky soc.history:9600 misc.legal:20200 sci.econ:8777
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:20:08 GMT

In article <1edhpiINNd47@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
[regarding whether non/anti-slavery should have been a condition of
entry into the US way back in 177-whenever]

>The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
>the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
>European powers.  Furthermore, the compromise was needed to get
>several of the most important states into the fold.  Virginia
>and the Carolinas were important to the new country. If, for 
>example, only Georgia was holding out, the union may have gone
>on without them. We couldn't have gone on without Virginia.  It
>would have been a lot like France or Germany holding out from
>the EC.  The EC would have much more trouble surviving without
>one of those countries than they will in surviving without
>Spain.

If you think about it, the US *did* lose a few colonies -- East & West
Florida, Nova Scotia, Canada, Quebec, not to mention the Caribbean.  In
addition, slavery was legal in all of the 13 colonies in 1774 when the
"United States" came into existence with the meeting of the Continental
Congress and when these decisions would have had to have been made
(don't you just love that syntax -- 5 helping verbs!).

When slavery does become a condition of admission into the Union, it is
a crisis every time (first time in 1820 w/ Missouri, 1854 w/ Kansas &
Nebraska); and eventually it led to Civil War.  I don't think that
anyone in 1774 thought that it would lead to Civil War, but certainly
even by 1787 and the Constitutional Convention the delegates knew well
what they would be tampering with.

How to explain the Northwest Ordinance (which banned slavery in the
process of organizing the Northwest Territories) in this context, I
don't know.

Gary 
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: New book that may be of interest to those studying race relations
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:34:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I notice that the Greenwood Publishing catalog has a new book titled
_The Black Laws in the Old Northwest: A Documentary History_, by
Stephen Middleton.  The marketing hype says:

    This book brings together the Black Laws of the Old Northwest
    (now the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin)
    for the first time, thereby providing a documentary history
    of racial discrimination in this free territory.  The documents
    in the volume include statutes, legislative reports and
    resolutions, and petitions and memorials produced by the state
    legislatures, government agencies, or concerned citizens.
    After a brief prologue, the documents are organized by state.
    Within each state they are placed in sets of documents of
    specific topics such as immigration laws, welfare and public
    education laws, and jury and testimony laws.

0-313-28016-9, 448 pages, $55.00.

When I called up to order it, they said it would be out in 
late January.


    
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Followup-To: soc.history
Date: 16 Nov 1992 03:49:36 GMT
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.15.19

In article <1992Nov15.211734.17693@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com
(Michael A. Thomas) wrote:
> In article <1992Nov15.164537.7160@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> > Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
> > US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.

Interesting question: just how close did the UK come to collapse before
the US started providing real support? And which form of support was the
most important?

>   Are you trying to say that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because
> of the Oil Embargo? Everything I've heard is that they did it as a
> pre-emptive strike because they were worried that we'd soon become 
> involved. I really don't think the Japanese had taking over the US
> for our oil in mind when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Their delusions of grandeur never quite stretched as far as conquering
Texas. They wanted oil from the Netherlands East Indies, but they didn't
think the US would stand for them taking it by force. So they planned on
wiping out the US Pacific fleet, stomping on the Phillipines, etc., and
negotiating peace from a position of strength, then settling down to
digest the co-prosperity sphere. The US had recently had talks with the
British, Dutch, etc. where they promised to help defend the Dutch,
Portugese, British possessions in the Pacific. This wasn't public,
AFAIK, perhaps because defending European colonies would have been
political suicide in the US.

The US oil blockade gave Japan a deadline. They had something like two
years supply remaining when the Americans imposed it, soon they would
have to choose between war and a humiliating back down out of China.
(Bear in mind that they weren't sure they'd take the NEI wells intact,
so there might be a delay in resuming production.) Many influential
people in the US seem to have honestly believed they would back down,
so I think the claim that the US deliberately provoked the war is a
little overstated.

> Besides, it was no
> secret that the Axis powers were allied. 

Something of a secret from Adolf Hitler, perhaps. He spent a lot of
effort trying to convince the Japanese (Turks, Rumanians, Finns) to join
in the attack on Russia. The US policy-makers of the time, however,
certainly thought that the Anti-Comintern pact was much more solid than
it was.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger  AARNet: dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au
                Snail:  Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT,
2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the
Japanese,
they would be ground to a powder." -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: KILLING SENDAR REVISITED
From: <DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:15:31 EST
Organization: Penn State University

I want to thank everyone who responded. For those who grumbled at my ingnorant
rantings and gave no response, sorry.U must understand,  however, I've had two
semesters of media history/theory and I've become a torch-bearing, free-access-
to-information morph ever since. I'm relatively new to the net, esp. this
Newsgroupso put up with my bumbling learning process for a few weeks.

I look forward to typing history with y'all.....even Sendar, if he ever stops
ranting about......evil jewish, greek, ghetto anarchists who have proven them-
selves to be detrimental to the great state of Turkey (?)

dave
From: kniaz@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Chris Kniaz -Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: KILLing Sendar
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:01:02 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter, University of Pennsylvania

In article <92323.115652DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
(about Mutlu/Cosar/Argic artificial s*t)
>[...] his thoughts,
>which do reflect an historical intelligence.

I beg your pardon?



-- 

Krzysztof Kniaz, Penn |If only God would give me some clear sign! 
LRSM ,                |Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.
Phila, PA, 19104, USA |               Woody Allen
From: A.Raman@massey.ac.nz (Anand V Raman)
Subject: Indhist1.0 now available from the Indology listserver
Keywords: Indian History Notes
Organization: Massey University Computer Centre
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 05:47:50 GMT

Indhist (Version 1.0), about which  I posted in this group a
month ago, is now archived  with the Indology  listserver at
liverpool.ac.uk. (Indhist concerns programs to do with notes
about the Indian sub-continent from classical sources)

Thanks go to Chris Wooff (QQ43@liverpool.ac.uk) for arranging
this.

To subscribe to the Indology mailing list (where discussions
about Classical India are carried out) you must send mail to
listserv@liverpool.ac.uk with the message:

   subscribe indology <real-life-name>

where <real-life-name> must  be substituted by the name  you
wish to  be  known by to  other  subscribers.   It  is  also
possible to choose to remain anonymous after a subscription.

You can find out more  information about  the mailing lists,
archives  and commands to access  them  by mailing the  word
"help" to listserv@liverpool.ac.uk

Best wishes,

- anand v raman
--
# The following signature is a random selection from Indhist 1.0
# For more information on Indhist, mail A.Raman@massey.ac.nz
--
By way of embellishing their persons, they  dye  their beards with a great
variety of   the most florid  hues.  This  custom prevails elsewhere among
many of the Indians, who bestow great attention on  dyeing both their hair
and  their  garments with  the   colours of surprising  beauty which their
country produces.  The people in other  respects  are frugal, but are fond
of ornament.

- Strabo Book XV:I.30
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Libertarians and 1930's
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:15:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov15.233547.19002@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.201336.3107@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley) writes:
> >ted frank claims that free markets would never have gotten the U.S. out of the
> >Great Depression.  
> 
> It's not a claim.  It's an empirical fact.  Hoover shrunk government
> spending from 1929 to 1933.  Other than the tariffs (which really wouldn't

But not as much as the economy was deflated.  See Murray Rothbard's
_The Great Depression_ for details.  Hoover did the right thing,
accelerating public works spending as much as possible, while reducing
expenditures, but he didn't reduce them as much as deflation had
shrunk the economy.

> have made much difference unless Europe went Lib also), I don't see what

Without the unnoticed inflation of the 1920s, the Great Depression
wouldn't have happened, and neither would Smoot-Hawley.

> Hoover did that was different from what the Libertarians would have done.

Hoover also engaged in a number of jawboning efforts to reduce
worked hours in some industries (like steel), and agricultural
supports actually were started (on a modest scale) under Hoover.
Not very libertarian.

> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall)
Subject: KILLing Sendar
Summary: How to do it
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:40:44 GMT

        Someone on this group was lamenting their inability to
KILL our beloved Sendar's spewings. It is quite easy.

1)  Use Control-K   (enters KILL file for thw group you are in)

2)  type    /sera@zuma.uucp/h:j

3) Sit back and enjoy as each time you enter soc.history you watch
   a list of at least ten articles being killed.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:38:02 GMT

In article <dxb105-161192142228@theophys1.anu.edu.au> dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.211734.17693@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com
>(Michael A. Thomas) wrote:
>> In article <1992Nov15.164537.7160@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> > Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
>> > US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.
>
>Interesting question: just how close did the UK come to collapse before
>the US started providing real support? And which form of support was the
>most important?

Even with US aid, they came very close to running out of aircraft and spare
parts during The Battle of Britain. I have read in various sources that the
British were down to about 1 week supplies. Hitler, for various reasons,
switched to the far less effective night time Blitz. The attack on civilian
targets, while terrible, did far less damage to the RAF than daylight pin
point attacks on airbases, factories, etc.

>> Besides, it was no
>> secret that the Axis powers were allied. 
>
>Something of a secret from Adolf Hitler, perhaps. He spent a lot of
>effort trying to convince the Japanese (Turks, Rumanians, Finns) to join
>in the attack on Russia. The US policy-makers of the time, however,
>certainly thought that the Anti-Comintern pact was much more solid than
>it was.

Hitler apparantly did as well. As you say, he kept trying to pressure the
Japanese into opening a second front in Asia against the Russians (most
likely, one of the reasons he declared war on us). One reason they didn't:
they had in fact attacked Soviet positions along the Mongolia-"Manchukoku"
border in the late '30s (the Nomonhan incident) and had gotten their military
clocks cleaned. This could not have been unknown to Hitler, as it made
the newsreels in the US at the time.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Evolution and Religion (Was: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union)
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:06:16 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov20.190547.573@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>  
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <JMC.92Nov20090453@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>  
jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
> >There isn't time to give all theories equal weight, and like it or
> >not evolution dominates scientific thought and also general
> >intellectual thought.  However, there are a large number of people
> >who adhere to creationist doctrines of one kind or another.
> 
> That is, the majority feels that evolution is correct, and certain
> common religious views are wrong. Since public education is a
> matter of indoctrination (in effect), the current policy is for
> the government to indoctrinate all children that a particular
> religion is wrong. That sounds quite clearly like a violation of
> the First Amendment.

No, it's not simply that the majority feels that evolution is
correct. It's that the vast majority of evidence we have says
that evolution is correct. 

If some religion decided the world was flat, would we violate the
first ammendment by "indoctrinating all children" in the belief that
it is round?

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:38:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: soc.history

Clayton Cramer posted ACLU Position #47 in response to a request from
Frank Crary.  The following is taken from that paper.

>   We concur with repeated rulings of every court that has ruled on
> the issue--including the U.S. Suprme Court--that the Constitution's
> Second Amendment provision for militia never has meant that all 
> individuals have a right to own all kinds of firearms.

The following is from a recent Supreme Court decision.

> "... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in
> select parts of the Constitution.  The Preamble declares that the
> Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the
> the U.S.'  The Second Amendment protects the right of the people
> to keep and bear Arms ...."
>	- Supreme Court of the U.S.,  U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).

Perhaps the ACLU hasn't been keeping up with recent Supreme Court
decisions.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:54:48 GMT

In article <1e4mfuINNsf2@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>In article <1e4jnaINNquc@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>[Following up to myself]   Actually, if one accepts "two hundred years"
>>literally, it would not predate the Founding Fathers.   However, I'm pretty 
>>sure that the anti-slavery movement goes back further than that.   I'll look 
>>it up and post a reference.
>
>And to add, I would be interested in that reference. I was not being flip
>when I replied. I believe that the 'moral' antislavery effort started a little
>after the formation of the US. In any case it was a controversial and new
>idea FOR THE TIME. We should use as a frame of reference the movment from
>England since these were the ideas which would have influenced New England.
>So, it is me feeling that the anti-slavery as a 'moral' cause was very new
>at the time of the adoption of the constitution. 

Quaker anti-slavery, on moral grounds, existed by the 1750s, in the
person of Anthony Benezet, followed by Benjamin Rush and others.
Massachusetts abolished slavery (in fact, one of the few actual
occurrences of abolition, rather than a gradual compensated emancipation)
in 1780 (?) or so.  (Of course, there were few slaves left).
In addition, the moral rumblings of the Great Awakening (from 1740s
through the Revolution) contained within them a great deal of (usually
unrealized) anti-slavery sentiment, and laid the groundwork for the
evangelical/perfectionist "moral" antislavery to which Mr. Miller
refers.

Also, one might point to Thomas Jefferson, a devoted anti-slavery
thinker (on moral and other grounds:  he said something along the lines
of "I tremble when I think that God is just" referring to a potential
judgment for the enslavers.

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Xref: sparky soc.history:9617 soc.women:20057
From: garnham@convex.csd.uwm.edu (David C Garnham)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.women
Subject: American Gender Roles
Date: 20 Nov 1992 23:09:34 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: wi
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30
Originator: garnham@convex.csd.uwm.edu

"Modern American Gender Roles and 'Family Values': In Historical
Perspective."

A talk by Professor Mary Beth Norton (Mary Donlon Alger Professor
of American History at Cornell University).

Where:
UW-Milwaukee
Alumni House, Garden Room
3230 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee

When:
7:30 p.m.
Thursday, 10 December, 1992

Sponsored by the Cornell Club of Wisconsin and the UW-Milwaukee
History Department
-- 
| David Garnham                Internet: garnham@convex.csd.uwm.edu          |
| Political Science Dept.      Bitnet  : garnham%convex.csd.uwm.edu@INTERBIT |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee      (414) 229-4392/4221                 |
| P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.                                   |
Newsgroups: soc.history