Posted on 02/08/2018 12:25:05 PM PST by GoldenState_Rose
Your post 21 was excellent.
Bookmark
I was in Hawaii last October and visited the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor for the first time. I was a little surprised to see the place full of Japanese tourists, mostly honeymooners. They were all very solemn and respectful as they walked through the large exhibit rooms.
Anyway, as you know if you have visited the Memorial, there is a short video you watch before you take the skiff out to the Memorial itself. The video thoroughly narrated and showed footage of the events that led up to the Japanese attack, the attack itself, and the aftermath, including an enumeration of casualties. After the lights came back on, I saw several young Japanese women with tears streaming from their eyes and visibly sobbing over what they had just seen.
Causes of theAmerican Civil WarWar Between the StatesWar of Northern Aggression?
And completely in accordance with the laws of the United States and the US Constitution. Accepted by Washington DC and the New York power brokers so long as they were making money from it too.
If you are going to bitch about the South, you need to pick something that would have been different had they remained in the Union. So long as the South stayed part of the United States, those 3 million slaves were kept in Slavery by United States law.
So picking slavery to bitch about is just a form of lying about the real reason for the conflict. Lincoln was promising them all the slavery they could hope to have so long as they just kept following Washington DC law that required them to funnel all their money through New York.
The Southern Slave holding landed aristocracy own as much responsibility for Civil War as your one trick pony show of Lincoln/New York banker cabal planning and planning for a Civil War.
Not really. They did nothing different from what they had always done before they consented to be part of the Union. Had they merely refrained from joining the Union in 1776, they would have had exactly what they wanted by seceding.
What changed was this idea that the landed aristocracy of the South would be required by law to keep their profits flowing through New York.
You are offering a dishonest argument about what happened. Slavery was legal under US law, yet you don't bitch about the legality of it as part of the United States. You only bitch about the immorality of it while it was ruled by the Confederacy. It was the same thing under the United States as it was under the Confederacy. No change.
You don't bitch about the Union slave states in which slavery lasted six months longer than it did in the Confederacy. Isn't that hypocritical to continue practicing slavery after it was abolished in the South?
“So long as the South stayed part of the United States, those 3 million slaves were kept in Slavery by United States law.” Wrong, The United States Constitution did not require slavery. States had the right to determine whether slavery was legal in that state or not. three million slaves existed in the United States because the individual states chose to make the practice legal.
“It was the same thing under the United States as it was under the Confederacy. No change.” Not so, slavery was allowed to exist under the United States Constitution. It was mandated by the Confederate Constitution. A state of the Union could outlaw slavery in that state, if it so chose. Several Northern States did so. That could not be done in the Confederacy.
“the South would be required by law to keep their profits flowing through New York” Cite the Federal law that required Southern states to send their profits through New York City.
Not hypocritical in the least. That is what the Constitution required. The only way to outlaw slavery in the United States was to amend the Constitution.
It didn't require it, but it did protect it.
Article IV, section 2.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Protecting slavery is written into the very constitution, so you will pardon me if I don't get worked up about a Nation that specifically protected slavery in it's constitution accusing others of doing what that Nation itself had protected in it's Constitution.
States had the right to determine whether slavery was legal in that state or not.
I think that is incorrect. How does a state repeal Article IV, Section 2? It requires slaves to be returned to their masters, and it doesn't say "unless the legislature declares otherwise." So long as article IV remained a part of the constitution, I can see no legal manner in which a state could stop slavery in their state.
Yes, I know they said they could, and I know they thought they did, but what they said and did required people to ignore the requirements set out in Article IV, in the manner of "sanctuary cities", or "Legalized Weed" is being "legalized" in the US today. They were deliberately breaking that Article IV requirement, and pretending like they had the right to do so.
That is why they got so upset about Dred Scott v Sandford. It ripped off the illusion that they could legally do what they were doing.
A state of the Union could outlaw slavery in that state, if it so chose.
Only by ignoring actual constitutional law. They couldn't do it except by reneging on the Agreement ratified in 1787. In effect, they left the Union before the Confederacy did it. The "Union" required those states to respect the rights of slave owners to own slaves, and they simply didn't want to belong to that "Union" any longer.
Cite the Federal law that required Southern states to send their profits through New York City.
There is more than one, but one of the primary ones that kept the money flowing to New York was the "Navigation act of 1817." It made it virtually impossible to ship goods from Southern ports except by using New York controlled shipping, which coincidentally was also subsidized by the government through government contracts, such as Mail transport and the like.
Not hypocritical in the least. That is what the Constitution required. The only way to outlaw slavery in the United States was to amend the Constitution.
Exactly what I've been saying, and I am correctly applying it to the Northern states who ignored constitutional law in banning slavery in their state. Even George Washington himself kept slaves in Pennsylvania long after they banned slavery in that state. He didn't make a fuss about it, but he did in fact run slave plantations in that state after it had voted to abolish slavery.
Was the state going to seize his slaves and kick him out of the State? What could the state of Pennsylvania have done to stop him? It was his land, and the Constitution required that his slaves always be returned to him if they escaped.
There is nothing they could have legally done to stop him if he had chosen to be difficult about it.
With this in mind, it is well to remember that our war with Japan ended more than two generations ago. For at least two generations (sixty years), Japan has been one of our most reliable allies. We are not anointed to be their moral compass--nor is it reasonable to desire to be.
One other point--and if you are aware of something that I am not, I am willing to be corrected. But this statement seems in error:
He didn't make a fuss about it, but he did in fact run slave plantations in that state after it had voted to abolish slavery.
George Washington did not take his household servants to Pennsylvania to operate a "plantation," but as he explained to Madison--I believe--to fund his own Presidential residency (before the White House was even constructed for his successors). He was not undermining anything in Pennsylvania. He was reducing the public expense, by funding his own Presidential household.
Your comment, potentially, could lead to a very misleading conclusion.
I am not of Southern Heritage. My family arrived here in the 1900s, but I understand the attitudes of those people who do have roots in that land over which the Civil War was fought. I think they got a raw deal, and I think the people who defeated them have ideological and actual descendents that are still exerting an undue influence on national policy today. The US is effectively run by five cities; New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC. The rest of us are just "flyover country."
One other point--and if you are aware of something that I am not, I am willing to be corrected. But this statement seems in error:
It is something I have been told in discussing the issue, but something I have not personally verified. I have verified that George Washington kept slaves in Pennsylvania, and that he would rotate them out to his plantations elsewhere every so many months to avoid triggering a conflict with the Pennsylvania authorities over the issue. That he was using them to run his household instead of farming for profit is something of which I had previously been unaware.
I will correct that misunderstanding in future commentary on the topic. Thanks for informing me about this.
Even so, Washington had slaves in Pennsylvania after they had been banned.
Incidentally, while I am not prepared to accept your New York machination theory, it is not at all in great variance from a popularly held theory among the Virginia gentry in the 1830s. See the following novel fragment from 1836, which predicted the coming division:
It is also evidence that the relations between the races were not seen at all like the present historical revisionists have mischievously projected.
To further understand 18th Century labor law, one needs to take into account those voluntarily indentured for a 15 year period. (While that is certainly not equivalent to a lifetime indenture, it is part of a very complex dynamic, before the modern wage & salary system came to totally prevail.)
It is a theory, but it has quite a bit of evidence to support it. It could be that all these things are merely coincidental or a consequence of circumstances, but they always seem to break in the same direction; Towards the accumulation of more power to those people who regard themselves as "aristocrats".
I also have to add it is not just my theory. I've found quite a few other people have arrived at similar thinking about who actually runs the country.
This man writes lots of articles where he presents New York controlling the rest of us as a given.
And here is an article for Bull Snipe.
I've seen other people who seem to believe that New York and the North East, has far greater influence on Washington Policy than does the rest of the nation.
I didn't use to believe this stuff either, but the more I look at it, the more compelling the theory becomes.
Let me go to the point. Greedy financiers do not create the egalitarian humanist neurosis, which since 18th Century Bourbon France, has been the vehicle that creates the social climate, that has made a sociopathic war on nature in the West possible.
The college I attended, Oberlin, was deeply into the form of American Jacobinism, which spawned Abolitionism, Feminism & Prohibition (the anti-Saloon League was even formed in the Oberlin College Library in the 1890s. At the time of John Brown's 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry, there was wide spread suspicion that Oberlin had played a supporting role. The College was founded in 1833 by Abolitionist fanatics, kicked out of a Seminary in Cincinnati.
The point is that what has fueled the actual manifestations of the disease are neurotic impulses which fuel Leftist agitations today, are promoted by people with a compulsion for uniformity. The very wealthy with personal ambitions may seek to exploit the lunacy involved--to be sure. That exploitation is only made possible, because too few on our side, really understand the absurdity of what pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-idealistic enthusiasts have promoted as a background of contemporary debate over now well over two centuries.
Considering what happened to the Royal Duke who, in peasant garb led the march on the Bastille, it has always been a dangerous game, to get on that insane bandwagon.
I will touch on one of your points though. An oddity of socialist movements is that they often emerge from established wealth. I look forward to discussing this with you further next Monday.
Not just often. Almost invariably! Poor people may often be used as pawns, but Revolutions generally flow from purposeless leisure--often motivated by hatred of one's father, or one's social class, in general. (There is also, of course the seeding of "guilt feelings" in the susceptible, by the true haters.
Frankly, I have taken the phenomenon as a virtual given, in looking at the causal dynamics of sociopathic movements. (This does not mean that those who sometimes end up fronting revolutionary movements are always of the leisure classes.)
Puritanism in another form.
That exploitation is only made possible, because too few on our side, really understand the absurdity of what pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-idealistic enthusiasts have promoted as a background of contemporary debate over now well over two centuries.
I have long observed one of Orwell's maxims in practice.
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
Orwell embraced socialism for awhile, and then he became one of the strongest lights shining on what was wrong with it. Yes, much of this nonsense comes from abstract theory by people who fancy themselves as intellectual superiors to the hoi polloi. They see it as means of attaining/maintaining social status among their peers.
Considering what happened to the Royal Duke who, in peasant garb led the march on the Bastille, it has always been a dangerous game, to get on that insane bandwagon.
I sometimes wonder if nature decided to make man his his own predator as a sort of grotesque joke. :)
I think Instapundit is fond of using the term "Oikophobia." I believe he has described it as the hatred of the familiar; A repugnance of one's own society, or background, or family.
I have long heard about Jews that hate their own kind, and I have seen plenty of prominent "Whites" that hate their own kind, (Bill Ayers for example) and I have to think that there is some psychosis involved in these people developing this way.
I think everyone searches for their purpose in life, and some people just go down a dark path. I suspect a lot of modern Liberal angst flows indirectly from the Civil War, and the positions they embraced to justify it to themselves and their peers.
Add to this the need to stand out in terms of moral superiority (ala Puritanism) and over time people will embrace some seriously nutty and self destructive ideas about themselves and their society.
Frankly, I have taken the phenomenon as a virtual given, in looking at the causal dynamics of sociopathic movements.
I do too. A look at the voting map will show you the Wealthiest regions are very blue.
(This does not mean that those who sometimes end up fronting revolutionary movements are always of the leisure classes.)
For every poor Stalin, there are probably a dozen rich Engels.
Every time the topic comes up, I note that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted in his wonderful book "Leftism Revisited" that virtually every socialist movement in history was funded and supported by the wives and children of the Wealthy.
If you are familiar with the concept of Fractals, I think you can see what I mean when I say mankind is apparently designed to be his own predator, including in the manner of this bizarre form of suicide in which he sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
I have long viewed the ultimate defining battle for the American future as one between Massachusetts & Virginia. Here is a link to the Forward & early Chapters of a novel, which I wrote in the early 1980s, where the Forward discusses the dichotomy. (Be warned that once you get past the Forward, it is sexually explicit, as it deals in part with very fundamental personality factors, as integral to the plot. But the Forward should not offend.)
Note it is actually--though written earlier--a prequel to Return of the Gods, my Kipling themed novel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.