| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 12:33 pm: | 
|
I appreciate Court's point that it is the looter & moocher ideologues not the metropolitan settings that deserve criticism.
He can have the super-models though. I prefer umbrella girls.  |
Reindog
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 01:24 pm: |
|
Yeah, New York City sucks. Go to Tale Section -> My Home Town -> New York New York
for a taste.
....But we digress  |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 09:50 pm: |
|
yes yes, the OP in that thread was all offended that a MC shop in the PNW was selling Confederate flags with the rest of their paraphenalia
Because the Civil was all about slavery! And the south lost!
never mind the issues of states rights, interstate commerce, over reaching federal authority, currency policies, railway travel/tranfer, industrialization in the north vs agrarian in the south,
He of course wanted to ignore that there were states in the north 'union' that were infact slave states, or that the emancipation proclamation (1863) was nt until 18 months AFTER the beginning of aggression, and that Lincoln in his inaugural speech specifically said that he was not against slavery, and would not challenge it in the states where it existed.....
and he brought wikipedia to the table as a 'source' he might as well been coloring with crayons. then he was all about well what is wrong with wikipedia .... (other than any idiot with a connection and a keyboard can post on it ) And the wiki cited a professor from harvard.... out of context....and completely off point.
I told him I didnt respect the prof from harvard and put more weight from the memoriors, text, speeches, and autobiographies from Lincoln, Lee, Jackson, Grant to any wiki, or HYP
(harvard, yale, princeton) sociologist.
...... I got a nasty note from the administrator that it was an 'attacking' post and 'threatening' in tone.....
wow. so remember, History is DANGEROUS
best not read it, you might be offended.
my last shot before being banned was
"I bet you think that the American Affordable Care Act HR3200, is about healthcare,... much less affordable" |
Seanp
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 11:39 pm: |
|
The southern states seceded because they felt that their way of life (i.e. slavery) was threatened by the newly-elected Abraham Lincoln. Their secession started the Civil War. Lincoln originally did not care one bit about slavery, and only fought the war to preserve the Union. Still, the war was started by the South, due to slavery. The North kept it going until September 1863 in order to preserve the Union, and after the Union victory (tactical stalemate, but operational victory) at Antietam, Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, making it a war about slavery for both the Union and Confederacy.
However, the Civil War's origin, (secession of the South) was all about slavery. There's no way to argue against that, especially when you examine the Official Records and look at each southern state's Articles of Secession. You can see the entire OR online at: http://digital.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.h tml |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 06:54 am: |
|
Actually the War of Northern Aggression was not 100% about slavery. It was also about industrialization, the Northern Mills and Factories wanting to keep a monopoly on heavy industry, and tariffs on Southern Cotton exports.
Lincoln did care about slavery before the war, but his solution was to give the negros their own separate homeland, and he knew he'd not be able to accomplish a change in the slavery issue easily. After the war began, he was reluctant to declare the slaves free, lest that make the South completely against ending the war.
History is not what's on Wikpedia. Wikipedia is not a reference source of truth. At all.
All you guys clamoring for guns and revolution at every turn the government makes. You need to check the election results.
What do election results have to do with illegal actions by the government violating your rights? Did GWB's election make all of his decisions or goals "not to be complained about"???? Are BHO's actions to get less scrutiny because he's of your party? Or more? ( I admit I'm more critical of the actions of the party that was for slavery, is still for disarming the former slaves and their kin, and has for over 100 years been the party of leftist/marxist goals. Not that I'm fond of the other party ) |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 09:15 am: |
|
"the Northern Mills and Factories wanting to keep a monopoly on heavy industry, and tariffs on Southern Cotton exports."
<rant>
This is what the Constitution refers to when it describes the role of the feds in regulating interstate commerce. It was never meant to be used to ban guns or make people buy health insurance.
</rant> |
Seanp
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:25 am: |
|
The Confederate States seceded because slavery was threatened. Every other complaint the Confederate States had was related in some way to slavery. Are those incorrect statements? Does that pair of statements seem logical to you? Then, logically, isn't the root cause of the Civil War, slavery?
And the only reason Lincoln cared about slavery was in how it affected his ability to preserve the Union. His letter to Horace Greeley (in Volume V, pages 388-389 of the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln) says "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Lincoln was framed as a "N****r Lover" in the Lincoln/Douglas debates back in 1858. This was still a few years before the Civil War broke out. Certainly Lincoln must have said some things prior to the Civil War about freeing the slaves.
It does seem to me that slavery was central to the Civil War, even if some of the issues deserve to be looked at with a broader scope. |
Seanp
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Indeed, Lincoln was against slavery, and in a March, 1837 protest drafted for the Illinois legislature he said that "the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy" (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, volume I, page 75) but it was still a secondary factor for wanting to fight the Civil War.
And yes, the issues are many and they are all tangled. But they all relate in some way, shape or form to slavery. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Are those incorrect statements?
Not completely. They are partially true. Part of the reason for succession was the rants in Northern papers by the "liberal" anti-slavery folk who wanted the practice ended immediately. A very large part, ( what percentage? read J. Davis, etc. for a contemporary view ) was the refusal to allow heavy industry in the South, so that the Northern factories could have a monopoly. A tariff was put on cotton exports, mirroring a situation to be found in the late 1930's with Japan, that also led to a war that cost hundreds of thousands in U.S. dead.
The South succeeded to maintain a life (style) free of interference by big D.C. government. The Irony is that the industrialization of the South would have ended slavery since slavery is only economical in high labor, low skilled economies. Like agriculture before John Deere.
Slavery was certainly a major factor in the succession, but less in the decision to go to war to "preserve the Union".
You want to refight the Civil war? You're not alone, but "the war was just about slavery" is wrong.
Full disclosure. I am NOT from a Southern State. I was born and raised in a state, then a territory, that slaves escaped to. Lots of them. It's now Nebraska. I have no skin in this game, except a desire for truth, NOT the propaganda that will be all that is available when the FCC finished "regulating" all media.
As a small subject change....
Anyone but me notice the massive lack of "reporting" on U.S. casualties in Afghanistan compared to the "Bush Years"????
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/201 0-06-30-afghan-deaths_N.htm
http://icasualties.org/
Will either of these web pages be accessible, or even exist next year? |
Crackhead
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves that where in states that belonged to the Confederate States of America, CSA unless they returned to the union by January 1, 1863. Basically return to the Union and keep your slaves or you don't get to keep your slaves.
It was also not a law passed by congress but a war time proclamation. Since it was only a war time proclamation by the CinC, there was concern that it would not been valid when the war was over. Since you can't put the Geni back in the bottle, during a Lame Duck session congress passed the 13th amendment in 1865. Freeing the "Northern" slaves almost 3 years after the south slaves. |
Seanp
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 01:07 pm: |
|
I don't want to re-fight the war, but I do want to fight incorrect notions, many of them still held by "Lost Cause" historians, that the South was fighting for something other than the continuance of slavery. Sure, it was about states' rights - to continue slavery. Or it was about economic factors - and how they related to slavery. Regardless, it all revolves around slavery.
And my support comes from primary sources - not Wikipedia or other secondary sources, or anything that's been propagandized or "regulated". |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 02:14 pm: |
|
it seems that your insistence on relating all things Civil War to slavery is akin to the "all wars are about oil" theme in common use these last few decades.
Oversimplify a subject so much and you miss the picture. it's like the tale of the blind men & the elephant. If all you see is the tail, it s big hairy snake.
I don't disagree with you completely. In it's broadest sweep the "War of Northern Aggression" was always about slavery. Almost all war is about theft. Not long ago the thief was a King who wanted his neighbors stuff. Still is, when you look at the Russian empire seeing the Eurozone as potential subjects.
There are also ideological wars, like the Great Jihad, marxist totalitarian, etc. looking to dominate control over the lands. It's still theft at it's core.
The American Civil War combined both ideology, greed, and the power of industrial age tools to wage war. A Nasty business..
Also remember that the winners write the history books. The Soviets didn't teach the wonders of the Czars, etc. The grievances of Japan pre-WW2, the picked on Hittites, the Persians vs. Steppe invasions, well, the loser's side is often forgotten. ( darn hittites ) |
Seanp
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 02:31 pm: |
|
First of all, who fired the first shots in the Civil War? That whole "War of Northern Aggression" thing is ridiculous.
Second of all, the winners write the history books indeed, but it was the legislatures of the various Confederate States who wrote their articles of secession, almost all of which mention slavery as a reason for going to war. Unless some Northern abolitionist went and changed them all afterward... |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 03:21 pm: |
|
That must be it. Darn Northern Abolitionists!
To be clear, is it Northern Abolitionists that want to control the Internet? |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 12:52 am: |
|
yes, slavery was a contributing factor, it was not the sole reason for the war; and the article from wiki was inaccurate on several points.
There was the practice that all rail products headed north had to stop trade gauge to get to the north. (because the rail width was a different width in the south) So the cars were off loaded and reloaded to 'northern' carts, at which point the south would charge labor to do it, a tariff, for the excise transport, and a tax for the sale of the goods.... essentially a their tier VAT on any southern raw material headed north.
Nor were they fond that their currency was not universally accepted in the south and had to convert to the southern currency at an exchange rate to conduct business..... how long before that gets old ?
funny how they want to put in a VAT, force 'commerce' across state lines, and impose Federal mandates at punitive levels from teh capital, add the immigration issue and I say we are ripe for a another.
Guns, guns, guns. yes I have them, yes I know how to use them, I target shoot frequently. The pump is for close support, if you see it, it means I missed you with the 308, failing the slug from the 12 gauge, the 45 (non revolver, non hammer) will do fine, and as a last resort, I would like to thank the boys at Quantico for teaching me the finer points of the K-bar.
how many will it take to over run?... dont know, but I know how much ammo I got 
as far as a revolution goes, we are indeed, one molotov cocktail away from it.
Go look to the start of Ft Sumpter, WW1, Hungary, Poland, ( and if you up scale the target size Korea, Vietnam)
hell people come to blows over tickle me elmo dolls. |
Seanp
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 10:06 am: |
|
The biggest question is whether there are enough hungry, motivated people to actually start anything, or if they're so far outnumbered by the sheeple that there wouldn't be enough momentum to make radical change. I'd bet that if it comes right down to it, a huge majority of Americans would not risk their comfortable lives right now.
When I teach the Civil War and the American Revolution to my cadets, I always take some time to ask them the ramifications of being an officer in the Army at that time. I can't even imagine being a United States Army officer in December 1860, knowing that a war is coming, and it is going to pit you against some of your best friends. Not only that, but thinking about having to make the decision of what to do with your platoon/company/battalion when faced with an insurrection. Do you fight against the people, knowing that they're probably on the side of justice? Or do you turn with the people, against your government?
We take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If those enemies are domestic, and if you think the government is veering away from supporting the Constitution, what are your responsibilities as an officer? Do you obey your orders, or do you support the Constitution?
I pray I'm never put into a situation where I have to make that decision. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 10:25 am: |
|
"If those enemies are domestic, and if you think the government is veering away from supporting the Constitution, what are your responsibilities as an officer? Do you obey your orders, or do you support the Constitution?"
You'd best figure that out, because we're already there.
"Are you serious? Are you serious?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc
"I don't care about the constitution"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8 |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 12:46 pm: |
|
I read the bill 5-6 hours a day, for a full month. 2600 pages, 1800 pages of ammendments, redactions, appendencies
(I have had my insurance licenses for 15 years, I am getting my Masters in Healthcare Management and Finance, I have worked or consulted for 18 different healthcare companies for billing/claims/eligibility/enrollment and security) This thing is a mess, there is no new 'care' to it. It is geremandered administrative smoke and mirrors.
It is not insurance, it is the expansion of eligilibility of Medicaid (which doctors are already not accepting because of the low reimbursement rates, heavy paper buracracy, state compliance oversite requirements)
it is however the frame work for the IRS to have full acccess to your assets, home, finances, and medical records.
All of your records will now be electronic, one data base, there is no delinated exclusion from that information being shared with any other agency .....and why does the IRS need to know your TX, DX, RX (they dont)
And the commissioned corps in time of emergency...directly appointed by the president, with responsibility to THE PRESIDENT.....(they saw this in WTO, the Governor would not give the call out to the national gaurd units there were pre staged with live rounds, for the purpose of crowd control; so now the governors authority will be circumvented. Its a 'disaster' response or in response to civil unrest called Resilence. There have been 3 mock drills in Seattle about it...the last one with 'simunition'
Who do I trust? Well the crew that organized a fighting force in a tavern 235 years ago; and not too many else
Semper Fi |
|
