Liz Cheney replies to Ted Cruz: "My party, The Republican Party, saved the Union"

twitter ^ | Nov 13 | Rep. Liz Cheney

[RandFan]

@Liz_Cheney

I know you’re posturing for the secessionist vote, Ted. But my party, the Republican party, saved the Union. You swore an oath to the Constitution. Act like it.

[x]

Secessionists believed Lincoln’s election would mean the eventual end of slavery. They wanted out of the union. Unionists fought to preserve the union that would eventually end slavery. The union won and slavery ended.

[x]

What “dominant economic power?” Cotton was king. If NYC became dominant it was because the cotton planters threw all that away when they started the war.

[DiogenesLamp]

What “dominant economic power?” Cotton was king. If NYC became dominant it was because the cotton planters threw all that away when they started the war.

The dirty little secret is that New York and Washington swallowed up about 60% of the cotton value on the trades with Europe. The actual slave owners were left with about 40% of the total.

No wonder they wanted to leave everything alone before the war. They were making big bucks off of slavery on the down low, while denouncing it in view of the public.

[DiogenesLamp]

Secessionists believed Lincoln’s election would mean the eventual end of slavery.

So we have been told over and over and over again by the people who profited massively from the consequences of the war. The descendants of these same people have been telling us that Trump was colluding with Russia.

They will tell you anything to justify what they have done.

[x]

No, it was the secessionists themselves who said over and over again that the "Black Republicans" would destroy the slave system.

Very few of the people around today are the descendants of people who made big fortunes in the 19th century -- Anderson Cooper is the only one who comes immediately to mind -- but the country did benefit by being united and abolishing slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

Very few of the people around today are the descendants of people who made big fortunes in the 19th century -- Anderson Cooper is the only one who comes immediately to mind

[jeffersondem]

“The union won and slavery ended.”

A highly respected historian on this site recently said about Lincoln War explanations:

“Then or now, they (most Republicans) understood that things were more complex than such childish oversimplifications.”

And so, critic answers critic.

[x]

Motivations are complicated and shouldn’t be oversimplified. But the overall picture is quite clear.

[x]

Money goes where power is, and power goes where money is. So people with money who want power move to Washington DC, and people in DC with power vote themselves more of the people's money. It would have been the same way -- to an extent it was the same way -- in the Contederacy. And money goes to the big cities (and their suburbs) because that is where the most people and the most economic activity is.

It would be strange if an area as populated as the New York metropolitan area didn't have many rich people, but I note 1) by your own statistics the DC area is making out better, 2) suburban counties all over the country have money and suburban Atlanta or Houston isn't substantially poorer per capita than suburban New York or Boston, and 3) the richest counties in 1860 were in Mississippi, so yeah, rich people started the war in order to keep what they had, only not in the way that you think.

But you're diverting, distracting and misdirecting. Most of the people with power today aren't the descendants of 19th century fortunes. I guess the Rockefellers are an exception. So are John Kerry and Sheldon Whitehouse who married into enough money to stay in the upper class. It was different 50 or 60 years ago, but even as the country has been growing less equal in recent decades, the older families and fortunes have given way to new money, and older rustbelt regions have lost out to new sunbelt cities. Of course, none of that will change your mind. Nothing ever does.

[jeffersondem]

“Motivations are complicated and shouldn’t be oversimplified. But the overall picture is quite clear.”

That is an interesting comment.

So, if the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Freeing the slaves was an afterthought, scabbed-on because it was a strategic necessity to accomplish what was in the economic and political best self-interest of Union states.
I figured it was something like that.
I was just seeking your confirmation because so many deny it happened that way."

No, hardly an "afterthought".
It was there from the beginning -- indeed, before the beginning:

1. The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.

2. In 1856 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters announced that if anti-slavery Republican John C. Fremont was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.
   Fremont was defeated and there were no anti-slavery actions from Washington during Doughfaced Buchanan's administration.

3. In 1860 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters again announced that if anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.
   He was and they did, over slavery.

4. In early 1861 many Unionists understood that civil war could lead to abolition of slavery.

5. In spring of 1861 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters provoked, started & declared war against the United States, over the surrender of Fort Sumter, not slavery.

6. But slavery then immediately reared its head in the form of "Contraband of War" and Congress's August 1861 Confiscation Act.

7. As the war progressed, slavery became a bigger & bigger issue, leading to a second Confiscation Act in 1862, compensated emancipation in Washington, DC, Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, enlistment of ~200 colored Union regiments and the 1864 13th Amendment.

So slavery was never a mere "afterthought", but rather was at the forefront of many American minds, North & South, from the beginning, indeed, before the beginning.

[BroJoeK]

Liz Cheney: "I know you’re posturing for the secessionist vote, Ted.
But my party, the Republican party, saved the Union. "

And freed the slaves, not as an "afterthought", but as the definition of what it means to be Republican.

Sadly, Liz Cheney seems determined to switch parties to the Democrats who fought our bloodiest war over the "States Rights" to keep slavery lawful.

[wardaddy]

Patron Saint puta to south haters on this forum

Enjoy your harridan

[caww]

Well she actually confirmed what we all know.....she’s part of the “Uni-party”....

[wardaddy]

In a related way

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/21/never-trumpers-quit-fox-news-protest-tucker-carlsons-january-6-documentary/

Same type of pendejos

One used to post here and may still yet

[DiogenesLamp]

The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.

A convenient lie they told their foolish constituency. How do we know? These very same people voted for the Corwin amendment.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "A convenient lie they told their foolish constituency.
How do we know?
These very same people voted for the Corwin amendment."

No, the majority of Republicans in Congress voted against Corwin.
Democrats unanimously supported it.

Lincoln himself was willing to put Union before abolition, if it came to that.
Doesn't mean Lincoln was "pro-slavery", only that Republicans, like our Founders, put the Union first, everything else second or less.

[jeffersondem]

“No, hardly an “afterthought”.It was there from the beginning — indeed, before the beginning:The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party — anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.In 1856 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters announced that if anti-slavery Republican John C. Fremont was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.Fremont was defeated and there were no anti-slavery actions from Washington during Doughfaced Buchanan's administration.In 1860 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters again announced that if anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.He was and they did, over slavery.In early 1861 many Unionists understood that civil war could lead to abolition of slavery.In spring of 1861 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters provoked, started & declared war against the United States, over the surrender of Fort Sumter, not slavery.But slavery then immediately reared its head in the form of “Contraband of War” and Congress's August 1861 Confiscation Act.As the war progressed, slavery became a bigger & bigger issue, leading to a second Confiscation Act in 1862, compensated emancipation in Washington, DC, Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, enlistment of ~200 colored Union regiments and the 1864 13th Amendment. So slavery was never a mere “afterthought”, but rather was at the forefront of many American minds, North & South, from the beginning, indeed, before the beginning. And freed the slaves, not as an “afterthought”, but as the definition of what it means to be Republican. Sadly, Liz Cheney seems determined to switch parties to the Democrats who fought our bloodiest war over the “States Rights” to keep slavery lawful.”Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck’s General Orders, No. 3.” — Department of Missouri”1. It has been represented that important information respecting the numbers and condition of our forces is conveyed to the enemy by means of fugitive slaves who are admitted within our lines.In order to remedy this evil it is directed that no such person be hereafter permitted to enter the lines of any camp or of any forces on the march and that any now within such lines be immediately excluded therefrom.” So contrary to orders from the now removed Gen. John Fremont, Halleck orders that no fugitive slaves be admitted into Union lines. And there's that word, yet again: “slaves”. For a war which our Lost Causers tell us was not “all about slavery”, that word does seem to pop up regularly. He [Jefferson Davis] condemned the successful Union naval assault on Port Royal, South Carolina, as designed “to pillage” and, most frightening, “to incite a servile insurrection in our midst.” So... even Jefferson Davis, in November 1861, can admit Civil War has something to do with slavery.”

I see you are re-stacking the same wood; the pile does look bigger this time until you notice there are huge holes in it.

If the ole rail splitter, side splitter, nation splitter was here he would tell you to add some seasoned, straight-grained arguments. Something with some heft; some BTUs.

Your soggy, punky offering has been eat-up by termites. There is simply not enough oxygen to get it lit off.

Now the sawyer cries, “Rest!” I recommend you pause for breath.

[Pelham]

I saw the report of those two quitting Fox on twitter, made my day.

Someone was arguing that they had quit ahead of Fox not renewing their contracts but I think that gives Fox too much credit.

“One used to post here and may still yet”

which one?

[rovenstinez]

I would think even then the Republican party was divided, and it would be more LIncoln and Grant saved the Union... Not so much the Republican party, a Trump sort of guys who bucked the tide.