Posted on 04/14/2018 8:13:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
I refer, of course, to the Bay of Pigs freedom-fight, 57 years ago this week. Given that Hollywood and the mainstream media have finally gotten around to revealing the hideous truth about a Kennedy’s perfidy and how the media/Democrat complex helped cover it up (Teddy, Chappaquiddick)—who knows? Perhaps one day they’ll level with us about what REALLY happened at the Bay of Pigs?
``I really admire toughness and courage, and I will tell you that the people of this brigade (Brigada 2506) really have that…you were let down by our country.'' (Donald Trump, addressing Bay of Pigs Veterans at Bay of Pigs museum Miami Fl, 11/16, 1999.)
“It’s a great honor and I’m humbled for this endorsement from these freedom fighters—from TRUE freedom fighters… You were fighting for the values of freedom and liberty that unite us all. (Candidate Donald Trump, receiving endorsement of Bay of Pigs Veterans at Bay of Pigs museum Miami Fl, 11/16, 2016.)
But let’s not hold our breath about the Hollywood/Media complex finally coming clean about the Bay of Pigs as it just did about Chappaquiddick. So until that day arrives, here it is:
No, the invasion was not “doomed” from the beginning because of Castro’s “popular support” in Cuba—as the Media/Democrat complex would have you believe.
No, the invasion was not “doomed” because the original CIA/Military plans were “faulty”—as the Media/Democrat complex would have you believe.
No, the “formerly rich, pampered and effete” Cuban invaders did not “quickly surrender,” as the Media/Democrat complex would have you believe.
In fact, it was the voluntary actions of a Kennedy that lead to doom, same as at Chappaquiddick.
"WHAT?! Are they NUTS?!” bellowed Brigade Air Force chief Reid Doster form Guatemala when he learned that Kennedy had canceled most of the vital airstrikes to destroy Castro’s small air force before the invasion. “There goes the whole f***ing war!"
“Where are the planes?” kept crackling over U.S. Navy radios two days later. “Where is our ammo? Send planes or we can’t last!” Brigade Commander Jose San Roman kept pleading to the very fleet U.S. that escorted his men to the beachhead. Crazed by hunger and thirst, his men had been shooting and reloading without sleep for three days. Many were hallucinating. By then many suspected they’d been abandoned by the Knights of Camelot.
That’s when Castro’s Soviet Howitzers opened up, huge 122 mm ones, four batteries’ worth. They pounded 2,000 rounds into the freedom-fighters over a four-hour period. “It sounded like the end of the world,” one said later. “Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps broke and ran under a similar bombardment,” wrote Haynes Johnson in his book, the Bay of Pigs. By that time the invaders were dazed, delirious with fatigue, thirst and hunger, too deafened by the bombardment to even hear orders. But these men (representing every race and social class in Cuba) were in no mood to emulate Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps by retreating. Instead they were fortified by a resolve no conquering troops could ever call upon–the burning duty to free their nation.
"If things get rough," the heartsick CIA man Grayston Lynch radioed back, "we can come in and evacuate you."
"We will NOT be evacuated!" San Roman roared back to his friend Lynch. "We came here to fight! We don't want evacuation! We want more ammo! We want PLANES! This ends here!"
Camelot’s criminal idiocy finally brought Adm. Arleigh Burke of the Joints Chief of Staff, who was receiving the battlefield pleas, to the brink of mutiny. Years before, Adm. Burke sailed thousands of miles to smash his nation's enemies at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Now he was Chief of Naval Operations and stood aghast as new enemies were being given a sanctuary 90 miles away! The fighting admiral was livid. They say his face was beet red and his facial veins popping as he faced down his commander-in-chief that fateful night of April 18, 1961. "Mr. President, TWO planes from the Essex! (the U.S. Carrier just offshore from the beachhead)" that's all those Cuban boys need, Mr. President. Let me order...!"
JFK was in white tails and a bow tie that evening, having just emerged from an elegant social gathering. "Burke," he replied. "We can't get involved in this."
"WE put those Cuban boys there, Mr. President!" The fighting admiral exploded. "By God, we ARE involved!"
Admiral Burke’s pleas also proved futile.
The freedom-fighters’ spent ammo inevitably forced a retreat. Castro's jets and Sea Furies were roaming overhead at will and tens of thousands of his Soviet-led and armed troops and armor were closing in. The Castro planes now concentrated on strafing the helpless, ammo-less freedom-fighters.
"Can't continue,” Lynch's radio crackled - it was San Roman again. "Have nothing left to fight with ...out of ammo...Russian tanks in view....destroying my equipment.”
"Tears flooded my eyes," wrote Grayston Lynch. "For the first time in my 37 years I was ashamed of my country."
When the smoke cleared and their ammo had been expended to the very last bullet, when a hundred of them lay dead and hundreds more wounded, after three days of relentless battle, barely 1,400 of them -- without air support (from the U.S. Carriers just offshore) and without a single supporting shot by naval artillery (from U.S. cruisers and destroyers poised just offshore) -- had squared off against 21,000 Castro troops, his entire air force and squadrons of Soviet tanks. The Cuban freedom-fighters inflicted over 3000 casualties on their Soviet-armed and led enemies. This feat of arms still amazes professional military men.
“They fought magnificently and were not defeated,” stressed Marine Col. Jack Hawkins a multi-decorated WWII and Korea vet who helped train them. “They were abandoned on the beach without the supplies and support promised by their sponsor, the Government of the United States.”
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty!" proclaimed Lynch and Hawkin’s Commander-in-Chief just three months earlier.
bookmark
More sloppy thinking by Diogenes. Lincoln played a major role in the abolition amendment, but no, he didn't do it all by himself. He did fight for that amendment, and it's not likely he would have fought very hard for the Corwin Amendment. Notice what Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Not exactly fighting words, or an indication that Lincoln really believed in and would fight for such an amendment.
That makes no sense in light of Lincoln's efforts to protect slavery by amending the constitution. Even if you are correct that 3/4ths of the states wouldn't ratify it, it still speaks to Lincolns' intent.
The Corwin Amendment was something Lincoln gave half-hearted support to in order to stop or turn back the secessionist tide and prevent war. It wasn't an expression of his deepest beliefs and it wasn't taken seriously by the secessionists.
You cannot rationally claim the war was about ending something the very man who launched the war was trying to further protect just a month earlier.
I never said the war was fought to end slavery. I said slavery was a cause of the war -- the cause in different ways, some indirect and some quite deep.
Force has been the justification and imprimatur of virtually every government and empire since day #1. Emphasize even the phrase, “Full force (of the law).” Whether it is right or wrong tends to depend upon your point of view over what is being “forced.”
As for how long it would’ve taken for enough people in the South to decide ending slavery was preferable, it’s hard to say for certain. There was already outside pressure, of course. The U.K. was supposedly standing ready to help the CSA, but only if they got rid of slavery at once. Here again, they could’ve had their country independent of the USA over this one thing, but that was a no-go. Another example of why the CSA was too much an amateur hour in the realm of nation creation.
Setting that aside for a moment, even if slavery were abolished by their own accord within a 20-50 year period, it’s almost certain that the CSA would’ve still kept ex-slaves in a second class status. Enfranchisement en masse ? No way. It would’ve been a great deal like the post-Reconstruction to 1960s Jim Crow era stuff, they’d have either had the choice to leave the CSA for the USA (probably risk getting killed crossing a VERY heavily fortified border along the Ohio River or inland, had the southern counties of IL-IN-OH seceded) or agreeing to an odious sharecropping arrangement, which was de facto slavery (or such as how some mining companies exploited their workers by not even paying them cash, but in scrip, and only able to redeem them at their ludicrously expensive company stores - a de facto version of White slavery, usually of newly arrived European immigrants).
So, again, this was a raw deal almost any way you slice it, at least for Blacks (and Native Indians who would’ve also been added to the mix via CSA annexations).
But to answer your question, was the war worth it in the end ? That it would lead to a massive Federal leviathan ? Absolutely not. If you were a slaveholder who saw his property destroyed ? No way. But if you were a slave in the Deep South who gained his freedom and (albeit briefly) enfranchisement ? The answer is self-evident. They and their ancestors had been waiting since slavery was enshrined in the old colonies for that day to come.
Acquiescence to a pro-slavery amendment pretty much contradicts the theory that "Slavery is so evil we must launch a massive war to stop it!"
Lincoln's position was "If you want your slavery, you can keep your slavery", which makes it sound very much like the continuation of Slavery was not a bone of contention for the USA, therefore it is deceitful to claim the war was fought over it.
If Slavery was not the bone over which the two sides fought, then what was? What was the sole non negotiable for Lincoln? It was economic independence. That is the one thing he would never allow.
I said slavery was a cause of the war -- the cause in different ways, some indirect and some quite deep.
How can it be the cause of the war when it was offered up on a silver platter by Lincoln a month before the war started? As Charles Dickens noted at the time. "Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North." (and he wasn't writing to the public, but was instead writing in a private letter to someone else.)
The Truth is that the North would have tolerated slavery in the South for the next several decades, so long as the South remained in the Union. They could not legally dislodge it even if they had tried. There simply wasn't enough anti-slavery states to vote it out.
If they sought independence to gain economic advantage, as I believe they did, then giving away their economic engine to achieve independence completely defeats that purpose altogether.
Setting that aside for a moment, even if slavery were abolished by their own accord within a 20-50 year period, it’s almost certain that the CSA would’ve still kept ex-slaves in a second class status.
As did the rest of the nation for most of the subsequent history.
or agreeing to an odious sharecropping arrangement, which was de facto slavery (or such as how some mining companies exploited their workers by not even paying them cash, but in scrip, and only able to redeem them at their ludicrously expensive company stores - a de facto version of White slavery, usually of newly arrived European immigrants).
Interesting that you say this, because quite a few people have noticed the North's treatment of Immigrants, Coal Miners and Factory workers was not greatly different from that of Slavery.
So, again, this was a raw deal almost any way you slice it, at least for Blacks (and Native Indians who would’ve also been added to the mix via CSA annexations).
That was going to be baked into the USA cake no matter how it was sliced.
No way. But if you were a slave in the Deep South who gained his freedom and (albeit briefly) enfranchisement ? The answer is self-evident
No doubt, but they comprised about 13% of the population, and we should look at the whole people, not just a part. Some Northern men might have felt sympathy for these people, but would the average Northern man want to have sacrificed his Father, his brother or his Son for no better result than to improve the lot of people he mostly hated anyway? Is another 40 years labor for people you hate worth the bloodshed of your own family?
What did the Northern man get for his sacrifice? Potential Competition for his labor?
Of course this largely expanded labor pool did benefit one particular group of people. More or less the same class of people who today keep calling for more and more immigration to drive down labor costs.
What was the country arguing about throughout the 1850s? The expansion of slavery.
What did secessionists fear most? The extinction of slavery.
Slaveowners knew that the election of a Republican candidate who ran on a free soil platform and didn't get any votes in most of the slave states would mean the eventual end of slavery. They did not trust any concessions Republicans would make. And Northerners were getting tired of making concessions.
As Charles Dickens noted at the time. "Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North." (and he wasn't writing to the public, but was instead writing in a private letter to someone else.)
What's next for you? Citing Ezra Pound's understanding of what started the Second World War? Creative writers aren't the people we usually go to when we want to understand history and politics.
The Truth is that the North would have tolerated slavery in the South for the next several decades, so long as the South remained in the Union. They could not legally dislodge it even if they had tried. There simply wasn't enough anti-slavery states to vote it out.
That's certainly possible, maybe even likely. But slave owners feared that slavery was threatened and under attack. They believed slavery would be safer outside the union and their own power would be greater in a country of their own.
And how did they know this? I've run the numbers several times. Let's see. 11 Confederate states, would require a Union of 44 states to outvote them. 33 in favor of Abolition needed to override the 11 opposed.
Couldn't have a Union of 44 states until 1896 at the earliest. Add to the "no" vote, the five Union slave states, and it couldn't be done at all. (Would require a Union of 64 states.)
So what you are telling me is they couldn't count to 44?
That's certainly possible, maybe even likely.
It is a virtual certainty. You could not override the "no" vote of the 11 confederate states along with the "no" vote of the five Union slave states. It couldn't be done.
Add to this Lincoln's offer of the Corwin Amendment, and you couldn't even attempt to create an amendment to ban slavery. So the truth that most Union apologists absolutely refuse to face is that eliminating Slavery was effectively impossible by any "legal" means at their disposal. The Union would have continued being a slave holding Union, and so it is extremely deceitful to claim they were fighting for something that was legally impossible within the constraints of the Union.
The Union wasn't fighting to stop slavery. The Union was fighting to stop the Southern states from being independent of Northern economic Control.
Slaveowners saw the slave system as a success. They felt it should be - deserved to be - spread westward (and southwestward). They saw that Republican majorities in Congress would block that expansion, and that was one reason why they wanted secession. They also understood that there were other ways - short of constitutional amendments - that a Republican government could make life harder for slaveowners.
What would the courts look like after years of Republicans in the White House? What would happen to gag rules in Congress and bans on sending abolitionist literature through the mails? What would happen to slavery in the District of Columbia? Republican control of Congress and the White House could mean that compensated abolition plans would be discussed and perhaps even passed.
You didn't need a constitutional amendment to make things hot for the slaveowners -- not as they saw it themselves, anyway. Southern Democrats had been an important power in US government before Lincoln. They knew how to wield power and the knew what it would be like if they lost power to non-slaveowners and those who weren't sympathetic to the interests and wishes of slaveowners.
Slaveowners saw the slave system as a success. They felt it should be - deserved to be - spread westward (and southwestward). They saw that Republican majorities in Congress would block that expansion, and that was one reason why they wanted secession. They also understood that there were other ways - short of constitutional amendments - that a Republican government could make life harder for slaveowners.
What would the courts look like after years of Republicans in the White House? What would happen to gag rules in Congress and bans on sending abolitionist literature through the mails? What would happen to slavery in the District of Columbia? Republican control of Congress and the White House could mean that compensated abolition plans would be discussed and perhaps even passed.
You didn't need a constitutional amendment to make things hot for the slaveowners -- not as they saw it themselves, anyway. Southern Democrats had been an important power in US government before Lincoln. They knew how to wield power and the knew what it would be like if they lost power to non-slaveowners and those who weren't sympathetic to the interests and wishes of slaveowners.
One major Civil War writer did an essay in a group of essays I read called “The Confederacy: Died of Democracy”
What did I say that left you with that impression? It sounds like nothing I said. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the existing powers in the South realized what would happen if they gained independence and could trade directly with Europe. You'd have to be a fool not to see it. Even the Northern Newspapers were lamenting the shift in economic fortunes that would occur.
Slaveowners saw the slave system as a success. They felt it should be - deserved to be - spread westward (and southwestward).
So now *you* are claiming to know what the Southerners were thinking? I surmise that their position was that this constitutionally legal (and constitutionally protected) institution cannot legitimately be restricted, which is a legal argument that actually makes more sense then the one put forth in it's place; That congress has the power to block a legal practice protected by the Constitution.
I may not agree with a law, but i'm not going to lie about what it's purpose or intent is.
They saw that Republican majorities in Congress would block that expansion, and that was one reason why they wanted secession.
Slavery was not going to spread westward. I've posted the maps of cotton growing in modern times, and there was no practical means of making cotton or tobacco plantations west of where they already existed. All of this talk about "slavery spreading westward" was just a political con job to get more states into the New York led coalition of power. Did you know the "Free Soil" party was headquartered in New York? Funny that.
They also understood that there were other ways - short of constitutional amendments - that a Republican government could make life harder for slaveowners.
Similar to another racially obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President. 
.
.
What would the courts look like after years of Republicans in the White House? What would happen to gag rules in Congress and bans on sending abolitionist literature through the mails? What would happen to slavery in the District of Columbia? Republican control of Congress and the White House could mean that compensated abolition plans would be discussed and perhaps even passed.
So basically you are saying that such a government would do everything within it's power to deliberately undermine their interests? So their concerns were in fact reasonable in your opinion?
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.