Posted on 02/24/2022 6:58:05 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
Seceded state about to be reacquired by the Union. Which side should we root for?
Beating a dead horse.
This is akin the the Alabama-Auburn debate here in Alabama.
Even though you agree both sides were, as you put it, “immoral”, you will always side with the South.
I see both sides as not having clean hands, which is often the case in war. I’m not trying to demonize one side to make a point.
It is pointless to do so, as this whole conversation shows. And to imprint this narrative on the current Russian invasion is counter-productive.
I’m done; You can (and will) continue to beat this horse.
I would think anyone who's been around for awhile is familiar with the phenomena of "old money"?
Well what do you think happens to "old money"? It gets handed down to younger people. So does the power. So do the institutions controlled by such people.
How old is the "Skull and Bones" society? (for example.)
I didn't show the connection because it never occurred to me that you would need to be shown the connection between one generation of power elite and another.
Do I need to explain this idea to you?
First, because there is always persistence, as well as change and circulation in elites.
They evolve and morph, but the core structure is still the "Aristocracy."
That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.
No it doesn't, but common interests can create results that for all intents and purposes work as if a conspiracy were taking place.
I mentioned Samuel Pepys earlier in the thread. He lamented that the King pays more for everything than would any other man in the Kingdom.
Was it a conspiracy against the King? No, it was just the knowledge that the King was immensely wealthy, and so everyone tried to take advantage of him. No conspiracy, but it might as well have been.
Wealthy people who you claim were in some conspiracy against the South often weren't and were willing to come to an accommodation with the Confederacy.
Now this is a little difficult to parse because i'm not certain of what time period to which you refer. Certainly modern liberal disdain for "hicks", "rednecks" and other derogatory terminology used to refer to southern people is a sort of a conspiracy, and I think it is intentional, and probably an old phenomena as well. At least since the civil war, I think.
But what I usually talk about is how people in the northeast worked to get a profit common to them all from the Southern states by utilizing laws that made it much easier to exploit them.
Do you think lobbyists don't influence laws to favor their clients? Well that was happening in the 1850s too.
Is a bunch of industries working in conjunction with each other to apply political force for their common interest a "conspiracy"?
Maybe, Maybe not. Depends on how you want to define it.
Again, you aren't providing actual evidence and building a serious case.
Would you look at a serious case? Someone left me a message on another thread telling me of a book that supposedly builds this serious financial case and explores the motivation of those who were profiting in the Northeast by exploiting laws in the US that helped them separate Southerners from money.
I haven't read it or ordered it, but perhaps I should.
I often find myself learning something or discovering something and thinking I might be the first person to have thought of it, and then later finding out that someone else thought of it years ago.
It's probably in this book, and it has gone further than I would ever have bothered to go.
Now i'm going to have to look through my many tabs and see if I can find that message.
If I remember right, the name of the book was "The South was Right" and it was written by "the Kennedy Twins"?
Pure unadulterated bullshit. After all this time you still have no clue as to the intent of the Corwin Amendment. For your dwindling followers, let me just say the Amendment had more to do with State Rights than any part of the Confederacy did. It simply made the matter of the peculiar institution up to each individual State and took the matter out of the province of the feds. I should think you would approve of that? With all your clamoring about States Rights. And your claiming that “the Union fully intended to keep slavery”. That is a lie.
I think money is the best source of information. Mouths lie, but dollars flow. Follow the flow and you will get the truth. Listen to mouths and they may or may not speak the truth.
Money always speaks the truth.
I will side with the side that wants independence. Today that is Ukraine. Previously it was Israel, India, the Philippines, Cuba, and before that the American South.
I don't try to approve or disapprove of their reasons. My thinking is that if they want to be independent, they have a right to be so.
You can preach a sermon regarding it's "intent", but it's consequences are a continuation of slavery for their foreseeable future.
Now perhaps you think the Northern congress was too stupid to see this consequence, or that Abraham Lincoln didn't consider that this might prolong slavery greatly, but I feel confident in assuring you that these men were no dummies, and fully knew the consequences of what they were supporting.
With all your clamoring about States Rights. And your claiming that “the Union fully intended to keep slavery”.
I think a Constitutional amendment designed to continue slavery and to prohibit it's own repeal is disgusting.
It is pandering of the worst sort.
Lincoln tolerated slavery. (Fixed)
Do you mean the British Union of Anarchists, or the Monarchy of England?
Won’t be long now I think.
“I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln
Only you think it was “designed to continue slavery”. And so, you are only disgusted by your own misconceptions. It was designed to make slavery a matter of the individual States. It was designed to remove the issue from federal jurisdiction. Lincoln said he saw no problem with the proposed amendment becoming “express and ”irrevocable”. Slavery would last until the last State prohibited it. On the one hand you say it was already dying out and on the other hand you say it would live on forever under the “proposed Corwin Amendment. Must suck to be you.
Yes. This is Lincoln’s mind. He did not want the South to go its own way. He did not want to let the Colonies…. Go their own way…. See what I did there?
No. It's that others in your group made the point that the slave holding states came around to ratifying the 13th Amendment by choice. That Freeper's point makes the former Confederacy states look a lot better than yours does, and I would like to think that Freeper is correct.
Not that you care what I think, but I agree with the other Freeper on that point anyway. Not everyone in the South was on board with slavery, and they were probably happy to be rid of it.
Glad I could please.
Does that mean you'll go for it and debate that other Freeper?
I think i've read every post in this thread except for some of the stuff from Handy Dandy. Which person made the point that the slave holding states came around to ratifying the 13th, and what do you mean by "came around"?
When you deliberately disenfranchise the vast majority of the populace in a state, and you appoint your own hand picked VIchy government, that puppet government will "come around" to anything the dictators tell them to do.
Did you misunderstand my point? This isn't how the amendment process works. You don't get to just disenfranchise everyone in the population who doesn't agree with you, and then pretend you've made something legitimate by your puppet governments ratifying it.
The Southern states did not "come around". They were threatened and intimidated and thereby forced to do something they never would have done willingly.
Does that mean you'll go for it and debate that other Freeper?
I debate them all the time, except for a few of them that don't know how to debate and continuously just try to interject noise into the discussion.
I consider Rockingham, Bull Snipe and "X" fairly reasonable, but there are several whom are just broken records regurgitating the same old irrelevant talking points over and over again. I have gotten to where I don't waste my time with them.
If you want to have a debate over whether or not the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were legitimately ratified, I would love to.
Thanks. interesting as always.
Yes, I think I do. You said “hold my beer and watch this”. And then you face planted.
Ad hominem attack… the final gasp of the mindless boob.
I think that “mindless boob” is an ad hominem attack. See what I did there?
I don't see the point. There's too much else going on to worry about whether you agree they were legitimately passed.
It's not about me. My contention is that a weighing of the evidence will result in any objective person realizing that what I have said is actually true.
But I understand that there are more important things in life than arguing with people on the internet. I should pay more attention to real life than I do.
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.