Lois Lerner: Lincoln Should’ve Let the South Go Instead of Civil War

Mediaite ^ | August 7, 2015 | Ken Meyer

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

I’m amazed that I finally agree with something that someone in this administration said.

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

“”Eventually we split. You cannot coexist with a diametrically opposed philosophy. the sooner the better.””

And that right there will be the cause of the Second American Civil War. I’m 100% convinced.

[wardaddy]

Lol

Does she have a southern fetish?

[DoodleDawg]

There were far more slave and indentured servant owners in the North.

Numbers?

[DoodleDawg]

That’s why I said it was a side issue because they had many more grievances that were piling up like cordwood.

What were those?

[VTenigma]

Perhaps the most racist comment I’ve ever read from a government official including George Wallace.

[Vermont Lt]

Ok, so this idiot writes something idiotic...and it becomes a story.

[Tijeras_Slim]

You really chucked a grenade in the latrine this time. :-D

[rockrr]

It was certainly was an appeasement to the secessionists. Kowtow is the appropriate word. It belies your insinuation of a unified or “truly righteous North” - a mischaracterization at best. People were desperate to find a way to hold things together - no matter what the cost.

[rockrr]

You assume much. A point to which I often return is that the conflict that was the Civil War was far more complex and the issues far more interwoven than most people recognize.

It is seldom as simple as it seems.

[Cold Heat]

“Numbers”

I don’t have them, but it’s really a matter of extrapolating the population numbers..Most of the population was in the eastern tier of states, historical references indicate that many had servants and in fact still do, but now they use undocumented migrants.

So it follows the total numbers of individuals who took part in the trade, were far greater in the North, but the total numbers of slaves were far greater in the south because there were 100s at each plantation. Owners of plantations often owned more than one.

I was only illustrating a point that call it what you like, during the 1800s, and continuing on till today, people of wealth continue to use people who are disadvantaged.

So the basic premise has not changed, but the terminology has. And today we call it “doing jobs Americans just won’t do”. The only difference is that these people are not outright property. At least not in the US or anywhere in the West, unless you want to count the sex slaves..

[Cold Heat]

Refusal to pay for goods, interdiction of ships delivering materials to the south, many other individual grievances over a number of months, even years, so you had essentially a situation where the US government had ratcheted up every pressure it could muster to put the South in a subservient position of weakness. This was prior to the secessions.

Asking yourself how you would react to that pressure, will give you the answer to the primary causation of the civil war.

[GreenHornet]

So, Lerner supports slavery. Quick! Somebody send the "Black Lives Matter" crew her home address!

(Remember the "firestorm" when Trent Lott tried to pay Strom Thurmond an innocent compliment on his 100th birthday?)

[DoodleDawg]

I don’t have them...

Didn't think so.

...but it’s really a matter of extrapolating the population numbers...

Or looking into indentured servitude and finding out that it had almost completely died out long before the Civil War.

[DoodleDawg]

Refusal to pay for goods, interdiction of ships delivering materials to the south, many other individual grievances over a number of months, even years, so you had essentially a situation where the US government had ratcheted up every pressure it could muster to put the South in a subservient position of weakness. This was prior to the secessions.

And none of which has been documented by any source I'm aware of. Can you provide more details and some sources?

[Cold Heat]

Not long before, and like I said, it still exists today in Eastern Europe and all the way into asia.

My grandparents came to this country in 1923 to escape things like that and it was quite common then.

Apparently I struck a nerve with you, but I can’t allow the Southern States to accept the responsibility and blame for a practice that had it’s origins elsewhere and that the US was pretty much just another customer who’s needs at the time in gross numbers were much bigger in the South where the plantations were. In this case Cotton.

In the North it was Tobacco and the decline in pre civil war slavery numbers were associated with a decline in the tobacco industry at the time.

So let’s be real here, as they say ....

Neither the North or the South has clean hands, and to pretend any differently is obfuscation of the truth.

There were only about 3-4 hundred thousand owners of slaves in the south in 1860, and a total population of nearly 9 million. So all the rest of those people at the time were not slave owners and to them it was not the principle issue for which they fought a war.

It’s not rocket science.

Post civil war it was the Dixiecrats who damaged the reputation of the South on racial issues...so most of the reputational damage the south has to fight off today, was caused by people long dead or in nursing homes..

Far I am concerned, or better said my interest here is only to be fair because all this crap is based largely on misconceptions put forth to keep the pot stirred up and the black American descendants in a constant state of dismay and fear. . as the result of political left wing efforts to stay in power.

[Cold Heat]

There are many historical references to what I spoke about prior to the war..I currently do not have one place where you can find all of this as much of it is anecdotal, but you can find a little here and there like this piece.

I don’t have the depth of historical evidence to either support or disclaim anything in this piece.

It is just a taste of the countervailing opinions with some supporting facts.

http://www.iahushua.com/hist/lincoln.html

[Cold Heat]

and here...

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/statesrights.html

[Cold Heat]

here

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/slavery.html

[Cold Heat]

Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm