Posted on 09/04/2024 4:43:37 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Deep State psychopaths have no qualms about destroying the world.
How do we know that Washington, D.C. is the nerve center of a global empire and not the seat of a federal government with limited powers over the individual states and their citizens? Every four years, people around the world wait with trepidation to see what new calamity might strike the human race, as the masters of mass destruction work to install the right globalist sock puppet inside the White House.
Economic crises and impromptu wars have a strange way of materializing during America’s election season. Twenty-twenty gave us a genetically engineered pandemic, a planetary lockdown, and widespread crimes against humanity. Disease, death, and suffering were the horrific costs required to shatter President Trump’s three years of peace and prosperity. COVID was the poisonous smokescreen necessary to give Dementia Joe Biden a mail-in-ballot “victory.”
Foreign pundits often complain that it is deeply unfair that only American citizens get to vote for the U.S. president. So great is this one official’s impact upon the rest of the world, they aver, that the whole planet should have a say. Well, my foreign friends, the U.S. government agrees with you! That’s why we have open borders and months-long mail-in-ballot elections with few voter identification requirements, drawn out vote-counting, and no transparency. If D.C. wanted secure borders and secure elections, we would have both. But the gangsters who run things over here can’t manipulate electoral outcomes unless they first flood the country with tens of millions of illegal aliens, print just as many untraceable postcard ballots, and discourage in-person voting and picture ID. Foreigners have been robbing Americans of their votes for quite some time with the active assistance of the federal government. As the lockdown lemmings used to sing in unison...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.”-Sun Tzu
perfectly fine. they’re unsigned. you expect they’d get tossed.
unless they don’t check and have been cheating all along...
"That being said, after the Republicans won the 1860 election and would soon be able to put in abolitionist policies, should they have let the Confederate Dims break away from the Union and start their own country?First of all, the only abolitionist policies Republicans advocated in 1860 involved US western territories, not Southern states.
I guess that's debatable."
Second, Republicans had nothing whatever to do with letting Southern Democrats break away from the Union and start their own country -- that was 100% the Doughfaced Democrat administration of Pres. James Buchanan.
What Republicans in Congress might have done in December 1860 is given in to Southern demands for "compromises" to persuade some Deep South states not to declare secession, especially Mississippi.
But this would have negated the whole Republican raison d'être and provided no guarantees against future Democrat threats of secession.
Regardless, by the time of Lincoln's inauguration, March 4, 1861, secession and Confederacy were already a fait accompli, and the only issue was whether there would be peace or war.
In his First Inaugural, Lincoln offered peace, but many Southerners called it a "Declaration of War" on the South, and increased their demands, threats & seizures by force of Federal properties.
One key property was Union Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.
"And the war came".
So, many have argued that Republican Lincoln should have just submitted and given-in to whatever Southern Democrats demanded.
And actually, Lincoln himself was willing to cut a deal -- to give away Fort Sumter -- if that could guarantee no secession by Virginia.
But the deal could not be struck, and so Lincoln held his ground -- one of the few Republicans ever willing to stand up to radical Democrat demands.
Today we have an opportunity to elect another such Republican, and, hopefully, the results will not be quite as catastrophic as 1860's election.
But I doubt if Pres. Trump's success in 2024 will be 100% free of dire consequences from radical Democrats.
Political violence is always just under the surface with extremist Democrats.
By "after the Republicans won the 1860 election and would soon be able to put in abolitionist policies", what I should have stated better was that the Republicans were set to get the federal government out of the way and let the States decide on abolition/slavery (while still implementing abolition in territories).
And yeah, I agree with your post that in many ways the Civil War started as Democrats vs Democrat (Dim Confederate South while Dim Buchannan in the WH did things like tell U.S. soldiers not to abandon forts within now Confederate areas). And the siege on Fort Sumpter was going on before Lincoln was inaugurated. But there's part of me that thinks that once Lincoln got in office, the Republicans could have done more to just let them go. I don't remember reading any message from Lincoln or the Republicans saying, "Hey, Dims. Now that us Republicans are in charge there no longer needs to be a war. We'll withdraw our troops from old forts that are now in Dim lands. You go your way, we can go ours."
Even with that, I don't know if it would be possible to avoid war. To be fair to Lincoln, it'd be hard to think that war was avoidable with DC surrounded by Maryland and Virginia. And it was earlier in so-called "neutral" Maryland that multiple attempts were made on then President-elect Lincoln's life while he toured there saying that he didn't want a war. And, of course, Virginia had already turned Confederate. So, as you rightly pointed out, the Dims started the war and there may have been nothing the Republicans could have done to prevent it.
Tell It Right: "Republicans were set to get the federal government out of the way and let the States decide on abolition/slavery (while still implementing abolition in territories)."
Well... before 1861, there was never a proposal in Congress to abolish slavery nationally.
Rather, the issues had to do with potential restrictions and limitation on slavery in the Western territories, in international trade and with slaveholders "sojourning" in free states (i.e., SCOTUS Dred Scott).
Republicans wanted to limit and restrict slavery wherever possible, outside the South, and slaveholders saw that as an existential threat.
Remember, from Day One in 1776, US states were always free to legalize, limit or abolish slavery as they saw fit, so the political issue was only how much Federal government could allow or limit slavery elsewhere, such as Western territories.
Tell It Right: "But there's part of me that thinks that once Lincoln got in office, the Republicans could have done more to just let them go.
I don't remember reading any message from Lincoln or the Republicans saying, "Hey, Dims.
Now that us Republicans are in charge there no longer needs to be a war.
We'll withdraw our troops from old forts that are now in Dim lands.
You go your way, we can go ours.""
Your idea here was suggested by some Northerners at the time, but was not recognized as an option by either Democrat Pres. Buchanan (from Pennsylvania) or Republican Pres. Lincoln (from Illinois).
Both insisted that Federal properties remained Federal properties, regardless of what secessionists declared or did.
Both kept Union troops at Forts Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, and Pickens at Pensacola, Florida.
Neither president submitted to repeated Confederate demands for the forts' surrender.
Lincoln's problem was that both Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens needed resupplies and reinforcements, and his resupply/reinforce mission is what triggered Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis (from Mississippi), on April 9, to order Fort Sumter be "reduced" and forced to surrender.
Davis's cabinet endorsed his order with only one dissent, Secretary of State Toombs (from Georgia) said to Davis:
"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.Tell It Right: "And, of course, Virginia had already turned Confederate."
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."
Not yet -- admittedly, the timeline here can get a little confusing:
But that deal could not be struck, and in the meantime, Maj. Anderson's position in Fort Sumter grew increasingly desperate -- he needed resupplies, as a minimum.
So, Lincoln sent resupplies and that triggered Jefferson Davis's order to reduce the fort.
Still, for several days, Lincoln might have treated the loss of Fort Sumter as "no big deal" and maybe called for negotiations to resolve other conflicts.
But he didn't. Instead,
In those early days, had there been a quick Union victory at, for example Manassas, the war might have been settled without the abolition of slavery.
Still, slavery was an issue from the beginning, early-on referred to as "Contraband of War", and eventually formalized in the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.
Bottom line: yes, Republicans could theoretically have prevented war simply by surrendering to every Southern Democrat demand.
But, in truth, Southern Democrats were eager to prove their metal in battle, and so peace would have required increasingly obsequious Doughfaced Republican behavior.
Unlikely.
How eager are today's Democrats to submit to Republican dominated government?
I highly doubt if they will submit quietly -- more likely, after a major Trump victory in November, we'll hear loud Democrat echos rhyming with 1861.
It's who Democrats are, it's what they naturally do when removed from political power.
Maybe Virginia's secession wasn't formal until April 1861 (after Lincoln was inaugurated). But I think it's safe to say Lincoln saw that Virginia would soon join the other 7 Confederate states (more states seceded later).
Yes, Gov. Lecter called for the convention on November 15, 1860, a week after the election of Lincoln as president.
Virginia's legislature authorized the convention, 152 delegates were then elected, and it first met on February 13.
As originally elected, Virginia's convention had:
Tell It Right: "Maybe Virginia's secession wasn't formal until April 1861 (after Lincoln was inaugurated).
But I think it's safe to say Lincoln saw that Virginia would soon join the other 7 Confederate states (more states seceded later)."
Sorry, but no, as late as April 4, 2/3 of Virginia's convention opposed secession.
The problem from Lincoln's perspective was that their opposition to secession was strictly conditional -- conditional on Union surrender to Confederate demands at Forts Sumter and Pickens, for starters.
If Lincoln meekly agreed to give up Fort Sumter, then Virginia would remain in the Union.
However, with the first cannon-shot and blood spilled, Virginians would vote to secede.
So that was the deal Lincoln was reported to want -- he would give up Fort Sumter, and Virginia's convention would permanently adjourn, so that Virginians could not then change their minds at the next moment of crisis, for example over Fort Pickens, Florida.
But that deal was impossible, and Lincoln understood: the first violence & bloodshed would cause Virginia to secede.
And along with Virginia would go the Upper South states of North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.
But Lincoln believed that if the Union could keep the Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, then the coming war could still be won.
After Fort Sumter on April 12 and Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops on April 15, on April 17 Virginia's convention voted for secession, 88-55.
Virginians ratified secession on May 23, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451.
"And the war came."
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.