DiogenesLamp's position on all real facts, reasons and truth of US history:
Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?
Total rubbish because the "god" at issue here is simply the truth, the facts and real reasons for Civil War.
DiogenesLamp and other Lost Causers love to fantasize a whole alternate historical reality that suits their propaganda purposes to a "T", but has nothing to do with what really happened.
Funny that. Of course it makes a sort of sense. They were still protecting the financial bottom line of these companies. The war was all about protecting the financial interests of well connected people.
Thank you for that detailed account of these companies. It makes it easier to see why it would have been so hard for Southern based shipping companies to compete. It helps explain why all the control came from the same locus of movers and shakers.
Referring solely to DiogenesLamp and his coconspirators.
DiogenesLamp: "A cynical man would assert this was just a raw grab for more power by Lincoln, and this actually dovetails quite nicely with the assertion that the whole Civil War was about power anyway."
All government and politics are related to "power", but issues in American politics are always the question of justice and just use of political power.
The fact is that from 1788 through 1860 the Constitution's 3/5 rule effectively forced all slaves to "vote" for their masters.
That ended after 1865.
You would not expect former slaves to ever again vote for such "masters", would you?
DiogenesLamp: "I will once again point out that the era subsequent to Lincoln was an occasion of the worst graft and corruption the nation had ever seen."
Totally unsupported by any objective data.
The real facts are: that period saw the longest-term fastest growing US economy in our history.
There's no objective evidence showing a percentage of crookedness any higher in, say, 1905 than it was in, say 1855.
I wasn't suggesting that Lincoln was your god, I was asserting that your "god" is the belief that the Union side was moral and right and that it prosecuted a vicious and bloody war for a good cause.
It didn't. It prosecuted a horrible war for a very bad cause; Power and Control; The subjugation of people who no longer wished to bow to the economic desires of the wealthy and powerful in the North East; That same group of people who are still trying to tell the rest of us how to live.
Your side unleashed Fedzilla on the Nation, and killed 750,000 people doing it.
DiogenesLamp's position on all real facts, reasons and truth of US history:
Step it up, folks. You have about 900 posts to go before you exceed the last one.
They dare not. The consequences of doing so are too horrible for them to contemplate. Nobody wants to think of themselves as being on the side of evil. They want to believe that what their side (or their ancestor's side) did was moral and just, and the thought that their ancestors were the instruments of tyranny is to repulsive for them to allow it any credence.
They want to believe what they believe, and they will continue doing so unless an incredibly compelling case is made to the contrary.
First Inaugural: “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.”
...”and to collect the duties...what may be necessary..."
Lincoln would accept slavery but not failure to pay tariffs.
The true character of the man was startlingly evident.
He was remarkably two faced and on many different occasions. I think he had personal feelings about slavery, but I think he was completely pragmatic about living with it.
The only reason he is so highly thought of is the endless propaganda on his behalf since the war. People simply gloss right over the contradictions, and that's if they even learn about them in the first place.
It wasn't until 2009 when I visited the Lincoln Monument in Washington D.C. that I became aware he had offered to keep slavery if the South would rejoin the Union. It came as a bit of a shock to me because this is not at all what I had been taught in my life.
It does not fit the narrative.
Precisely because 1) the President is not involved in Constitutional Amendments, 2) the US Constitution at the time recognized slavery in the South, and 3) it grants Washington authority to collect tariffs.
So it's no mystery to anyone not blinded by their pro-Confederate mythological fantasies.
He accurately identifies the causes of the discontent. Where is the power to be lodged. Who is to wield it's patronage? Where is the Wealth to be concentrated?
These are exactly correct, and the answer as we have all come to realize, is "New York/Washington."
More or less the same problem we are facing today.
Sorry, wish I could help out on this one but don't now "get" what's being discussed.
Is this still the "debate" over percentages of Deep South exports vs. total US imports?
It's important to point out that many US politicians, beginning with President Jefferson in the early 1800s devised plans for the Federal Government to gradually phase out slavery, in part by purchasing freedom for slaves.
All such plans (none ever adopted) before the time of Lincoln's meeting with Black leaders in the White House, included provisions to return freed-slaves to Africa or the Caribbean.
Lincoln was the first President to recognize African-American wishes to remain in the US as citizens.
You do not appear to have read Washington's Ruminations on the subject. It is clear that he undergoes a transformation toward's the end of his life.
Lincoln went from accepting slavery to supporting abolition and voting rights for some African-Americans.
Power. Both things can be explained by a desire to control power. Just after the civil war, voting rights were suspended for whites in many states. Only blacks could vote. Of course they voted Republican. What sort of effect do you suppose this had on power?
You need more cynicism. You need to stop looking at things through rose colored glasses. Look for evil reasons, and you won't have any difficulty seeing them.
Let's jump to 1963 to the 24th amendment. We could simply accept the claim that North Eastern Liberal Republicans pushed the 24th amendment because they felt so strongly about making sure black people could vote, and so they supported it as a moral issue. (What are North Eastern Liberal Democrats doing about illegal aliens?)
On the other hand, adding 10 million or so new voters that can be counted on to reliably vote for their party, well that simply guarantees their control of the Congress and the Presidency. In other words, they profit from this move.
Lyndon B. Johnson can in no wise be considered a paragon of virtue, and he gave no previous indication that he gave a rat's @$$ about the condition of blacks in America, but suddenly in 1964 he decided that huge sums of federal money needed to be spent to help lift blacks out of poverty.
Say a lot of things about Johnson, but politically he was a canny bastard. He knew exactly what he was doing, and his plan worked magnificently.
He flipped those 10 million votes the Republicans thought they were going to get, and Johnson turned them reliably Democrat.
Now I think you will agree with me that Johnson's moves were obviously cynical ploys to gain more power. You may have a harder time thinking of the originally Republican efforts to pass the 24th amendment as a cynical ploy to gain power, but the facts do appear to support that interpretation of events.
Johnson simply outsmarted them. He turned their own plan against them.
Now is it too far fetched to assume that political operatives in the 1860s were as canny and smart as political operatives in the 1960s?
Are we to assume that these people are only motivated by morality and not by power, and that it is just a coincidence that their pursuit of morality is concurrently operating to increase their power?
I don't believe in the good will and morality of any politicians anymore, and I have come to the conclusion that it has always been thus.
Lincoln supported colonization all his life; many people did. To say that Lincoln supported deportation at all, much less at the end of his life, is a gross exaggeration of the facts.
And I chuckled a bit at this (bold emphasis mine):
I t is to be expected that when the major portion of the people of a country dwell near the seashore, and hear the “ call of the sea, $ a very great interest will be taken by the general public in shipping affairs . Therefore, it was natural that the colonies were scarcely well settled before they began to endeavor to build up their shipping by discriminations at the expense of one another or of alien carriers . A number of the colonial charters authorized the levying of discriminating duties . Virginia seems to have been the first, in 1 63 1 , with a duty of two and one half per cent on goods imported by foreign subjects, and five per cent on all goods imported by foreigners , the latter goods presumably in foreign bottoms .
It goes on with a recitation of the coastal states and how & when they entered into the competition for shipping. The steps that were taken by the states were against foreign interests, not domestic ones, and all were invited to the party.
DegenerateLamp’s history is too thin to recall how the Brits and the Frenchies used the Canadian colonies as staging grounds for attacks against the colonies.
The Union cause was: first Union, then abolition.
The Union cause was supported at the time by the vast majority of Northerners (Republicans and Democrats) and Southern Border States (i.e., Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri).
It was also supported by very large minorities of whites in the Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas), and when you consider slaves themselves, by huge majorities there.
Even in the Deep South slaves made Unionists almost the majority.
So the huge loss of life was caused by minority Confederates refusal to stop fighting on any terms more favorable than "unconditional surrender".
Jefferson contemplated expulsion. Madison favored colonization. Lincoln explored voluntary emigration.
Are you aware that when Lincoln was practicing law in Springfield, he was an officer in an organization intent upon deporting all blacks?
My side? You mean Americans? You are an idiot.
Colonization or emigration, call it what you will. The key is was that it was voluntary and not government-led expulsion like Jefferson suggested. And really, given the conditions under which blacks in the U.S. labored under, be it in the North or in the South, where was Lincoln’s proposal all that bad?
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.