Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against

thenationalsentinel.com ^ | July 29, 2019 | J. D. Heyes

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln urged passage of the Corwin Amendment, which actually did pass both houses of Congress and was ratified by 3 or 4 Northern states.
So tell me again what slavery has to do with it?
Seems like both sides were in agreement that slavery would continue as it had always been.
Seems like you have to twist a bunch of the truth to even make slavery the issue in the Civil War."

As Bull Snipe points out, the seven already-seceded states showed no interest in Corwin for the entirely understandable reason that they already had much stronger protections for slavery in their new Confederate constitution.

So slavery was absolutely the issue and the Deep South went with those who gave them the best possible protections for it -- Confederates.

DiogenesLamp: "Well certainly John Brown's raid was about Slavery, because he was a dangerous lunatic..."

So once again a Lost Causer confesses it was, indeed, "all about slavery".

But don't worry, your secret's safe with me, I won't tell the Lost Cause Mother Church that you've lapsed into historical heresy.

;-)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Let's see.

1. "Race obsessed? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats.

2. "Liberal? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, meaning opposed to Constitutional originalism

3. "Big City? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, see 1860 election returns by county.

4. "Corruption? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, see Davis & Gadsden Purchase.

5. "Having the most support in the areas which are still today bastions of Liberal Democrat power? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- compare 1860 to 2016 election by county.

6. "Tax and Spend? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, doubled spending & national debt in 1850s.

7. "Loved Big government projects? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, see Davis & Gadsden Purchase.

8. "Protectionist? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- especially for their own products like sugar, tobacco & cotton.

9. "Advocates of "Change"? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, especially change which advanced slavery.

10. "Backed by big money in the big cities? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- New York and Deep South were joined at the hip economically, politically, socially.

11. "Supported by the International "globalist" types? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- Southern planters were the original globalists.

12. "Grew government power? Check. " = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- especially power to protect slavery, see Dred Scott.

13. "Victim hood politics like Modern Liberal Democrats? Check. " = 1860 & 2019 Democrats, especially "victims" of John Brown!

14. "Handing out government goodies in trades for votes? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- that is their founding principle.

15. "Cracking down on Freedom of Speech? Check." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats -- remember the original "gag rule" in Congress?

16. "And countless other similarities to Modern Democrats." = 1860 & 2019 Democrats.

[DiogenesLamp]

See? I don’t even understand the stuff you write. Waste of my time.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Those 5 wealthy men in Massachusetts (little different from modern liberal billionaires financing Antifa and other dangerous groups) who financed Brown were still out there, and presumably still intent on provoking a slave revolt in the South.

Incidentally, lest someone get to thinking that these men had some moral issue compelling them to finance these dangerous terrorists, I will now inform you they were all Wool merchants and associates, and Cotton was their number one competitor.
Had they wrecked slavery in the South, they would have all seen immense increases in profits due to the unavailability of cotton, which would therefore create the necessity for alternatives."

None of John Brown's "secret six" was a "wool merchant" or associate.

1. Gerrit Smith, New York, former Congressman, inherited wealth from John J Astor estate, post-war bailed out Jefferson Davis.

2. George Luther Stearns, Massachusetts, wealthy manufacturer of sheet metal & pipe.

3. Samuel Gridley Howe, Massachusetts, doctor.

4. Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts, Unitarian minister.

5. Theodore Parker, Massachusetts, Unitarian minister.

6. Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, Massachusetts, teacher.

Nowhere did any of these men, or their associates, leave records saying they wished to abolish slavery in order to advance the interests of wool producers.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I noticed you did not respond after I posted to you the text of that telegram informing Beauregard that there was no need to attack the fort if Anderson would merely state the time at which he would evacuate it.
I take the fact that you did not respond as an acknowledgement that what you first said was incorrect..."

Nonsense, please note again my post #200 which should fully address any issues you raise here.

The choice for war belonged to Jefferson Davis and, yes...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Your map doesn't go far enough.
The Confederacy would have eventually acquired all the territories and many of the Northern states as well."

So much for any possible suggestion that "the South just wanted to be left alone."

DiogenesLamp: "The economics would have made this happen. "

And when that didn't work, the Confederate army would make it certain.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "See? I don’t even understand the stuff you write. Waste of my time."

Of course, because you've never studied even one word or real history, all you "know" is Lost Cause Kool-Aid and whenever you're confronted with actual facts, all you can do is run & hide.

Typical Democrat.

[jeffersondem]

“Of course we know why Lincoln went to war, it can be summarized in two words: Fort Sumter.”

Then this: “The truth of the matter should be clear to anybody who really cares about truth: slavery was important in the beginning, during the middle and at the end of the Civil War, but it was not the only important issue.”

And so, critic answers critic.

[rockrr]

Judging from his posts degeneratelamp feeeeeels that there were only two interests, north/south existing (somehow) in their respective vacuums and impervious to any other consideration, event, or influence.

No wonder he has so much difficulty with reality!

[DiogenesLamp]

Not what I read, but I really don't care to go look up what I read. You wouldn't care what the answer was, and would simply repeat what you want the answer to be.

I also notice you didn't mention anything about John Brown himself being a wool merchant, now did ya?

Why did you leave out John Brown?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "And so, critic answers critic."

Nothing to answer, both statements are true.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Not what I read, but I really don't care to go look up what I read.
You wouldn't care what the answer was, and would simply repeat what you want the answer to be. "

Nonsense, here again you simply project your own failings onto me.
But let's see if I can help you understand the reality.
Your claim that John Brown's "secret six" were all wool merchants & associates can indeed be true, if and only if, by "associates" you refer to the following fact:

Statistically it turns out that every human being on the face of the Earth is connected to every other human being through six degrees of separation or less!
For example, even though protected by anonymity here, statistically you and I are still connected, aka "associated" by fewer than six degrees of separation.

So there is no doubt that John Brown's "secret six" were connected, aka "associated" with wool merchants by fewer than six degrees of separation.

However, it turns out that none of John Brown's "secret six" were themselves wool merchants nor did any work directly for wool merchants.

John Brown himself was indeed a wool merchant, until 1848 -- 11 years before his raid on Harper's Ferry.

A further point to remember is that wool and cotton do not directly compete.
Cotton is more popular in warm weather, wool in colder climates.
Today you can buy blends of cotton & wool -- i.e., Viyella (55%-45%) or Clydella (81%-19%).
These demonstrate that the two materials don't so much compete as compliment each other.

There is no evidence (outside Marxist dialectical theory) suggesting John Brown opposed slavery to increase prices for wool.
In fact, Brown operated a station on the Underground Railroad, in Western Pennsylvania, 10 years before he got into the wool business.

[x]

More BS from DL:

All of these men were hailed as "Geniuses", and yet they presided over some of the very worst mistakes in American history.

Fool. Nobody proclaimed Lincoln a "genius" in 1860. His opponents thought of him as an uncouth backwoodsman or a small-time lawyer. Those who voted for him had to believe he was competent, but nobody claimed he was a "genius" intellectually far ahead of Douglas or Breckenridge or Buchanan. They just hoped he'd be up to the job. If people do find Lincoln particularly intelligent and eloquent now, it's perhaps because his contemporaries didn't have high expectations of him and therefore weren't disappointed. Rather, they were surprised by his capabilities.

As for the others, people want to believe the presidents they vote for know what they are doing and aren't incompetents. Democrats often look to their presidents as saviors, and as the party has grown more oriented towards college campuses and people with advanced degrees, some Democrats tend to see their presidents as geniuses. But just how many people feel that and how strongly and for how long and just how serious or significant such feelings are is harder to say.

People who thought Jimmy Carter knew what he was doing didn't think that way for long. And however smart some true believers thought Bill Clinton was, the more common impression was of slickness and cleverness, not raw intellect. In any case, such hype about candidate's intellectual powers has nothing to do with Lincoln, who certainly wasn't "hailed as a genius" by his contemporaries.

[x]

Protectionist? Check.

Uh ... who was more protectionist in 2016?

Did you sleep through the last four years?

Advocates of "Change"? Check.

Who was advocating change in 1861?

Compared to the secessionists, Lincoln was a status quo candidate.

Big City? Check.

...

Backed by big money in the big cities? Check.

Repetitious? Check.

Untrue? Check.

Douglas carried New York and San Francisco. He would have carried more large cities, as Buchanan had, if the Democrats had remained united. It became a point of pride in the free states to vote for the Republican, so Lincoln did better in Northern cities than Fremont did, but nobody could seriously maintain that the Republicans were the candidate of the big cities. They got their largest pluralities in Northern rural counties. The South had cities too and Lincoln won no votes there.

And who did the "Big Money" back? It's hard to say. Merchants and shippers in cities like New York and Baltimore stayed with the Democrats. Protectionism swung Philadelphia to the Republicans, narrowly. But objective observers in 1860 wouldn't have seen Lincoln as the candidate of "Big Money, though he did appeal to some who wanted to become rich and eventually did.

Supported by the International "globalist" types? Check.

Who did the "International 'globalist" types" in London and Paris like? The Democrats and secessionists. Free trade. The elimination of a powerful trade rival.

Victim hood politics like Modern Liberal Democrats? Check.

Idiot. Look at how slaveholders talked about themselves and the crimes and injustices committed against them by the free states. It was one long complaint for the slaveholders. The poor South. The poor South. Slaveowners just can't get a break in the USA.

Grew government power? Check.

...

Cracking down on Freedom of Speech? Check.

Seriously, you need to review the policies of Jefferson Davis.

[DiogenesLamp]

Fool. Nobody proclaimed Lincoln a "genius" in 1860. His opponents thought of him as an uncouth backwoodsman or a small-time lawyer. Those who voted for him had to believe he was competent, but nobody claimed he was a "genius" intellectually far ahead of Douglas or Breckenridge or Buchanan. They just hoped he'd be up to the job. If people do find Lincoln particularly intelligent and eloquent now, it's perhaps because his contemporaries didn't have high expectations of him and therefore weren't disappointed. Rather, they were surprised by his capabilities.

Lincoln was clearly a genius. I don't know why you even oppose this accusation against him. I've read quite a lot of his writings, and he is brilliant intellectually.

My point still stands, and it encompasses many more people than just Lincoln. Robert McNamara was considered a "Wunderkind", and he made the worst hash mess of Vietnam that it was possible to make.

History is littered with examples of people who were considered brilliant doing stupid things that no one of average intelligence would have ever considered or attempted.

There is a phrase the British use. "Too clever by half."

[DiogenesLamp]

John Brown himself was indeed a wool merchant, until 1848 -- 11 years before his raid on Harper's Ferry.

Yeah, he went bankrupt twice. Apparently he figured that being the Antifa lacky for Wealthy interests in the North East was more profitable. His efforts to organize the Massachusetts wool merchants just never went anywhere.

And yes, cotton and wool do directly compete. The vast majority of people wanted cotton, because it was cooler and less irritating than wool. If cotton wasn't available, the usage of wool would have increased dramatically, because back in those days, they didn't have very much to chose from.

[DiogenesLamp]

Uh ... who was more protectionist in 2016?

Regional protectionist or national protectionist? Because the two are not the same thing at all.

Who was advocating change in 1861?

The Republicans. And to make it clear, we are referring here to "Social Change." Otherwise known as "Societal Change."

Compared to the secessionists, Lincoln was a status quo candidate.

Race Obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois was the "status quo" candidate? And you didn't notice any subsequent upheaval during his presidency? He was just a caretaker government between Buchanan and Grant?

Biggest upheaval in the Nation's history. Seriously, no other person in US history created so much turmoil in an existing society, and we are still dealing with the shockwaves of what he did.

But objective observers in 1860 wouldn't have seen Lincoln as the candidate of "Big Money, though he did appeal to some who wanted to become rich and eventually did.

Corporate Railroad lawyer had no wealthy Plutocrats backing him? When again did that great rail road land giveaway program occur?

Who did the "International 'globalist" types" in London and Paris like? The Democrats and secessionists. Free trade. The elimination of a powerful trade rival.

Who opposed the Confederates? The people who were at that time controlling the national trade and funneling it through their own pockets, and from the exact same geographical part of the nation from which our own modern domestic globalists emerge.

The North East controlled US global trade back then, and the North East still mostly controls it today.

Idiot. Look at how slaveholders talked about themselves and the crimes and injustices committed against them by the free states. It was one long complaint for the slaveholders. The poor South. The poor South. Slaveowners just can't get a break in the USA.

Were their complaints unfounded? Were all the Northern states innocent of doing anything wrong to them at the time?

My recollection is that the Northern states were not only ignoring blatant illegalities, they were doing the same "Sanctuary City" stuff that Californian and Other modern cities are doing today with illegal aliens.

They wanted the law to not apply to them, and they had no problems abetting the breaking of Federal law.

Nowadays, if Liberals don't like a law, they just break it or ignore it, because they know they don't have the votes to change it.

They want their personal feelings to count for more than a democratically enacted set of laws, and that is still the case today.

[jeffersondem]

“However, there are just as many quotes from both Union & Confederate sources saying it was, indeed, “all about slavery””

For the purpose of this post let’s stipulate that it was, indeed, “all about slavery.”

Lincoln said it in his controversial Gettysburg speech: “. . . that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . .”

Lincoln makes the claim that from the beginning, the federal soldiers that died under this command were “fighting to free the slaves” - that new birth of freedom.

But slavery was enshrined into the United States Constitution by the original 13 slave states - and Lincoln did not have the votes to legally and peacefully adopt an amendment to abolish slavery.

Some in the South predicted that, if elected, Lincoln would take up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution and to make war on the states. Maybe he did.

[rockrr]

Weaksauce. Try again.

[Bull Snipe]

Gotta love it when a plan comes together.