Shame of the Yankees - America's Worst Anti-Jewish Action [Civil War thread]

Jewish Press ^ | 11-21-06 | Lewis Regenstein

[stand watie]

in other words, you did NOT understand my posts # 654 & #663, as you are simply UNABLE to.

PITY. i didn't know you were "reading challenged" as well as a HATER & FOOL.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

did YOU understand the MEANING of my #654 & #663??? (your "buddy", "JSU&TI", obviously did NOT. the meaning, which i thought RATHER obvious, "went right over his head".)

care for a "do over"??? or would you prefer to "move on" to a new argument, as you have LOST this one????

free dixie,sw

[justshutupandtakeit]

She says all armies rape.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Well it is hard to understand you since my gibberish translator is broken.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

In the scope of one post you go from "I always read that the South started the war...fired the first shots yada yada" to verifying my statement that Lincoln provoked that Fort Sumter incident even when everyone around him thought it was foolish.

And you've gone from saying that Lincoln attacked the south to admitting that he merely provoked them into shooting at US troops by trying to send them supplies.

Incidentially, Fort Sumter also served as a tariff collection point.

No it didn't. It wasn't even finished when Anderson moved his men there. It was a military installation, and the military has never collected the tariff. The tariff collection point for Charleston was the Customs House on shore. Where do you get this stuff?

So, when did Lincoln promise that he wouldn't resupply Sumter? I notice you're not addressing that question.

[Non-Sequitur]

once more (SIGH!), NE's land was there for many millennia & NE was a "well-settled" US TERRITORY, where "life indenture without PAY" was LAWFUL.

It's amazing how you can come up with these little nuggets that nobody else has heard of, where no evidence supporting them exists in any verifiable location, and where they all manage to cast the North in a bad light. It's almost like you were making them up. </sarcasm>

[Non-Sequitur]

Incidentially, Fort Sumter also served as a tariff collection point.

Which would come as a complete surprise to the folks at the Customs office on East Bay Street. Tell me, how much sense does it make to put your tariff collection point in the middle of an army fort clear across the harbor from the wharfs where the tariff would be collected?

[stand watie]

SORRY, but this "one" is NOT mine but rather "Nolo Chan" & it has been posted before with FULL DOCUMENTATION, on a thread that you were "on".

this one,once more, you LOSE!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

in other words, you either were DECEITFUL or (STUPIDLY) incomprehensible in your previous post.

could it be that you are BOTH???

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

sorry, we aren't going to let you get away with trying to change the SUBJECT to something other than the FACTS that her source documents PROVE to the satisfaction of everyone except the HATE-filled, arrogantly (and KNOWINGLY) ignorant.

Her source documents also show that American soldiers in Vietnam used rape as a common tool to exert their dominance over women. Are her sources correct?

and your comments in an earlier post about "teacher's guides" will make you NO friends among FR's many teachers, as the post assumes that teachers are as DUMB, UNdiscerning & IGNORANT as you evidently hope they might be.

Where do you get that in what I said? I don't think teachers are dumb. I think that a "public school teacher's guide" to Brownmiller's book doesn't exist. If you can show otherwise, I'll retract my statement. Until then, I'll save it a space on my shelf next to the space for "Yachts Against Subs."

[stand watie]

NOPE. it's your BRAIN that is broken.

what PART of my post did you NOT understand??? or was ALL of it "over your head" (i thought my words were simple enough even for a half-wit/simpleton)??? was third grade your FIVE best years in school???

why not head over to DU, where FOOLS & BIGOTS dwell???

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

care for a "do over", as you've LOST this argument???

Not until you show that this alleged "public school teacher's guide" to the book exists.

[stand watie]

actually, her OPINION is that soldiers used rape in VN for controlling women. her SOURCE DOCUMENTS say nothing of the kind.

care for a "do over", as you've LOST this one & are looking evermore DUMB???

btw, have you READ her book??? NO??? i thought NOT.

free dixie,sw

[spacecowboynj]

Folks, we're going to take little baby steps on this. Let's begin by addressing this most basic of reference points as to the mindset of Lincoln with regard to the South and his reasons for war:

Exerpts from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slaverly in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"

Some here have already backed away from the "it was about ending the tyranny of slavery" nonsense...that should be the final nail in that coffin either way. If not, then let me also add that in the same address he also promised to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Law. Here's what Lincoln really wanted and here's what started the Civil War:

"The power confided in me will be used to hold, cocupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; (HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART FOR THE DUMBKOFFS) but beyond what may be neccesary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against, or among the people anywhere"

Lincoln promises no "invasion" yet sends battleships into the South to provoke a conflict at a Confederate fort held by a Union commander who did not want to be there. The "duties and imposts" are what Lincoln wanted. Let me explain:

Lincoln's entire vision for America rested on protectionist tariffs, the most infamous of which was the Morrill tarrif. I realize that today we think of the Republican Party as the party for lower taxation in America and this is true to some extent (Bush's one major exclusion to this was tariffs on imported steel...a move that pissed off a LOT of his base, me included). In Lincoln's day it was the opposite. The Republicans were replacing the Whigs as the tax-and-spend party and they essentially caused the Whigs to become obsolete in the same manner that the current GOP is trying to take the issues of education, medicare, social security, and other domestic issues away from the Democrats (indeed, today's GOP has passed the largest spending bills in history on all of those issues.

Back in Lincoln's day, the Republican-controlled Congress went on a protectionist frenzy for DECADES prior to the Civil War. The average tariff rate crept up to 47.06%!!! Can you imagine paying a 50% tax on gasoline? The Southern states had to pay the lion's share of this beacuse they did business with foreigners much more than the north did (to the extent that Europe aided the South in the war). Southerners were paying half of all federal taxes EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD LESS THAN HALF THE POPULATION OF THE NORTH.

This is why the Confederate States OUTLAWED protectionist tariffs in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution.

Is this sinking in with you guys?

[justshutupandtakeit]

She says all armies rape. IN FACT, she says all MEN rape. But she is YOUR idiot not mine.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course, it doesn't exist. However, stand lies so much he can't tell the difference any more.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You must get all your exercise beating Straw Men.

[Non-Sequitur]

This is why the Confederate States OUTLAWED protectionist tariffs in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution.

OK, babysteps.

Can you tell me why, if the tariff was such a bone of contention, one of the earliest acts of the confederate congress was the passage of a tariff which, among other things, placed a 25 percent tariff on tobacco, a 20 percent tariff on sugar and molasses, and other tariffs on goods manufactured in the south? Wouldn't that be protectionist in nature?

Link

[Ditto]

Where do you get this stuff?

From the Lost Cause Myth Collection at Crown Rights Books.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Some here have already backed away from the "it was about ending the tyranny of slavery" nonsense

Another straw man. Find one of the Union Regulars who claims that he war was fought to end slavery. The north fought to preserve the Union. However, the south seceded to protect the tyranny of slavery.

Back in Lincoln's day, the Republican-controlled Congress went on a protectionist frenzy for DECADES prior to the Civil War.

What drugs are you on to help you make this stuff up? So the Republicans controlled Congress for DECADES prior to the Civil War, huh? Weird, since the party was only formed in 1854.

It's amazing the way you throw these things out, then don't even try to defend them, instead just coming up with new falsehoods. So far, you've claimed that excise taxes and tariffs are the same thing, that there were internal tariffs on southern goods, that the Republicans controlled congress for decades before they were formed, that an unfinished fort was a tariff collection point, that Lincoln promised not to resupply Sumter, and that's just off the top of my head.

This is why the Confederate States OUTLAWED protectionist tariffs in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution.

So why did the Confederate Congress immediately pass a tariff act that was almost identical to US customs rates at the time? Why did they impose a 25% tariff on tobacco?

The average tariff rate crept up to 47.06%!!!

Bull. According to Taussig, who your boy DiLorenzo cites approvingly, "In 1857 duties were still further reduced, the rate on most protected commodities going down to 24 per cent., and remaining at this comparatively low level until the outbreak of the Civil War." As for the Morrill Tariff, it was only able to be passed AFTER the southern representatives walked out of congress. Read Alexander Stephens' Georgia speech, where he says that Lincoln can't pass anything without southern cooperation and compromise.