Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Irrelevant.
I don't give a f*** what a rubber stamp court says. I can think for myself and I don't need a bunch of minions spewing out the party line when the truth is clear enough to see for anyone with eyes.
The US Constitutional law was clearly not followed in the case of West Virginia being created by territory taken from Virginia without the permission of the Virginia legislature.
You can get all your D@mn legal lackeys to claim this kabuki dance was upright and proper, but the facts show the law was clearly broken.
Skip.
If it isn't the real legislature of Virginia, it's all made up bullsh*t designed to create the appearance of validity. It's legal theater.
Skip.
The Federal government clearly agreed to it because no objection was made to Virginia, New York and Rhode Island stipulating the right to leave.
Does this not even register with your consciousness? Three states clearly said they regarded the Union as leaveable, and of course Massachusetts and Connecticut also behaved as if they believed this during the Hartford convention.
There was no debate from anyone when Virginia asserted they could leave, and yet you are trying to tell us that the Constitution disallows it? You don't even have clear verbiage to this theory, you just have a "Penumbra" which mostly exists in your own mind!
Your position is inconsistent with the clear words of the Declaration of Independence which asserts the right of states to leave, and it is completely inconsistent with the ratification statements of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island, and it is completely inconsistent with the efforts of the New England states to leave during the War of 1812.
What evidence do you have that the delegates and the ratifying state legislatures ever believed that the Union could not be left?
Skip.
I give you a clear cause for war. Anytime you have immensely wealthy men in positions of influence with the government, they can often get the government to do their bidding. At high enough levels the distinction between wealthy men of business and the "government" becomes quite blurred. This is why enormous military resources are patrolling the oceans and keeping the oil flowing from the middle east.
The losses to the wealthy and powerful men in the Acela corridor were more than sufficient for them to use their influence to insist that the South be stopped from cutting them out of the money stream.
The mistake the South made was too quickly letting them see how much money they would lose as a consequence of Southern independence. Once they recognized the threat, war with the South was inevitable, because these were not the sort of men who would take getting cut out of their cash flow lightly.
Robber Barons had to be vicious to get to where they were.
The cause of the war was quite relevant. You just don’t like the fact that the history shows Lincoln committed the first belligerent act. You preferred to believe it was the Confederates who did it.
The cause of the war was southerners committing acts of war against the United States.
Ah, here's the problem. You don't understand the concept of "money."
Again, I ask you, where did you get the Chinese money to buy the device you're reading this on.
The losses to the wealthy and powerful men in the Acela corridor...
You do have your little hobby horse, don't you?
As do I agree, as did all Founders agree under two, but only two, conditions:
DiogenesLamp: "Does this not even register with your consciousness?
Three states clearly said they regarded the Union as leaveable, and of course Massachusetts and Connecticut also behaved as if they believed this during the Hartford convention."
I also believe the Union is "leavable" under two, but only two, conditions -- see above.
DiogenesLamp: "There was no debate from anyone when Virginia asserted they could leave, and yet you are trying to tell us that the Constitution disallows it?
You don't even have clear verbiage to this theory, you just have a "Penumbra" which mostly exists in your own mind! "
"Penumbra" would be your word, not mine, to justify your belief in an unlimited "right of secession, at pleasure".
Neither Virginia nor any other state in 1788 asserted an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All linked "withdrawal" to injuries, oppression or necessity.
That's why Virginia delayed official secession until after not only Fort Sumter, but after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
DiogenesLamp: "Your position is inconsistent with the clear words of the Declaration of Independence which asserts the right of states to leave, and it is completely inconsistent with the ratification statements of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island, and it is completely inconsistent with the efforts of the New England states to leave during the War of 1812."
Nonsense, because none of them asserted an unlimited "right of session" at pleasure.
Even those few New Englanders claimed they were being abused, usurped, injured & oppressed by Jefferson & Madison's administrations (they were being).
And how did President Madison respond to the Hartford threat?
He sent US Army troops from the frontier with Canada to invade New England, should that prove necessary.
Madison did not support unlimited unilateral secession at pleasure.
Neither did any other Founder, ever.
DiogenesLamp: "What evidence do you have that the delegates and the ratifying state legislatures ever believed that the Union could not be left?"
See above.
They and I firmly believe the Union can be left, under two but only two, conditions: necessity or mutual consent.
Neither condition existed in 1860.
Nonsense, of course specie is trade, just like any other commodity -- i.e., iron, copper, petroleum, silver, gold, all commodities, all traded internationally.
In 1860 the US both exported (90%) and imported (10%) specie.
It helped keep our trade balanced.
In the 1850s gold & silver were mined out west, but often traveled east to pay off creditors who'd loaned money for such commercial operations.
That's the same reason some of Southern wealth ended up in cities like New York -- everybody borrowed money, everybody had to pay off their loans.
New York creditors preferred cotton planters over, say, Midwest cattle ranchers, because planters were more reliable.
FRiend, I have no idea what Marxist got into your brain and screwed around with it, but you are clearly very confused about certain economic realities, such as the role of creditors in financing commercial operations.
DiogenesLamp: "Your efforts to stick specie into the conversation are only for the purpose of minimizing the fact that 72% of the trade (some say as high as 85%) were Southern products going to Europe in exchange for European goods, almost all of which were landed in and controlled by, New York city."
In 1860 the US exported gold & silver in the same way as any other surplus commodity mined, grown or manufactured.
Clearly your attempt to eliminate specie from US trade is in hopes of exaggerating the relative importance of Deep South cotton.
Somehow you think that can help you turn Northerners, especially New Yorkers in bad people, (baaaaaad, I tell you!).
But here's the cold truth: cotton revenues paid at most for 50%, not more, of US imports, and therefore Federal revenues.
There's just no way you can argue cotton paid for more than 50% of import tariff revenues because imports balanced with exports including specie.
And nothing important besides cotton was exclusively "Southern products".
DiogenesLamp: "I give you a clear cause for war.
Anytime you have immensely wealthy men in positions of influence with the government, they can often get the government to do their bidding."
Right, Democrats Southern and Northern, partnered together, ruled Washington & New York from 1801 until secession in 1861.
And they rule today, though their erstwhile Southern white partners are now importantly replaced by Left Coast Dems.
In 1860 the old Democrat partnership failed, not because of New Yorkers, but because Deep South Fire Eaters, so they said, were deathly afraid of "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republican abolitionists.
So Fire Eaters split their majority Democrat party in two, allowing the minority Republicans to win the electoral college.
DiogenesLamp: "The losses to the wealthy and powerful men in the Acela corridor were more than sufficient for them to use their influence to insist that the South be stopped from cutting them out of the money stream."
This is the most improbable part of your whole "theory of the crime" -- that NY Democrats who opposed Lincoln's election were suddenly able to issue orders for Lincoln to start war against Confederates!
It's not just improbable, you have no evidence to support it, and such quotes as have been presented here simply do not add up to confirmation of your theory.
DiogenesLamp: "The mistake the South made was too quickly letting them see how much money they would lose as a consequence of Southern independence.
Once they recognized the threat, war with the South was inevitable, because these were not the sort of men who would take getting cut out of their cash flow lightly."
It is indeed a fact that most, but not all, Northern Democrats supported the Union Civil War efforts.
A typical such Northern Democrat was Union General George McClellan -- all show and no go.
But Lincoln was not a Democrat and he didn't answer to or take order from Democrats.
Lincoln did listen to his New Yorker Secretary of State, William Seward, but Seward consistently counseled peace and surrender at Fort Sumter.
So there is no evidence of Democrats who you claim were "pulling the strings" & "calling the shots" having any undue influence over Lincoln.
From Lincoln's perspective they would be simply a few voices amongst many.
DiogenesLamp: "Robber Barons had to be vicious to get to where they were."
Your term "robber barons" mischaracterizes Union Democrat business leaders of that time.
Of course, those who'd loaned money to Confederates could not be happy to see their loans renounced.
Confederates began committing belligerent acts against the Union almost immediately after the first secession in December 1860.
Confederates firing on the Union Star of the West in January 1861 had Northerners up in arms and ready for war then.
President Buchanan announced at the time he would not surrender Fort Sumter without a fight, so the stage was set for Lincoln by Democrats.
By April 1861, Jefferson Davis had already decided to "reduce" Fort Sumter even without Lincoln's resupply fleet, as soon as CSA Gen. Beauregard was ready.
So blaming it on Lincoln is simply Democrats doing what Democrats habitually do.
But there's no need to convince DiogenesLamp, only the US Supreme Court's ruling in 1871 matters today.
Also, the good citizens of West Virginia -- who supported our current President 69%, more than any other state, those really good people -- might take offense at your claim they are not legitimately a separate state, dontcha think?
But if you believe there's some sympathy for really crazy ideas like: "let's reunite Virginia & West Virginia," then maybe that's a cause you can collect money for and take to court?
Good luck with that.
I just left Va after almost 40 years, happy to be back home in WV. Va no thanks! particularly now! WV is a very different place then Va and always has been.!
That one can come right after the court case to overturn the 13th amendment and restore slavery because, according to Diogenes, it was improperly ratified.
Seceding and trying to get people to leave were not acts of war. The first act of war was sending a fleet of warships with orders to force unwanted people into a Fort in their territory, and then being ordered to attack them if they resisted this effort.
The Southern people were producing the European currency. The Northern people were getting it away from them with rigged rules designed to benefit New York and other Northern states.
You do have your little hobby horse, don't you?
Have you even been paying attention to the greater world around you? Are you not even slightly aware that the money flows into Washington DC, and that the News is dominated by New York staff?
Do you realize who is against us in the larger national fight? Wake up!
Lie.
By April 1861, Jefferson Davis had already decided to "reduce" Fort Sumter even without Lincoln's resupply fleet, as soon as CSA Gen. Beauregard was ready.
Lie.
I'm not even going to bother explaining to you why what you are saying is a lie. It will do no good, because you have no concept of objectivity. You really believe the crap you spout.
For everyone else reading, these two things BroJoeK said were lies. They are factually incorrect, and provably so.
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.