Posted on 06/16/2020 3:17:15 PM PDT by Lucas McCain
Democrat Senator and former VP running mate of Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine (VA) on Tuesday said the United States created slavery.
To think this degenerate liar almost became Vice President of the United States.
“The United States didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it,” said Tim Kaine as he droned on about racism in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Trade, you say?
What kind of industry is most profitable? The answer will tell us what conjures the energy to start wars.
It’s not the peanut trade, and it’s not popcorn. Could it be textiles? How about semiconductors?
Maybe it’s the oil industry. Well, no—it’s gotta be the methamphetamine market, or even more likely, heroin.
Actually, the most profitable trade—now, then and for all time—is human trafficking. Otherwise known as slavery, in the democrat tradition.
The fight over slavery sparked and fueled the Civil War.
No, what I said is true, and we are talking about two things. Buchanan signed the Corwin Amendment (Even though it wasn’t necessary). Lincoln signed the 13th Amendment (Even though it wasn’t necessary).
You’ve been duped by the postmodernist movement among historians.
What was the fruit of Lincoln’s Civil War efforts?
You could call it—the end of slavery in our country.
Consistent with his deepest philosophical beliefs.
The Democrats were furious that Lincoln and the Republicans halted their slave trade, because of how profitable it was, and so they sent one of their sick and cowardly clowns (not a scarce character among them) to murder Lincoln.
If it hadn’t been for his passing, it wouldn’t have been ratified. If it hadn’t been for the disenfranchisement of southerners who took up arms, it also wouldn’t have passed. Then it would have been down to the usual political wrangling, and with or without his signature, the same conflicting factions would have made sure it went nowhere.
The Civil War wasn’t fought on purely altruistic grounds on the one hand, nor purely to preserve slavery on the other. Nobody fights a war over a single issue. There are always ulterior motives, corruption and lies. Somebody gets rich off the bloodshed, and afterwards the victor paints an altruistic face on what was really an ugly business. But slavery was definitely at or near the heart of all the commercial interests that lead to war, and those interests were erased by the ruin that Sherman wrought marching through the South, burning and looting. No more king cotton or warehouse act politics, and no more slavery, either.
For an interesting read, I’d suggest Lin Yutang’s A Moment In Peking, the history of an upper-class Beijing family From the Boxer’s Rebellion through WW II, especially the passages where he describes the conditions leading to war with Japan.
I stand corrected. Thanks
The Declaration of Independence was drafted by a committee of which Jefferson was a member, and then approved by the representatives of all the states. Whatever was written on it is what the states agreed to.
Are you saying that those idiots in Chop/Chaz get to have their country just because they think they should?
In what bizzaro world are you equating a bunch of immature soy boy anarchists seizing a couple of blocks of a left wing lunatic city with 13 states with about 2 1/2 million in population declaring a right to independence from the British Union?
And how many times have powerless, weak people won against a mighty nation.
1776. 1812.
I'm pretty sure Southern cotton growers knew they couldn't make any money with slaves in the territories. They knew what was required in terms of land and water and labor and transport to grow and market cotton, and they certainly weren't fooled by the hype of "slavery in the territories."
And they were the dominant force in Southern politics at the time. If they allowed people to believe what they believed, it was because it suited their purpose to allow people to believe it.
This "expansion into the territories" is a straw which so many want to grasp to justify supporting the New York coalition which virtually controlled Congress at the time.
Powerful group of New York liars astroturfs the nation in an effort to retain power? Do you watch the news nowadays?
Only happened because Union ships interdicted the market. In other words, as a consequence of the Union effort to control the South. Without the market disrupted deliberately by Union ships, those growers in Egypt and India would have never been able to compete with the Southern production. You can't beat free labor with paid labor. It ain't happening.
So again, to make sure we are clear on the underlying premise, the South would have acquired massive capital infusions from European trade *IF* the North had simply left them alone. Clearly the North did not do this, so the capital did not come, and foreign competition was allowed to get on it's feet when it would have otherwise been unable to do so.
You've got to keep your premises straight. You want to take the economic reality of what did happen and argue that this is what would have happened in an alternative timeline in which the South was allowed to go it's own way in peace.
The economic disaster for the powerful men in the North did not occur precisely because they used their influence with the government to launch a war against the South to stop it from happening.
Think Logically. Think clearly. Be objective.
Aren’t you a Dandy? :)
And this is an example of why I don't take what you say seriously.
For Lincoln, abolishing slavery was politically beneficial at the time, but he never intended to do it when he started.
He was an opportunist and political chameleon that gets far more credit than he deserves.
Your last message almost seems like a cry for help.
To reiterate. New York powerful in collusion with Washington DC powerful, managed to gain control of the money stream from Southern slavery production and directed 60% of it into their own pockets.
The South was not only going to disrupt this lucrative status quo, but were going to further threaten the economic interests of the industrial robber barons in the North by allowing competing European products to be marketed throughout the United States, thereby eliminating all the protectionist policies Washington DC had employed to keep the Northern industries profitable.
A Billion dollars or so was at stake, and the powerful men of the North refused to let this happen.
Everything else is smoke. Slavery in the territories is smoke.
Powerful men of the North retained their wealth, government maintained control of any industry in the nation which threatened the wealth of it's powerful backers in the North. Which is exactly where we are today. The "elite" against "flyover country." They control Washington DC. This is why the media people operate out of New York. Their owners want them close enough to follow guidance.
You could call it—the end of slavery in our country.
Smoke. Lincoln intended to keep the slaves in slavery when he began. You can't give him credit for starting a war to do something he never intended to do when he began.
I still think Kaine had a lot more to do with Hillary losing than many realize, very unlikeable.
Feeding their followers low nutrient junk food. Gotta keep their brains soft and pliable.
Objectively, free labor stupidly executed, is not cheaper than low-paid labor efficiently performed. A slave picking cotton by hand is not cheaper than a wager-earner operating a harvester. The fact that the cotton gin made cotton a worthwhile crop in the first place shows that automation of labor works. But the South was unwilling to utilize the harvester prototype available at the time because it would replace too many slaves and leave them idle, which illustrates the weakness of the system. Ironically, the same weakness was on display with socialism, too. Both systems need the work performed to be as labor-intensive as possible, so efficient, cost-effective production is undesirable.
Egypt was not only closer to England, so its shipping could not be interrupted,but had an outstanding debt which they could only repay with cotton. When they failed to repay even with that, England cccupied Egypt. Were Egyptian peasants paid? Not much. Supply and demand kept the price of cotton low on the trading floors, regardless of how much it cost to produce and ship bailed, ginned cotton. And southern cotton was part of the supply even if they had no customers for it.
You think the Egyptians developed a system of such awesome efficiency that they could compete against free labor?
So let's say these inefficient Southern growers go look and see these marvelous techniques the Egyptians developed for making cotton so competitively against a free labor force, and then adopt these same techniques?
A slave picking cotton by hand is not cheaper than a wager-earner operating a harvester.
The Egyptians didn't have mechanical harvesters.
But the South was unwilling to utilize the harvester prototype available at the time because it would replace too many slaves and leave them idle, which illustrates the weakness of the system.
I have actually looked up the information on the Cotton harvester that came out in the 1840s, I think. I've posted pictures of it several times in these threads. The main reason they didn't adopt it was because it didn't work well, it broke down a lot, required quite a lot of effort to get it running and keep it going, and it was just unsuitable for the task for which it was claimed to do.
A practical harvester did not get developed until the 1940s, I believe.
And southern cotton was part of the supply even if they had no customers for it.
It wasn't part of the "supply" when Union ships were preventing it's shipment.
Not a problem. I appreciate your comments.
That is a mouthful. I rue the day of his untimely demise. His assassin thought the South would rejoice and welcome him as a hero. Instead, he was hunted down like the dirty rotten scoundrel he was, with little if any Southern comfort. Worse yet, the North came down twice as hard on the South due to the actions of that idiot.
The first words spoken, to break the silence in the room where Lincoln gave his last breath, with his Cabinet crowded around his deathbed, were, “Now he belongs to the ages”.
I like to think that the South would have been treated in a kinder, more gentle manner, “to bind up the wounds”, etc. I also like to think that there would be no talk of “reparation” today if Lincoln had been able to complete his task. But, what I might speculate is neither here nor there.
So much that followed had as much to do with his untimely demise than what he had done up to that point. Alas, “If it hadn’t been for his passing.....”
And to think, his assassin began to hatch his plot after hearing Lincoln give a speech in which he spoke of giving the freed slaves the right to vote.
Otherwise, I enjoyed your post. You say a lot. The Civil War was not begun, ostensibly, over a single cause. The Northern cause was to preserve the Union and the Southern cause was to preserve the Confederacy. But the South doubled down and made Slavery their cornerstone. So......
So my previous comment was right—Lincoln’s war against slavery really was a war against the swamp in those days, just as Trump’s war is today.
And Lincoln won his war.
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.