Re: Help design the ideal Presidential candidate

Alfred Montestruc <montestruc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 14, 3:33 pm, archm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Nate Edel) wrote:
> > No, that's incorrect.  Employment contracts have a clear relation****p
> > between employer and employee, and don't have comingling of funds or
> > property; a much closer model is a business partner****p. It is
voluntary,
> > and can be exited by any partner, but unless the terms of that exit
are
> > specified in advance, you can't simply grab an equal share of the
money in
> > the bank plus your company-owned car and assume that it's going to be
either
> > legally or morally acceptable.
>
> Any of the partners can get out of the business at will and get a
> reasonable share of the property.

Eventually, yes.  They cannot unilaterally decide what that reasonable
share
is, nor can they lawfully use force to make the remaining partners agree.

> You seem to be under the impression that the south was unwilling to
> have proper division of property, that is about as far from the truth
> as it can get.

That depends on what you mean by "unwilling to have proper division of
property;" what I'm saying is that they were unwillingly to allow the rule
of law to proceed at a reasonable pace, or for that determination of a
"proper division" to happen on mutual terms.

> They already know that a large fraction of the Republicans intended to
> forcibly resist secession,.

"Knew", no.  "Believed", yes.  

> Yes armories and suchlike were sized, but would have been part of a
> property distribution. Several delegations were sent to Wa****ngton to
> attempt such a negotiated settlement of property and other concerns like
> use of the Mississippi River, to no avail,

And they expected great matters of state to be trivially resolved in three
months?

> Lincoln would not meet them, nor would he allow anyone else to meet with
> them 

Over a period of about 38 days.  What incredible patience!  As I've
pointed
out elsewhere, the US/UN extended Saddam Hussein a greater degree of time
after the invasion of Kuwait.

> and negotiate on behalf of the federal government as he was not willing
to
> concede even the possibility of the legality of secession.  Regardless
of
> how much it cost the American people.

While the *easiest* way would have required negotiating with President or
passing legislation in a Republican congress, they had a relatively
pro-southern Supreme Court.  Absent a direct military provocation, there's
little Lincoln could do that could not result in the states bringing suit.

Further, the Southern states started taking steps towards a military
confrontation well before Lincoln was even inaugurated; had Buchanan not
been such a do-nothing, it's possible that some of these issues might have
been negotiated prior to Lincoln's taking office, and ratified by the
still
Democratic-controlled Senate during the lame duck session prior to the new
Congress being seated.

> > The same is true for a club member****p, in many ways: if you have club
> > property at home - even if you paid for an equal share of it
originally - and
> > just stop showing up to meetings, don't be surprised if someone shows
up at
> > your door asking for it back, and if rebuffed, ends up calling the
police.
>
> As the club member might well call the cops for the club holding him
> and his share of the club property against his will claiming he cannot
> leave the club.

Call the cops, sure. But the use of force to resolve a property dispute is
clearly wrong, and no one was holding anyone physically against their
will.
The constitution set up the Supreme Court for exactly that sort of
dispute,
and that's roughtly comparable to calling the cops.

Instead, the Southern states rushed to the use of force.

-- 
Nate Edel                               http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
 preferred email  | 
 is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It is obscenity.
 posting domain   |  I'm for it." - prologue to "Smut" by Tom Lehrer