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

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

[spacecowboynj]

Ridiculous analogy. Castro's Cuba is not, you know, HALF THE UNITED STATES. Sorta stupid comparison, wouldn't you say?

Also, Vallandigham was not alone. Lincoln had many people silenced and/or locked up for their anti-war views, this was nothing new. And Vallandigham was popular enough to come back and have a decent shot at being elected gov of a northern state. Yeah sure, he lost (Lincoln downplayed deporting him and endorsed his rival) but who cares, guy still got a sizable portion of the vote with the president actively campaigning against him and for his rival! Wow.

Vallandigham was no Cindy Shehan. He was a senator who was expelled for speaking about against a way unpopular war (imagine if the AWOL rate today was 94%!!) without charges or trial and he came back after the war to make a decent run for gov in a northern state.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

But I guess you're above accidents in your own mind.

Well, I'm certainly above pointing any gun, even if I think it's unloaded, up to my head and pulling the trigger. You call it an accident. I call it stupid.

[spacecowboynj]

If a sitting prez is about to launch one half of this nation against the other (and I don't care what the reasons are) and anyone who doesn't go along with it like a lapdog is a "traitor" in your opinion, then you're sheeple pure and simple.

6 million dead in today's numbers folks! Go into Manhattan and murder everyone in it and you're still not even close.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Castro's Cuba is not, you know, HALF THE UNITED STATES.

No, it's a separate nation, just as the south claimed it was, with a foreign military installation on its soil, just as the south claimed Sumter was. You say that the south was justified in firing on Sumter to keep it from being resupplied. Does Castro have the right to shell Guantanamo to keep it from being resupplied?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

If a sitting prez is about to launch one half of this nation against the other

But the southern position is that they weren't half of the nation anymore. They were a separate nation.

[justshutupandtakeit]

These clowns never learn. They post cherry-picked quotes then one who is concerned about the Truth post the FULL selection which INVARIABLY shows the opposite of what they are trying to show. Almost every CW thread has several examples of this.

[Non-Sequitur]

Just because they raised them througout the Civil War (to pay for their war no less) doesn't detract from the fact that they ran on raising them BEFORE the war and continued to so LONG AFTER THE WAR.

Any economist will tell you that the purpose of a protective tariff is not to raise revenue but to shelter domestic industries. If it is doing its job properly a protective tariff should discourage imports and reduce their volume, thus reducing the revenues realized by the tariff. Hard to believe a 'tax and spend' party would take steps to reduce their tax revenue.

[spacecowboynj]

Yeah but we're not talking about his abilities with flintlocks, we're talking about his objection to the Civil War, aren't we?

If you want to talk stupidity, talk about Lincoln totally haveing zero concept of the risk involved. Stonewall Jackson would've had him under guard had Jefferson Davis not refused his request for 10,000 more troops (quote: "Give me ten-thousand men and I will take Washington tomorrow!") after they completely routed the Union force at the Battle of First Manassas.

Yeah, that's the kind of dipsh1T Commander-in-Chief I want running the show.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The sitting prez did NOT "...launch one half of this nation against the other...". He did, much to your chagrin, respond to attacks on American forces as any president MUST.

If you have any concern about the death toll you should place the blame for it where it belongs - on the Slaver ruling class of the South as sorry a set of dogs as ever roamed the earth.

[Non-Sequitur]

Give me ten-thousand men and I will take Washington tomorrow!"

Interesting but a complete fabrication. Davis spoke to his army commanders, Johnston and Beauregard, that night, not to obscure brigade commanders. Davis wanted to them to move on Washington but it was the generals who talked it out of it.

Your Jackson quote has no more basis in fact than your 94% AWOL rate claim.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah but we're not talking about his abilities with flintlocks, we're talking about his objection to the Civil War, aren't we?

You are aware that flintlocks had all but disappeared by the time of the southern rebellion, aren't you? They had been replaced by percussion caps.

[spacecowboynj]

"Any economist will tell you that the purpose of a protective tariff is not to raise revenue but to shelter domestic industries. If it is doing its job properly a protective tariff should discourage imports and reduce their volume, thus reducing the revenues realized by the tariff. Hard to believe a 'tax and spend' party would take steps to reduce their tax revenue."

First off, how can raising taxes on ANYTHING "reduce" tax revenue. If I raise taxes on gasoline tomorrow (they routinely get raised without any of you probably even knowing about it, both federal and state) are you going to buy less gas? Of course not.

It's this type of thinking and philosophy that is utterly, utterly frightening folks. It's totally against free trade and capitalism (Valligndigham was a notorious free trader and that's why he opposed the Civil War).

First off, protectionist tariffs always hurt SOMEONE domestically because they're the "demand" part of the supply and demand equation. It hurts another way too in that it squashes innovation by saying "well, our cars can't compete but we'll make it easy on the car companies by making it so they won't have to." Pretty stupid. Bush increasing tariffs on cheap imported steel ensured that our steel industry doesn't have to get its act together globally until that tariff is repealed (READ: Never). Raising tariffs on imports favoring one business over the other and that's something that to me, the govt should stay out of. I like free trade, even if you do not.

[spacecowboynj]

Whatever, I'm not a ballistics afficionado. Guy accidentally shot himself, Cheney accidentally shot someone else. Accidents happen. I'm sure I can track down some pretty notorious accidents (I think Teddy Roosevelt almost got himself killed on more than one occasion), but we're debating the Civil War.

[Non-Sequitur]

First off, how can raising taxes on ANYTHING "reduce" tax revenue. If I raise taxes on gasoline tomorrow (they routinely get raised without any of you probably even knowing about it, both federal and state) are you going to buy less gas? Of course not.

Never heard of the Laffer curve, have you? Arthur Laffer's theory, since demonstrated, is that there is an optimal point of taxation that maximizes your revenue. Go above that rate and the level of taxation discourages economic activity and actually results in lower tax revenues.

It's this type of thinking and philosophy that is utterly, utterly frightening folks. It's totally against free trade and capitalism (Valligndigham was a notorious free trader and that's why he opposed the Civil War).

Vallandigham was a well-known advocate of state's rights and didn't give a damn about free trade.

Raising tariffs on imports favoring one business over the other and that's something that to me, the govt should stay out of. I like free trade, even if you do not.

Or Jefferson Davis either. He signed the protectionist confederate tariff in May 1861.

[spacecowboynj]

"Your Jackson quote has no more basis in fact than your 94% AWOL rate claim."

Please Non-Sequitur...make some effort yourself to do basic research. Just Google this stuff, ok? I swear, it's like feeding a baby, the baby gurgling it back, then having to wipe its mouth. But fine, here we go:

JACKSON:

(Q and A with Jackson's doctor)

"Was Jackson intimate with President Davis? When did you see him for the first time?" queried the scribe.

"The first time General Jackson ever saw President Davis was at First Manassas," replied Dr. McGuire. "The enemy had been routed and the wounded brought back to the field hospital which I had made for Jackson's brigade. Out of about eighteen hundred shot that day in our army six hundred or more were out of Jackson's brigade, and he himself had come back to the hospital wounded. The place was on the banks of the little stream of water just this side of the Lewis house. Hundreds of men had come back, the fight being over, to see about their wounded comrades, so there were really several thousand people gathered in and about that hospital. President Davis had gotten off the cars with his staff at Manassas Junction and ridden as fast as he could to the field of battle, He had been told along the route by stragglers that we were defeated. He came on down the little hill which led to this stream in a rapid gallop, stopped when he got to the stream and looked around at this great crowd of soldiers. His face was deadly pale and his eyes flashing. He stood up in his stirrups, glanced over the crowd, and said: 'I am President Davis; all of you who are able follow me back to the field.'

"Jackson was a little deaf, and didn't know who Davis was or what he had said until I told him. He stood up at once, took off his cap and saluted the President and said: 'We have whipped them; they ran like dogs. Give me ten thousand men and I will take Washington city to-morrow.'"

http://www.huntermcguire.goellnitz.org/stnwall.html

CONSCRIPTION

Conscription nurtured substitutes, bounty-jumping, and desertion. Charges of class discrimination were leveled against both Confederate and Union draft laws since exemption and commutation clauses allowed propertied men to avoid service, thus laying the burden on immigrants and men with few resources. Occupational, only-son, and medical exemptions created many loopholes in the laws. Doctors certified healthy men unfit for duty, while some physically or mentally deficient conscripts went to the front after sham examinations. Enforcement presented obstacles of its own; many conscripts simply failed to report for duty. Several states challenged the draft's legality, trying to block it and arguing over the quota system. Unpopular, unwieldy, and unfair, conscription raised more discontent than soldiers.

Under the Union draft act men faced the possibility of conscription in July 1863 and in Mar., July, and Dec. 1864. Draft riots ensued, notably in New York in 1863. Of the 249,259 18-to-35-year-old men whose names were drawn, only about 6% served, the rest paying commutation or hiring a substitute.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/conscription.htm

[Ditto]

Ridiculous analogy. Castro's Cuba is not, you know, HALF THE UNITED STATES. Sorta stupid comparison, wouldn't you say?

"Sorta" stupid statement. Fort Sumter was not half the United States. It was a tiny man-made island (made entirely with Federal dollars, by the way) totally deeded decades eariler by the State of South Carolina, for perpetuity to the Federal Government. It was completely surrounded by hundreds of Confederate heavy guns and thousands of Confederate troops. The handful of Federal troops living on starvation rations on Sumter posed no conceivable threat to Charleston, South Carolina or the other Confederate states.

GTMO, on the other hand sits entirely on mainland Cuban soil, (the US only has a lease, agreed to by a long defunct Cuban government, not ownership) and occupies the entirety of a very fine harbor to which Cuba has zero access. The US military presence at GTMO is substantial and could, if it chose to, present a serious security threat to Cuba.

All things considered, I'd say Castro would be far better justified in demanding a withdraw from GTMO than Davis was at Sumter.

Now again, you are the president, and Castro is starving the Marines out of GTMO. What do you do?

[spacecowboynj]

The Confederate Constitution didn't abolish tariffs, it simply said they couldn't be raised for some nebulous "general welfare of the state" as per the US Constiution (read: Pork). Ahem:

The Confederate Constitution gave Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States..."

The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause was an open door for any type of government intervention. They were, of course, right.

Immediately following that clause in the Confederate Constitution is a clause that has no parallel in the U.S. Constitution. It affirms strong support for free trade and opposition to protectionism: "but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry."

The use of tariffs to shelter domestic industries from foreign competition had been an important issue since tariffs were first adopted in 1816. Southern states had borne heavy costs since tariffs protected northern manufacturing at the expense of Southern imports. The South exported agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states, while most of the tariff revenue was spent in the North.

The Confederate Constitution prevents Congress from appropriating money "for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce" except for improvement to facilitate waterway navigation. But "in all such cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay for the costs and expenses thereof..."

"Internal improvements" were pork-barrel public works projects. Thus the Southern Founders sought to prohibit general revenues from being used for the benefit of special interests. Tax revenues were to be spent for programs that benefited everyone, not a specific segment of the population.

https://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=353&sortorder=articledate

[spacecowboynj]

Now again, you are the president, and Castro is starving the Marines out of GTMO. What do you do?

Well, if I promised I wouldn't invade in my inaugural address, if my commanders told me to abandown the fort, and if my cabinet and popular opinion told me likewise, I would relinquish the fort! Simple as that!

And you're being disingenuous. The Confederacy was not "starving" anyone. The Union occupied the fort (after abandoning virtually all others) on their soil and Lincoln was not sending bread, he was sending battleships.

Lincoln's top military commander, General Winfield Scott, told him to abandon Ft Sumter for crying out loud!

[spacecowboynj]

LINCOLN TO NAVAL COMMANDER GUSTAVUS FOX, 1861:

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results."

THERE YOU GO FOLKS! THIS WAS NOT ABOUT FEEDING "STARVING" TROOPS (AS IF THE SOUTH WAS GOING TO TOLERATE THEM ON THEIR SOIL REGARDLESS), THIS WAS ABOUT INSTIGATING THE CIVIL WAR.

[spacecowboynj]

Oh and Ditto,

I don't know the arrangement we have with Cuba over Gitmo, but I do know that if Saudi Arabia told us to close up shop and get the hell out of their country, I would listen to them. Ditto for Japan and Germany.