Posted on 12/24/2024 12:46:17 PM PST by Eleutheria5
Steve Bannon's fiery criticism of conservatives who "don't have the balls" to take action and fight is evident throughout his interview with GB News America's Steven Edginton. Bannon warns of the dangers of a third world war with the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, and urges conservatives to "take action" and defeat the woke Left. The former advisor to President Trump also urges Nigel Farage not to stand in the upcoming UK election and accuses Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak of betraying their conservative voters. Bannon says the assassination of JFK was one of the most important events of the 20th century, describes Lydon Johnson as a "demon" and discusses lessons from Russian revolutionary Lenin.
Transcript linked below video
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Lincoln sent a fleet of heavily armed warships to invade South Carolina’s territory with the express intention of starting a war.
Someone who has actually read and studied the history extensively....not the propaganda everybody is taught in the government schools but the words and deeds of the players at the time.
All this time I thought an aggressor is one who invades the territory of another - not one who fires to drive an invader away.
Do you think it would have stopped at Charleston? Of course not. Lincoln would have occupied city after city until all their territory was occupied. They had a choice between defending their sovereign territory against invasion or being invaded without firing a shot in their own defense. Would the US have just rolled over and accepted it if the British had occupied New York Harbor?
Lincoln, grant, Sherman and Sheridan should all be tried as human butchers
Boris Johnson should be hanging from a lamppost for his covid response in Britain.
Not only did I study the pertinent history — as my degree in history from a southern university attests — but I advanced that knowledge and understanding by a lifetime of reading. So did two friends with impeccable Confederate ancestries learn the history. For none of us can Lincoln be fairly called a tyrant, nor can the Confederate South be seen as in the right, morally, legally, or pragmatically. The best that can be said is that the Confederacy was wrong but romantic.
They did not arrive until after Fort Sumter was taken, and had it not been taken, this fleet would have merely docked at Sumter, relieving the small garrison there, and that would have deterred further attacks.
And at the time, South Carolina was not a sovereign nation, but a part of the United States of America, so talk of “invading” it by lawfully docking there was both presumptive and premature, taking it as a given that South Carolina’s “secession” was already an accomplished fact, merely by declaring it. Did this fleet, during its progress down the coast, fire on any ships, or any positions on shore? In fact, by the time the fleet got there, Sumter was already surrendered after a siege, when the defenders were smoked out and could no longer defend it. During the handing over ceremony, a cannon back-fired and exploded, causing several deaths, the first of the war.
Yeah well guess what. I graduated with a degree in history from a Southern university and have supplemented that knowledge and understanding with a lifetime of reading. I too have friends who have studied the history extensively and we all agree that Lincoln was indeed a tyrant, that he acted for money and empire and that the Southern states had every right to unilaterally secede. Hell, even Grant and several others admitted that states had the right to unilaterally secede. Furthermore, the Southern states were unquestionably being economically exploited by the Northern states very much like the Colonies had been by the British.
Everybody knew this heavily armed fleet was on its way. It had a sizable and well armed landing party.
Everybody knew South Carolina had legally seceded and was an independent sovereign state and was part of a sovereign nation - namely, the CSA. Lincoln's letter to his naval commander congratulating him on getting a war started makes it quite plain what Lincoln's intention was.
Where and when did you get your history degree? Who taught you southern history? What modern US historian of consequence agrees with your views, as expressed in what works of history?
University of Florida 1994. You?
As for Academia, you and I both know Academia in general and the history faculty in particular have been taken over by the PC Revisionists starting in the 1980s as that 60s generation really started to gain traction in their long march through the institutions. So of course "modern" historians wouldn't agree because any who did would never get hired. But the PC Revisionism that is currently fashionable in academia was not always what the majority though - yes even in Academia. In the first half of the 20th century for example, Charles Beard who is considered to be the most prominent American historian expressed views that are much more in line with mine.
Of course, outside the Academy where all the independent thought is, any of a number of libertarian writers have expressed similar views as have economic and tax historians. Yes, I'm quite well aware of the historiography of this subject. I take the lack of "modern" history faculty agreeing with my view as a badge of honor.
“Everybody knew South Carolina had legally seceded and was an independent sovereign state and was part of a sovereign nation - namely, the CSA.”
There is no legal process for seceding from the union. Back when a bunch of survivalists up in the Rocky mountains seceded, they were just a bunch of survivalists. The only state with a legal process to secede is Texas, because that was one of the conditions for it joining the union, that they had the right to opt out if things got too hairy.
South Carolina had no such process. The CSA had only one right to secede, and that was not by just unilaterally declaring itself seceded, which was about as legally binding as an angry 14 year old yelling at his father” You’re not my dad anymore!” because he was in a huff about something or other. The only established precedent for leaving the Union was by shooting one’s way out, just as the founding fathers did from the British Empire. That was what South Carolina started to do at Fort Sumter, but there was just one problem: they lost.
According to your line of reasoning, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia proper, the enlisted Confederates trooping through the hills and confronting first McClellan and then Pope’s forces there were invading from the “legally seceded” sovereign state of West Virginia. A northeastern county Alabama also seceded from Alabama for the same reasons. Bugger all they could do, surrounded on all sides by secesh states, but virtue signalling has been around for a long time.
“Lincoln’s letter to his naval commander congratulating him on getting a war started makes it quite plain what Lincoln’s intention was.”
In other words, he was not starting a war, but being the catalyst to “get one” started. As for the landing party, they didn’t land. All they did was pick up the beleaguered, men of the Sumter garrison after they surrendered, and head back north with them. The CO of that garrison, btw, was a Virginian, and a loyal officer of the US of A despite his state of origin.
Was he a traitor for refusing to surrender?
Enh. That’s what they were telling Reagan in 1976 when he primaried Gerald Ford. Four years later, he won in a landslide, only rivaled by his 1984 landslide against Mondale.
The Tories were going down. The writing was already on the wall. They lied to their voters, and allowed an avalanche of invaders to raft it across the Channel and brave the Irish Sea, and they slow-walked Brexit, just to name a few of their sins.
Farage did the right thing by beginning to lay the foundation for a genuine conservative government, once Labour crashed and burned, which they are now doing. They actually want to extend the vote to 16 year olds and in local elections, to foreign-born non-citizens. And they want to do this by Parliamentary decree, without so much as a by-yer-leave-mate to the electorate. How would keeping the conservative coalition unified stop that. Those bastard TINOs would probably go along with that, just like they did with all the global warming crap.
Sure there is. Its what each sovereign state determines is the legal process for seceding. 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time that they ratified the constitution. That included the two most important (Virginia and New York) who were the leaders of their respective regions. Every state understood itself to have that right. Nobody at the time of ratification said the ratification of either Virginia or New York was rendered defective by them reserving the right to unilateral secession - nor indeed that there was no right to unilateral secession. Survivalists in the hills somewhere are not sovereign. States are sovereign. Their individual sovereignty was recognized in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
South Carolina had no such process. The CSA had only one right to secede, and that was not by just unilaterally declaring itself seceded, which was about as legally binding as an angry 14 year old yelling at his father” You’re not my dad anymore!” because he was in a huff about something or other. The only established precedent for leaving the Union was by shooting one’s way out, just as the founding fathers did from the British Empire. That was what South Carolina started to do at Fort Sumter, but there was just one problem: they lost.
This is all false. South Carolina had no such enumerated process because it needed no such enumerated process. Just as the CSA constitution did not have a formal process for a state to secede because it needed none. Each state had that right already. No state had ever ceded the right to unilateral secession to either the US federal government or the Confederate central government. Think about it for a moment. Would the states which had fought an expensive and bloody 8 year war to have their sovereignty recognized by the British Empire have so easily surrendered their sovereignty just 8 years later in 1791 when they ratified the US Constitution? Of course not! They were not binding themselves forever. The 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution make clear that any power not delegated by the sovereign states to the federal government is reserved to the states - that includes the right to unilateral secession.
According to your line of reasoning, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia proper, the enlisted Confederates trooping through the hills and confronting first McClellan and then Pope’s forces there were invading from the “legally seceded” sovereign state of West Virginia.
Funny you bring that up. West Virginia never legally seceded from Virginia. The US Constitution is plain that a part of a state may not secede from a state without the consent of the legislature of that state. The Virginia legislature never consented.
A northeastern county Alabama also seceded from Alabama for the same reasons. Bugger all they could do, surrounded on all sides by secesh states, but virtue signalling has been around for a long time.
Counties are not sovereign. States are.
In other words, he was not starting a war, but being the catalyst to “get one” started.
The whole purpose of the invasion force Lincoln sent was to get a war started. His own personal secretaries said so as well as Lincoln's Letter to commander Fox confirming it.
As for the landing party, they didn’t land. All they did was pick up the beleaguered, men of the Sumter garrison after they surrendered, and head back north with them. The CO of that garrison, btw, was a Virginian, and a loyal officer of the US of A despite his state of origin.
The invasion force's purpose was to start a war. Their purpose had already been accomplished.
Was he a traitor for refusing to surrender?
He was an illegal squatter.
“Every state understood itself to have that right.”
Nonsense. The fact that Virginia, New York and Texas had to spell out that right at the outset means that it was not an intrinsic right. Some weirdos in Illinois want to secede. I’d say, let them. But minorities would be hurt worst. Every fifteen year old understands himself to have the right to hold a party in the house when his parents are away. If you can’t “identify as a woman,” you can’t identify as a sovereign nation without a fight, unless the rest of the Union consents under the same terms as is required for amending the Constitution.
It was a bloody war. It was an unnecessary war. Lincoln’s election was not even the catalyst. It was southern overreaction. He only wanted to contain slavery, not abolish it. They wouldn’t even give him a chance to prove his good faith on that score. The issues of protectionism, and northern warehouse whosawhatsit, could have been negotiated. But squeaky-voiced adolescent Dixie just had to have their war.
On the other hand, Sherman’s scorched-earth policy in the Shenandoah valley would have prompted me to enlist in the Confederacy. That’s not a legitimate act in war. It’s barbarism.
The Liberals replaced the Whigs, and Labour replaced the Liberals. Churchill defected from Tories to Liberals, and then as Labour emerged and threatened Liberals, he went back to the Tories, finding Labour unacceptable and Liberals no longer viable. Now it’s the Tories’ turn to become obsolete and replaced by Reform. Lying and letting the country go to hell has consequences, as the American Democrats are discovering to their sorrow. Unless they get it together, they’ll go the way of Lloyd George’s Liberals. I don’t think they ever will get it together. That takes introspection and honesty, with neither of which Democrats are endowed.
Wrong. Firstly it was Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. Secondly, they spelled it out explicitly so that there would be no question that each state had the right of unilateral secession.
Some weirdos in Illinois want to secede. I’d say, let them. But minorities would be hurt worst. Every fifteen year old understands himself to have the right to hold a party in the house when his parents are away. If you can’t “identify as a woman,” you can’t identify as a sovereign nation without a fight, unless the rest of the Union consents under the same terms as is required for amending the Constitution.
Your analogies all fail because you are not talking about states. States are sovereign. Individuals or some group of weirdos are not. The rest of the union....in fact the entire union never consented to give the federal government the power to prevent a state from seceding. Power comes from the states to the federal government - not the other way around. Every power the states did not delegate to the federal government, they kept for themselves - including the right to unilaterally secede.
It was a bloody war. It was an unnecessary war. Lincoln’s election was not even the catalyst. It was southern overreaction. He only wanted to contain slavery, not abolish it. They wouldn’t even give him a chance to prove his good faith on that score. The issues of protectionism, and northern warehouse whosawhatsit, could have been negotiated. But squeaky-voiced adolescent Dixie just had to have their war.
Neither secession nor the war were about slavery. Slavery was the issue that could be negotiated. The Northern dominated congress passed the Corwin Amendment by 2/3rds supermajority and Lincoln endorsed it in his all important inaugural address. The Corwin Amendment was a constitutional amendment that would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever. The original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was tariffs and unequal government expenditures that could not be negotiated. Lincoln offered no flexibility on that. That was the real bone of contention between the two sides....just like it had been a generation earlier when there was the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crises.
On the other hand, Sherman’s scorched-earth policy in the Shenandoah valley would have prompted me to enlist in the Confederacy. That’s not a legitimate act in war. It’s barbarism.
The Lincoln administration deliberately targeted civilians as federal policy in violation of the internationally recognized laws of war at the time as well as their own Lieber code. Lincoln also shut down opposition newspapers, censored all telegraph traffic, jailed tens of thousands without charge or trail or at best trial before military tribunals and trampled on pretty much every other amendment in the bill of rights.
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.