User talk:DMorpheus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Interests 2 SS Division Nordland 3 T-34 nomenclature 4 Meltiukhov 5 Nevezhin V.A 6 Edits in history of the tank 7 German v Allied soldiers 8 Operation Dragoon 9 Omar Bradley 10 Goodwood / Normandy 11 Your recent edits at History of the tank 12 Bernard Montgomery 13 Reference for T-34 nomunclature 14 World War II Revisited 15 Normandy &tc 16 Monte Cassino 17 Wiki Stalker - Part deux? 18 Battle of Kursk 19 Your talk discussion with Anonymous on the Waffen-SS page 20 Dred Scott 21 T-34 22 German T-28 23 Handy tags etc 24 Lincoln's cooper union speech 24.1 Just the highlights 24.1.1 Part I: Slavery and the founders 24.1.2 Part II 24.1.3 part III 25 Why did you remove my questions without answering them? 26 T-34 variants 27 Your altitude 28 Copyright voliation 29 Suggestion

[edit] Interests

I enjoy contributing to articles related to military history, especially WW2 and the Soviet-German conflict. I also do some contributions to articles on tactics and weapons. I hope folks find my contributions useful.

“…what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” – George Orwell

[edit] SS Division Nordland

I would prefer you do not continue to insist on your 'addition' to the article, I am in the midst of a major addition to it, to improve qaulity as it is a division I am quite knowledgable with. As I said on the discussion page there, if you want to keep reverting my removal, I will bring an admin into this, because if it is on that division's page, according to your logic it should be on the 1.SS, 2.SS, and so on. If you'd want to add it to a division who WAS implicated in war crimes, you could add it but I would state it differently. user:ratzinger81

yeah, I'll continue to insist.

[edit] T-34 nomenclature

I've tried to explain the nomenclature at T-34#Variants. Please look over this note. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 08:11 Z

Nice edit. I think this is pretty good. The only improvement I can suggest is that the "Model 43" is still used as the designation for the hexagonal turret. That should be "Model 42", if we are going to use the latest info available from old Soviet records. So:

Model 40: L-11 gun Model 41: All narrow-turret (that is, turrets with one large hatch) variants, regardless of other detail changes Model 42: All hexagonal-turret variants

I recognize that the designation 'model 43' is still in *very* common use in the west, but you've done a good job of introducing the problem in the text, so it should be OK. DMorpheus 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meltiukhov

I googled (the form Meltiukhov is often used):

the publishers annotation: [1]

A review by my compatriot

A full-length review of the book 8and other similar studies): [2] Constanz - Talk 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this link. While I think Suvorov is easily dismissed (his work is obvious nonsense), I can't tell much about Meltiukov without reading it myself. I followed the link you helpfully provided. It is glaringly obvious this "Institute" is an anti-semitic site of questionable validity - I see they have some David Irving content along with other offensive and ahistorical material. I would like to think the political bias of a site would be separable from their historical work, but in reading the review I don't think so. The review is largely political, highly illogical, and has little real military information. If the best evidence for a Soviet invasion plan is a plan written on May 15, 1941, the evidence look spretty flimsy to me. I hope to see the book in english to form a better judgment on it. DMorpheus 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the so-called insitute: yes, I used it only for the simple reason that no other English reviews could be found. The things concerning that May proposal look complicated for 'traditial theory' supporters: Russian historians (incl those mentioned by 'institute' article) and specifically Meltyukhov in his op. cit. bring forth evidence, that this particular memorandum by Zhukov was no exception in the direction of Soviet stategical planning, on the contrary: M.M states Soviet military planning in yrs 1939-41 included first and foremost offensive planning; there were at least five different versions of the strategical military plan (from November 39 to May 1941), which provided offensive operations.

BTW I've found a study by Albert L.Weeks covering Soviet offensive strategy [3]. Constanz - Talk 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevezhin V.A

I know the author, he has Candidate of history degree and is scholar at the Institute of Russian History. As for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, I remember I recently tried to find some articles in English (most probably by the very Nevezhin): what I managed to find was table of contents of a magazine, I'm quit sure it's the same journal. Of course it would be of utter interest to have a look on it.

I've found some interesting articles on internet by Nevezhin in Russian. Right now, I am too busy to try to translate them (you might try babelfish i.e [4], sometimes the babel translation is OK). BTW, if you take deeper interest in the subject, I may send you my translation of a chapter of Meltyukhov's work. Constanz - Talk 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits in history of the tank

A while back you added some considerable information to the section /*Between the Wars*/, which was more in its place in the Tanks (1919-1939) article. I've moved/merged this information into the latter article and would appreciate it if you could look over both articles to see if nothing has been lost or inadvertely been duplicated? --Martin Wisse 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a few edits to it. I also removed a few small items that were correct, but not 'between the wars' info. DMorpheus 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German v Allied soldiers

A while back, we exchanged views on Montgomery. At one point I'd written "Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations." and you said: "This is a pretty broad statement that is bound to generate discussion, but its not really necessary to the article anyway, IMO."

At the time I couldn't find the reference to pusue the point - now I have. Professor Sir Michael Howard (a military historian and WWII veteran) said: Until a very late stage of the war the commanders of British and American ground forces knew all too well that, in a confrontation with the German troops on anything approaching equal terms , their own men were likely to be soundly defeated. They were better than we were: that cannot be stressed too often. Every Allied soldier involved in fighting the Germans knew that this was so, and did not regard it as in any way humiliating. We were amateurs ... drawn from peaceful industrial societies with a deep cultural bias against all things military ... We blasted our way into Europe with a minimum of finesse and a maximum of high explosive. Time and again, Howard's point is re-made. It's quoted in Max Hasting's Armageddon, chapter 5.

Well, as a statement in wikipedia about what a historian thinks, that's perfectly fine. But it is simply repeating an author's opinion/judgement, it contains no actual data about the social militarism of any society. I don't even know how we would measure something like that. I am sorry if I am splitting hairs, but saying "Author X says Germans are better soldiers or more militaristic" is different from saying "Germans are better soldiers or come from a more militaristic society". The first is a valid thing to put in wikipedia but the second is impssible to know for the period in question. DMorpheus 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Dragoon

Thanks for the compliment! Wholly undeserved! I asked the prvious contributor (User talk:71.112.113.62) to support his/her assertions about the oil supplies - do you have any thoughts? I doubt they're correct but I don't what to discourage a new editor by being too heavy-handed, too quickly. Folks at 137 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Bradley

I've made changes to the page on Bradley. If you have time and the inclination, I would value your comments. I thought that the original was a bit POV and I don't want to err myself. Folks at 137 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll post a few comments on your page.

[edit] Goodwood / Normandy

You added to the article on Operation Goodwood:

"Post-invasion buildup plans thus provided the Second Army with more armoured units than the First Army, since the breakout would be expected on the Second Army's front."

Buildup plans were constrained by the shortage of British infantry reinforcements at this stage of the war. One division (59th) had to be broken up in Normandy to keep the other units up to strength, and others later.

The dispute over where Monty expected or intended the breakout to occur is a complicated and contentious one. However, I do not think that the provision and type of units in the buildup can be used to support any particular point of view. (It should also be noted that at the time of Goodwood, there were three British and four American armoured divisions ashore.)

HLGallon 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The book Eisenhower's Lieutenants makes precisely this point - that the far greater number of tanks in the Second Army is, along with much other information, evidence that the armored breakout was expected on the eastern flank.

Simply counting Armored Divisions overlooks the very strong British Tank Brigades, which had no equivalent in the US Army. If you look up the tank strength, Second Army had more.

Five British or Canadian armoured brigades in the bridgehead. On the other hand, there were lots of independent tank battalions attached to US infantry divisions.

Weren't Canadian/British tank brigades three battalions strong? i.e. in the neighborhood of 150 tanks each? Didn't they sometimes include mech infantry also? US tank battalions were 54 tanks strong, and had no Infantry element. Typically, each leg Infantry Division got one bat each. Airborne Divisions didn't get any.

I tend to go with Chester Wilmot (Struggle for Europe) on most questions of allied strategy or policy. (As an Australian, he is neutral in Anglo-American disputes). I don't recall reading Eisenhower's Lieutenants; I'll do so as soon as possible. HLGallon 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Wlmot, while a valuable resource, is both dated and quite biased. Not that I am claiming any other source is *unbiased* - they simply have different biases. IIRC Eisenhower's Lieutenants has a bit of a critique of Wilmot on this issue of the breakout plan. Makes for interesting reading.I am a big D'Este fan also.

On a slightly different topic, while we're talking, have you happened to notice the artillery ammunition expenditure info on wikipedia for El Alamein? It's in the neighborhood of 600-700,000 rounds for the initial barrage. I find that hard to believe but I have no sources on it other than the wiki article. It much more than the opening barrages for Cobra or Goodwood.

Good discussion here ;)

[edit] Your recent edits at History of the tank

OMFG! An article on tanks that doesn't use the word Blitzkrieg or Panzer!!!11!!!11 Whatever will the world do...(!) Seriously though, let's hope it stays that way. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 02:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Montgomery

Hi, I thought I should explain why I reverted your recent edit. According to Hamilton in his DNB entry, Montgomery's strategy for Normandy as presented at St Paul's School in April and May was for the British and Canadian armies to form a left shoulder and the American armies to wheel round on the right. Clearly alot of improvisation was necessary, not least because of the resistance before Caen, but the original basic strategy seems to have been followed. MAG1 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you want to read Carlo D'Este, Decision In Normandy, and then we can discuss further. At minimum both views should be stated, since they are in reputable, published sources. DMorpheus 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it would be nice to know what D'Este thinks Montgomery's strategy actually was supposed to be and how he knows that rather than just an assertion that it somehow all went wrong. These presentations were big things, and I should think that Hamilton (who was Montgomery's biographer) would not be able to make it up. MAG1 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton was also an admirer. Please give D'Este a try, it's a terrific book even if you had no interest in Montgomery. I added a bunch of quotes to the talk page.

Essentially D'Este uses the notes of officers present at the St Paul's briefings (including Dempsey), plus other materials, to show that Montgomery planned an *offensive* strategy around and well beyond Caen. The idea was to attack with armor on the east flank, and not to let a static front develop. No one planned anything remotely resembling 'Cobra' before the landings. Another source, Russel Weigley's Eisenhower's Lieutenants, shows that the buildup of armored units in 2nd Army was done at a faster pace than for 1st Army, which backs the notion that the original plan did not assign 2nd Army a 'holding' or non-mobile role.

Will do. I think all biographers are into their subjects, otherwise why spend so long with them. I was careful to try to stick to the facts from Hamilton's article rather than the commentary. The point is that he will have read the evidnce.

Now the next bit is interesting stuff, and worth including, though possibly in the Battle of Normandy page. It is not clear how it should affect Montgomery unless you want to talk about reputations (I don't like to do that- see the article's talk page), and even then it is not clear how as he managed to adapt to the failure and win the campaign. Interestingly enough, it militates against the 'material' criticism.

Not so keen on the second bit- looks like using a single piece of indirect evidence to back a theory. MAG1 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, read it in context. You don't send lots of armor units to an area that is expected to hold a defensive front. Armor units use up precious shipping space and have enormous logisitical demands compared to Infantry units. If a breakout was always planned for the 1st Army front, the armor units would have been sent there first. In fact they were front loaded much more heavily towards 2nd Army. Much of this is already in the Battle of Normandy page.

I don't think it is against wiki policy to add *published* points of view/reputations/assesments. Adding several enriches the article.

He won the campaign by opportunistic improvisation - nothing wrong with that. Part of that included an attritional battle on the 2nd Army front, which in D'Este's view was *not* planned but was the outcome anyway. DMorpheus 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for T-34 nomunclature

Hi. As you may have noticed, T-34 is on the way to FA status. I've identified a few passages which absolutely need supporting references. Please have a look at talk:T-34#Drive for Featured Article quality, and see if you can provide any sources, most importantly for the Soviet naming. Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-07-08 16:32 Z

[edit] World War II Revisited

Hi, you once read an article from Journal of Slavic Military Studies. I've found something similar, if you're still interested in the subject. Sokolov, B.V: World War II Revisited: Did Stalin Intend to Attack Hitler?- In: Journal of Slavic Military Studies 11 (1998), H. 2, S. 113-141. Anyway, if you really happen to read it, please tell me about it.--Constanz - Talk 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was especialy happy when I found an English source covering the pre-war topic. I was myself sketching an article a while ago, and the problem was exactly the lack of researches/translations in English. I hope to read the available sources one day.--Constanz - Talk 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Normandy &tc

Hi, You have probably already seen this, but if not, the U.S. Military History is really a very good read [5]. It is old, but lots of primary material, and looks a nice piece of scholarship. Incidentally, its line on Goodwood is that Montgomery planned a limited offensive, and this is what he ordered downwards, but he deliberately misled SHAEF into thinking that it was a breakout attempt (to obtain air support and to placate Eisenhower and therefore secure resources); hence, coupled with an enthusiastic news conference (which may or may not have been deliberate or possibly both), controversy ever since. MAG1 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monte Cassino

Thx for the grammar and spell check. Your amendments are good. The paragraph appears significant (=short) and neutrally composed. (213.70.74.165 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wiki Stalker - Part deux?

To the user stalking me (again) - We aren't here for your entertainment, but to create something of value. Think about why you are trying so hard to establish this close emotional bond with me ;) What reaction are you looking for? I'm not biting. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, "Don't Be A Dick" policy, 3RR, and so forth. You are consistently violating all of them, and attacking the admins is not going to help your case. If you hate wikipedia this much why not just leave it alone?

Looks like you followed my suggestion. Well done.

Please see wikipedia:troll

This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

Is there a club, barnstar or Purple Heart for stalkees?Wikist 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

1. I think that the user's bad faith is clear enough to spread the word about a "Do not feed the troll" policy.

2. I think that the user's recent rants on his userpage and elsewhere strengthen the sockpuppet case (the April 2006 user and later IP)--imagine how tidy the talk pages would be without those users.

3. I have information about the user's content and source unreliability that I can provide if it will lead to official action.

I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's discipline procedures.

Thank you.Wikist 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the club would be bigger if the case includes the pevious IP/aliases but you might know the better way to proceed. I will be available to support an official action. Thank you.Wikist 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kursk

Thanks for providing the source (Glantz) for the paragraph I had removed from the Battle of Kursk. I have added to the discussion on the talk page. JS 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk discussion with Anonymous on the Waffen-SS page

Mr. DMorpheus,

  Your discussion with the Anonymous on the Waffen-SS page who lost

an Uncle in the W-SS, is very interesting, and from my understanding quite correct, i.e. that the Waffen-SS was not a part of the Wehrmacht.

You might know this already, but during the German invasion of Poland, two members of the Waffen-SS shot and killed 50 Jews in a synagogue. The local Wehrmacht commander wanted to court martial them, and the prosecution demanded the death penalty. Because of this issue, on October 17, 1939, a change was institued called "Decree relating to a Special Jurisdiction in Penal Matters for members of the SS and for Members of Police Groups on Special Tasks" The effect of this was to remove the W-SS from normal military law. Members of any SS unit could only be judged by SS courts.

I have been interested in this decree for some time, but have not tracked it to ground. I have wondered if the reputation of the W-SS for insubordination arises because they were immune to Heer military law.

Your posts are very much right on as far as I can tell.

Folcwine

[edit] Dred Scott

You say in your recent contributions to the Dred Scott article: "This decision [by the Missouri Supreme Court] was inconsistent with the Court's own precedents. Missouri courts had consistently ruled that slaves taken into free states were automatically free." I think it would be useful to have a citation for that, if you could provide one. Thanks. Theleek 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Wilentz book I added as a reference. DMorpheus 03:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-34

Hi; I was wondering what the multiple errors were that you referred to on my talk page? I've gone over my edits, and can't find anything. (And BTW, I'm also aware that a number of editors think we have to reference every line of every article, down to the color of the sky.) MisfitToys 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not one of "those" editors. I think the fact-tagging done by others on Feb 5 2007 amounts to vandalism of the article. It's overkill.

Second, I think the vast majority of your edits improved the article. The errors have to do with gun designations. On Feb 4 you wrote that the D-10 was an 85mm gun; the D-10 is a 100mm gun. The 85mm guns on the T-34 were the D-5T, the ZiS-53, and the ZiS-S-53. The KwK 42 75mm gun did not appear in combat in 1942; the KwK 42 is the gun on the Panther, and would not have been seen before july 1943. I imagine you meant the KwK 40, which is the gun on the Pzkw-IV G, and would indeed have been deployed in combat by mid-1942. Finally the KwK 43 was the L/71 gun found on the Tiger II and Jagdpanther. The context of the article is clear that the Tiger I's gun is intended, and that is a KwK 36.

Hope this helps improve the article. DMorpheus 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you were one of those editors, just sympathizing. And again, I didn't say that the D-10 was an 85mm gun, but linked to the article only because it included the background history of the 85 (that's why I linked to the subsection). MisfitToys 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German T-28

Go to this link: http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/su/t-28/t-28.htm

As you can see there are photos of at least few different operational T-28 captured by Germans.

Thanks, but what I see is one, possibly two, unique tanks. I can't see anything that proves there is more than one T-28 here. If you spot some difference please tell me, I can't see it other than the markings, which could have been added at almost any point. DMorpheus 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handy tags etc

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly represented in an article regarding the subject.

[edit] Lincoln's cooper union speech

[edit] Just the highlights

[edit] Part I: Slavery and the founders

...The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn....Senator Douglas said: "Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?"

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government.... I take these "thirty-nine," ... as being "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better than we do now?"

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it - how they expressed that better understanding?

• In 1784, three years before the Constitution .....the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that [Northwest] Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" .....voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four - James M'Henry - voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

• In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and .... both voted for the prohibition...

• In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. .... It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine....This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

• Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory.

• No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded territory. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so bought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. ....

• In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. ....Congress did not....prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it - take control of it - in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi.....This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." ...

• In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine" ...were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

....The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of them - a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" - so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, .... But for what reasons they so voted is not known. ....It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.

.....Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris - while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

....Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, that all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution - the identical Congress which passed ...the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.

.....

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we - better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century... declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. ...

...if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others....into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" were of the same opinion - thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. ....

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask - all Republicans desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.

[edit] Part II

And now....I would address a few words to the Southern people.

...You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people.

.....You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. ...... If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. ....you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

.... It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. ....

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. ....

....Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry?

....The Federal Government.....has the power of restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. .... There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling - that sentiment - by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but ....we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. ....

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. ... If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" - and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due," - as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this, is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live" - the men who made the Constitution - decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago - decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

[edit] part III

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. ..... Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. ... Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

... If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. ....

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored ...- such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

[edit] Why did you remove my questions without answering them?

I agree that you all the right to that but your edits are clearly going astray from simple grammar and spelling correcting to removal of vital parts of the article (fact that the T-44 was kept secret for political reasons etc.). - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not obligated to answer them. I have the same responsibility to edit the article as you do. You are getting into cold war politics and speculation that have little place in an article about a tank. Just make a link to a cold war article. DMorpheus (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T-34 variants

I once again have to inform you that a significant part of the text you deleted/corrected was there for days or maybe even weeks. So please stop making me guilty for someone else's bad grammar. And please could stop following me like a hyena? - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I check the diffs, and the edits you make tend to have the same grammatical errors over and over. Please dude, you are very knowledgable, so improve your writing. I'll ignore your other comment. DMorpheus (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's one thing that amuses me about one of your latest edits. In the "T-34 variants" article in the part about T-34-100 prototype you keep insisting on writing "were not" rather than "weren't". Why? What's so bad about the shorter form? - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The writing should be formal. We're not writing informal notes to our friends here, with the possible exception of the talk pages. DMorpheus (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your altitude

Hello.

I wanted to discuss a bit of an issue I have you which is your altitude towards me. Texts like "Copyedit....first of several I fear" or "We're getting somewhere now" can be taken as insulting. Look, I'm not a small kid and your not an adult who has to put up with me. Here and now we are both Wikipedia editors and we are equals whenever you like it or not.

I hope you'll understand. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I am losing patience with your edits. Please accept my apology. I have asked nicely on several occasions to please check your grammar, but you continue to commit the exact same errors over and over...and over. You may sincerely believe you are writing english at a professional level, but you aren't. The problem with that is that it creates additional very unproductive work for other editors who must clean up behind you. You may not think of that as rude, but give it some thought and you may see that it is. I don't edit in French, although I can read and converse, because I know my level isn't nearly high enough and I wouldn't force that cleanup chore on anyone else. It happens to be that you are editing a lot of articles on my watchlist. You revert good-faith, proper (in terms of wikipedia policy) edits; you post very poorly-referenced information at times. Not all the time; I acknowledge your T-44 edits have been content-rich even if they mostly needed to be rewritten. I've told you that on your talk page.

So how's this: we agree I'll be more patient and you be more careful of your writing and sourcing, both of us in accordance with wiki policies that are quite well-documented? If you need a place to post drafts, you can post them on article talk pages, for example. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedits in SU-85 article are a good example that you not always "clean up" after me but after other people who had previously edited the article. All I done in that article (at least as of now) is moved parts of the existing text to newly created appropriate sections. Other than that I added about two sentences. So if I didn't edit that article you would probably never notice.

I know that I may not be perfect at using English but that's also why I am active on international forums (which use English language) and edit English Wikipedia, to use English so I can improve at it. My level of English allows me to make decent additions to Wikipedia. The reason why I sometimes remove and replace "good-faith, proper edits" in articles is because they are either incorrect or are repeating information that already is in the article. An edit can written by a professional writer but as long as it's incorrect it will be reverted or corrected.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright voliation

I'm modifying the text right now. Although I see that while you have time to look around for copyright violations you don't have time to modify the text so it doesn't violate any copyright laws. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL ! I didn't create the problem - you did. This is laughable. DMorpheus (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I still saw a lot of copyvio in the article, so I rolled it way back. Sorry if I stomped on any of your contributions. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 18:29 Z

I thought Wikipedia was a cooperative effort. It seems I was mistaken. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a highly cooperative effort at most times. But it is not unconditional. The rules are easy to find and follow. I see from your talk page that you have some improving to do regarding fair use, copyrights, and reliable sources. When you violate those rules repeatedly you may find other editors cooperate in trying to fix the problems that result. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I follow the rules. The text that I added to Wikipedia wasn't completely the same as the one on that website. But no matter because I rewrote that section and it was not thanks to you. You might now as well return to your usual copyedits. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Huge talk page You may want to consider archiving this page; it can be difficult to edit or even display in some browsers as it is. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)