Posted on 12/30/2024 8:32:27 PM PST by SeekAndFind
My friend @JoshuaSteinman is dropping bombshells about H-1B visas, and I’ve got a story to add.
tl;dr – It’s a cultural problem.
I spent years in India, working directly for one of the country’s wealthiest individuals. He recruited me for my computer skills to lead some of the most ambitious, technically challenging projects ever attempted.
We broke world records and unlocked trillions in wealth. My boss? He now lives in a skyscraper in Mumbai.
Toward the end of the project, he told me his best engineers were leaving for Silicon Valley, lured by unbelievable salaries. So, on his recommendation, I packed up my family and moved to California.
Here’s where it gets weird: I was (at least for short periods of rime) chief of that massive project, with ultimate responsibility. But guys several rungs below me - men way less qualified for any job - were getting H-1B visas and landing incredible salaries in tech.
I got turned down for every tech job I applied for.
Looking back, here’s why:
1.I told the truth. The foreign visa applicants? Many claimed to work in different departments or roles to fit the narrative. I admitted I worked on oil & gas projects. That’s considered “dirty” and “irrelevant” in tech. http://2.My school wasn’t on “the list.” I graduated from @MaritimeCollege —what @stevenujifusa calls “the Harvard of Maritime.” Highest attrition rate in the country. 185 credits. Classes like spherical geometry. But it’s a state school in The Bronx.
Tech doesn’t care. They rely on lists of “approved” “Ivy Plus” schools, as @bhorowitz admits in The Hard Thing About Hard Things.
But there’s more to it. It’s a cultural problem.
American applicants are at a disadvantage because we’re too easy to vet.
•Work for an Indian oil company? Don’t mention it on your resume.
•Work for a Chinese communist spy agency? Just leave it out.
•Wrong degree? Ask the school to reword your transcript or reframe it as a minor.
As an American, it’s incredibly difficult to lie. HR WILL call my references and confirms every detail of my background.
But for foreign applicants? That’s a lot harder to verify, so they get a pass.
And beneath it all? “Tech culture.”
Read any book about the industry, and you’ll find a near-religious obsession with maintaining “culture.” It’s a startup mantra: hard work, positivity, willingness to take risks.
But the dirty secret? “Tech culture” also harbors disdain for: •“Dirty” industries like oil & gas. •Christian values or Republican politics. •Anything less than an Ivy League education.
This isn’t just about H-1Bs. It’s about arrogance baked into an industry that weeds out Americans for not fitting their mold.
I’m not surprised that zero of Josh’s friends from the Trump administration got hired in tech, even at the highest levels.
If you’re a foreign conservative? They’ll hire you because it doesn’t code against “tech culture.” (E.g. I have several ultra conservative very religious Hindu friends who don’t have this problem) But if you’re an American who doesn’t fit their narrative? They’ll weed you out.
It’s time to talk about the serious cultural problem in tech—and how it’s harming American workers.
Tech has serious biases. They either need to toss them out and hire the best candidates or figure out how to properly vet foreigners who don’t fit their BS culture.
P.S. I did find a way around this BS. Start a company yourself m. I did and raised over $6M for one company.
How did I do it? I dropped any mention of my religion, politics, oil drilling experience and state school education from my capital raising meetings. Worked like a charm.
As an American it’s literally easier to get million dollar checks than a middle level job at Facebook or Apple.
Watch this:
A lot of people in history have successfully convinced the majority of Americans that "All men are created equal" is the only thing the Declaration of Independence says."
The mask slips off when the Musk goes off?
IRL, most of the companies that are heavily into H1-B's think of software developers (at least) as interchangeable parts, and don't recognize the concept of "exceptional talent," except maybe on their sales and marketing team.
Why the h--l should government be supporting the importation of foreigners to take jobs away from Americans? What do we pay taxes for, so our own government can stab us in the back?
The fault with this line of reasoning is that it ignores what the Declaration of Independence actually says.
The Declaration articulates a right to independence. It does not argue for a conditional right, it argues for an absolute right to independence for any and all reasons. It leaves it to "the people" to decide that they have a good reason for leaving.
If the right is absolute, then trying to discuss their "reasons" is ignoring the fact that they don't have to explain or justify their reasons, they had a right to do what they did.
Let's look at what the Declaration actually says. I perceive *THIS* as the thesis statement for the entire document.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I didn't see a clause in there that said "except for the reason of protecting slavery."
It's not a qualified right. It is an absolute right, and whether "protecting slavery" was their reason or not, did they not still have a right to leave?
That would be a fair statement except for the fact that your and my posts on the subject have been discussing the WHY the confederate states seceded (whether or not it was for slavery), not the legality of doing so. I'm the one who brought up the Declaration of Independence as an example for WHY we left England, and how much we revere it, as a reason to use the Confederate declarations to get a reason for their WHY. Remember, until now our posts haven't been talking about if they hade a right to do so. It's just been about the WHY (whether or not they did it for slavery). But if you want to discuss the HOW or LEGALITY of the states seceding, I promise you'll get no argument from me. They had a right to do so.
Much of the text of the Declaration of Independence has to do with grievances against England and King George (our WHY we left England). There's a huge portion of the Declaration used just for the grievances (our WHY). So much so that it's hard to imagine that our founders didn't think that our WHY was important. Below is the portion from the Dec of Ind that I'm talking about. Read it and know that these are WHY we broke away from England, and therefore much of it as you can see was the basis for many of our constitutional rights. Therefore, in any discussion on WHY the confederate states seceded, can't we reason their purpose from reading their secession declarations on WHY they did so?
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
You shouldn't. I'm against this too.
What do we pay taxes for, so our own government can stab us in the back?
They seem to do that a lot, don't they?
Isn't the legality of it the only thing that can justify an armed invasion to stop it? Clearly the North was okay with the continuation of slavery in the South because they didn't do anything about it for years even though they had the numerical superiority in Congress.
In fact, in March of 1861, the Republican controlled house of Representatives voted by a 2/3rds margin to amend the constitution to make slavery legal permanently. The Republican Senate followed suit, and voted by that same 2/3rds margin for the "Corwin Amendment."
So if the Northern Republican controlled congress was trying to keep slavery legal, why is it an issue? Seems as if both sides agreed on that point.
I'm the one who brought up the Declaration of Independence as an example for WHY we left England, and how much we revere it, as a reason to use the Confederate declarations to get a reason for their WHY.
Well as I mentioned before, Columnist Paul Craig Roberts puts out an interesting explanation for WHY some of the states cited slavery as their reason for leaving.
He said that the excessive taxes they had to pay, and the excessive charges they had to pay for Northern "services" like shipping, warehousing, insurance, banking, warehousing and so forth, were what really upset them. The laws of the Union required them to use those Northern services, and of course they gouged the South on their prices. Also, the Constitution gave congress the sole power to set taxation, and in this case it was the tariffs.
So long as they were in the Union, they had to pay these tariffs, and hire these northern (monopoly) companies to carry their cargoes and provide their other "services." They had no legal recourse but to pay through the nose. 60% of all the money earned through slavery ended up in the North. The Northerners were making more money from slavery than the people actually working the slaves.
So they wanted out of the Union to get out of those charges and keep more money for themselves, but all those things were legal so long as they remained in the Union.
So what if they could come up with a "breach of contract" claim for the Union? By arguing the Union was violating the US Constitution on the issue of slavery, they could claim that because the Union broke the contract, they were no longer obligated to abide by it themselves.
They could claim the Union nullified the agreement by refusing to live up to the requirements spelled out in the Constitution in regards to slavery.
So Paul Craig Roberts argues the secession statements were a legal trick to justify exiting from under the Constitution.
With only 4 out of 11 states issuing such statements, he may be correct. Most states did not issue any such statement claiming slavery was the issue.
It didn't matter. The North stood to lose about 700 million per year in value from the South leaving the Union, and the ruling class just wasn't going to allow that to happen.
"Furthermore, free black people could be kidnapped and sold in St. Louis or states where such sales were legal."
But when you go to the site mentioned in the footnote, you find this:
"Their greatest scourge was the professional kidnapper, who operated with relative impunity from bases in Kentucky and Missouri. Kidnapping of free blacks was, of course, illegal, but the law was worded in such a way that it was difficult to enforce, even if the will to enforce it had existed.
The law stated that it was a crime to carry a free Negro across the state line by force. Which meant that it was perfectly legal to seize a free Negro in Illinois, bind him, throw him into a wagon, and then transfer him to some other unidentified party who would commit the crime of rowing him across the Mississippi to sell him as a slave in Missouri. Nor was it illegal for an employer to send a free black employee on an errand to St. Louis to have him kidnapped there, since he would not have been carried forcibly across the state line. In fact, since the poor Negro was not permitted to testify against his abductors, even if he could have thwarted the attempt he could not have brought them to justice."
If that's true, there was no law allowing all white people to kidnap a free black person and sell him or her into slavery. You couldn't sell slaves in Illinois. I'm not even sure that it was "perfectly legal" to pick free black people up off the streets tie them up and take them to the border. That may be the writer's interpretation, not necessarily the law. It looks more likely to me that criminals and slave catchers weren't very scrupulous or law-abiding than that ordinary white people were routinely seizing African-Americans on the street to sell into slavery, even in the next state over.
You've said over and over again that you think slaveowners had the right to bring and work their slaves wherever they wanted. When Northerners went the distance to assure slaveowners that they were not opposed to slaveowners keeping and working their slaves in their own states, that's not enough for you. Their position, though, was a practical and conciliatory position and one that was consistent with and conducive to an eventual gradual emancipation of the slaves. I'd say that their position was a lot more moral than yours.
Maybe "self-righteous" is a better word than hypocritical, both in this case and in general. Southerners were as convinced as Northerners of the moral purity of their cause, whether they were hypocritical or not. That's something people now have forgotten. If you're self-righteous and hypocritical, that's bad. It's also bad if you're self-righteous and morally in the wrong.
Hypocrisy would be saying slavery was wrong and keeping slaves or profiting from slavery. Some Northerners did that. Saying slavery was wrong and not wanting to live among African-Americans as equals, might be self-righteous, but it wasn't hypocritical by the standards of the time. The issue wasn't integration or loving care. It was slavery. Not saying and not thinking slavery was wrong and not wanting black people around is morally objectionable by today's standards but it wasn't self-righteous or hypocritical at the time.
You are inordinately hung up on this idea that everybody thinks Northerners were moral and Southerners depraved, and keep claiming Northerners are on some moral pedestal and you are knocking them off, but that's because you are imposing the thinking of today's world on the past. In the 1850s slavery was still a live issue; for half the country slavery was a moral institution and they'd attack you if you attacked it. For much of the 20th century, abolitionists were condemned and blamed (together with extremists on the other side) for causing the war. Most historians nowadays don't think much of the average white American of the 19th century wherever they lived. Everybody back then is morally condemned by today's historians and moralizers. You keep thinking Northerners then are on a moral pedestal and you have to knock them off, but that's not the case.
IMHO the Corwin Amendment was a legislative tactic to "show" the Dim controlled states that the Republicans were "trying" to give the Dims no reason to secede, but without actually doing so (because everybody knew that there's no way it would have been ratified by 3/4ths of the states with 16 out of 31 states being free states). It's analogous to today when some Republicans say they want a pro-life amendment, or some Dims say they want a gun-ban amendment. Everybody knows that those amendments are going nowhere and the politicians who push those things are just grandstanding.
Well as I mentioned before, Columnist Paul Craig Roberts puts out an interesting explanation for WHY some of the states cited slavery as their reason for leaving
I prefer to read the official documents myself (the states' declarations of secession) more than have someone else interpret for me. Especially over something as politicized as the confederacy (all northerners today say it was for slaver and all southerners today say it was over the Lost Cause). As an analogy: do you trust what someone says about our relationship with God if it counters what the Bible itself says? Also, are us FReepers okay with the political class telling us that we need the Constitution explained to us before we tell the govt to honor our rights? I don't mind other people's opinions. Sometimes I'm the one seeking them out. But in the end it comes down to reading the official documents themselves (i.e. Bible, or Constitution) that I count as the gospel truth. The same with determining the reasons why the Dim states seceded: a columnist's opinion might be helpful except that the Confederate states' declarations mention slavery a hundred times. Wow, it's hard for me to overlook that and base it instead on a columnist's opinion.
But like I said in a prior post: that's in the past. I don't judge today's Dims or today's southerners on the past slavery. Jesus' blood washes away sins, and sins of our ancestors don't relate to us anyway. The only way the past matters is if you're wanting to study the past (like you and I do) to determine if we're seeing similar things today.
Isn't the legality of it the only thing that can justify an armed invasion to stop it?
So who started the war? Hmmm...was For Sumter part of the seceded South Carolina or still part of the Union (given that the United States is who built the fort and it was on an island)? I dunno. I could see either way, particularly since the island is located somewhat inland. But at least South Carolina should have had to pay the Union for the fort before claiming it. Did they do that?
On Jan 9, 1861, Dim Confederate forces attacked a steamer ship carrying supplies to Ft. Sumter. This is 2 months before Lincoln was inaugurated (back then the president was inaugurated in March). Dim president Buchanan had told the U.S. forces to stay put at Sumter, then Dim Confederate forces started a siege on Sumter. IMHO, that's the confederate Dims starting the war.
In February 1861, Dims in Maryland tried multiple times to assassinate President-elect Lincoln while he was touring the neutral, but slave, state to tell them that he had no intention of forcing abolition at the federal level. Just get the federal govt out of the way (i.e. 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, plus SCOTUS Dred Scott decision) so the states can choose to be free states or slave states. Perhaps the Dims trying multiple times to kill Lincoln should be considered an act of war and, thus, the start of the war. If so, then I have trouble blaming the north.
On April 8, 1861, Dim Confederate President Jefferson Davis threatened to attack the United States of American forces on Ft. Sumter if they didn't leave, without so much as offering to pay for the fort that the United States had built. To me that doesn't sound like the north threating war, but the Dim-controlled south doing it.
On April 12, 1861, Dim Confederate forces threatened to attack Ft. Sumter if the United States didn't leave. U.S. Major Robert Anderson replied that he would stay until he ran out of supplies in 3 days. The Dims didn't wait 3 days. They attacked immediately. So if you want to say it's the start of the war, then it was the south who started it.
You misconstrue what I said. I said that under the US Constitution, with slaves regarded as "property", that states should not have been able to ban their usage within their state boundaries any more than they could ban the usage of any other property. It is a 5th amendment violation right off the bat.
It also occurs to me that when this agreement was entered into, the vast majority of states were slave states, and so the natural assumption was that all the states would respect the rights of slaveholders as part of the agreement.
States coming out later and saying "except for slave property", doesn't make sense. Where is this exception mentioned in the Constitution?
As a legal matter, I don't see where the "free" states had a leg to stand on.
Not that I agree with it, but that is the deal they made in 1789. If they didn't want that deal, they should have made exception to it at the time, or refused to agree to the Constitution.
I'd say that their position was a lot more moral than yours.
Morality has got nothing to do with it. Slavery is entirely immoral, but this is "LAW" we are talking about, and any law that recognizes slavery as legal, is already on the wrong side of morality.
Once you cross that bridge of recognizing the legality of slavery, than all issues related to it should follow the regular rules of law. Slaves were "property." They had a legal status similar to Horses or Cows. Could a state make a law banning someone from having Horses or Cows in their state?
Following the clinical detachment of the law, by what legal argument can you justify excluding people and their property from a state? The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution pretty much requires all states to recognize the rights of citizens of other states within their own boundaries, and if a law in Georgia creates slave property, by what argument can Massachusetts claim they don't have to respect it?
The law is a hard nose. It makes people live up to the agreements they signed, even if they later decide they don't like it. How does a state get a pass on this point?
Maybe "self-righteous" is a better word than hypocritical, both in this case and in general. Southerners were as convinced as Northerners of the moral purity of their cause, whether they were hypocritical or not. That's something people now have forgotten. If you're self-righteous and hypocritical, that's bad. It's also bad if you're self-righteous and morally in the wrong.
"Self-righteous" I can go along with. It makes more sense than "Hypocritical." Yes, a lot of people making profits from slavery felt it was perfectly acceptable, and indeed moral for them to be kept wealthy by the work of others. A lot didn't. According to Charles Dickens in his "Notes on America", he had encounters with numerous wealthy Southern families that wanted out of the slavery business, but didn't know how to get out of it without major disruptions to their lives.
Maybe these people who regretted their family's involvement in slavery were "hypocritical." That fits, I think. But those who supported and defended slavery? Not "hypocritical", but perhaps "self righteous."
Hypocrisy would be saying slavery was wrong and keeping slaves or profiting from slavery. Some Northerners did that.
Evidence shows about 60% of the value produced by slavery benefited the North. It accounted for 72% of the total federal budget, so the large majority of the Federal budget was funded by slavery, and most of that went to the North as well.
Saying slavery was wrong and not wanting to live among African-Americans as equals, might be self-righteous, but it wasn't hypocritical by the standards of the time.
Not sure you can square that circle. If they are equals, why wouldn't it be hypocritical for people to not treat them as equals?
You are inordinately hung up on this idea that everybody thinks Northerners were moral and Southerners depraved,
I am not hung up on that idea, I simply want to make it clear that we've been fed a load of bullsh*t regarding Northern motivations for going to war with the South. We have been led to believe the war was over the morality of slavery, when the truth is that the war was over secession, and the powers that be in the North were just fine with keeping slavery permanent when they started the war, but only changed to make a goal of the war the abolition of slavery after the war turned out to be a bloody hard slog.
It also appears their motivation to abolish slavery had more to do with punishing the South than it ever did regarding any concern for the slaves.
I'm trying to point out America has been lied to and manipulated to both start the Civil War, and to justify what was done in it.
I'm trying to point out that the very same type of manipulative people are still in control in Washington DC, and they are still deliberately lying to and manipulate us with the ultimate goal of increasing their own power and wealth.
We have a cartel of criminals running our nation, and the rest of us have become slaves to them. Ukraine is but another example of the American public being manipulated to support a war for which the underlying purpose is to support the wealth making apparatus for the elite.
Nancy Pelosi's son, and Joe Biden's son are on the board of directors in Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas company. Why? Obvious bribes to those in power in the US.
Northerners are on some moral pedestal and you are knocking them off, but that's because you are imposing the thinking of today's world on the past.
I didn't put them there. I just point out that their real reasons weren't moral, their motivations was the same old greed that motivates people to war in all of human history. The people running the show put themselves on all those "moral pedestals". I'm just trying to show people it was all lies.
In the 1850s slavery was still a live issue; for half the country slavery was a moral institution and they'd attack you if you attacked it.
Half? 1/4th. Of course people will protect their own rice bowl. Someone criticizing the way other people make money is sure to get a powerful response back from the people who benefit from the institution being criticized.
People get angry and violent when they see their livelihood threatened. So yes, the people who benefited from slavery would be hostile to anyone stirring up trouble over it.
For much of the 20th century, abolitionists were condemned and blamed (together with extremists on the other side) for causing the war.
John Brown and his wealthy Massachusetts backers certainly made things worse. They touched upon a fear a lot of Southerners had about slave rebellion, and no doubt it convinced a lot of Southerners that the only way to ally this fear was to prevent this kind of agitation in the future by separating from the people intent on provoking a slave rebellion.
You keep thinking Northerners then are on a moral pedestal and you have to knock them off,
I am thinking they killed hundreds of thousands of people, and then tried to convince everyone it was all for some greater moral good, when the evidence suggest it was all to protect the wealth of those in power.
And they have been manipulating history ever since to sell that greater moral good message to America.
Nobody "knew" this. It was 5 Northern "free" states that actually did voted to ratify it. The lead proponent in the US Senate was William Seward, who was a former governor of New York. He assured everyone that he could get New York to ratify this amendment, and with the Empire States voting to ratify it, it is unquestionable that all it's little satellite states that depended on New York for income would also go along with it. So with the 16 slave states, plus the 5 Northern states which did ratify it, we are up to 21 within a 31 state Union. Add New York, and that makes 70% of the states, which is enough to pass it without any others joining.
No, the Corwin amendment had a very good chance of becoming constitutional law. Lincoln himself wrote letters to all the governors of all the states, including the seceded Southern states, with the intent of urging them to ratify it. Lincoln himself supported the ratification of the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural address.
It's analogous to today when some Republicans say they want a pro-life amendment, or some Dims say they want a gun-ban amendment. Everybody knows that those amendments are going nowhere and the politicians who push those things are just grandstanding.
They weren't grandstanding on this. They were serious. You don't get a 2/3rds vote in the House and the Senate from grandstanding. If the Southern states had came back and voted for it, it would have happened.
I prefer to read the official documents myself (the states' declarations of secession) more than have someone else interpret for me.
We all prefer to read things that agree with what we wish to believe, and we prefer not to read things that offer evidence contradicting what we wish to believe.
You have 4 out of 11 states issuing these statements. Not even a majority, yet you want to tag all the states as being equally responsible for what those 4 states said.
Especially over something as politicized as the confederacy (all northerners today say it was for slaver and all southerners today say it was over the Lost Cause).
What is your meaning when you say "lost cause"? I don't know what those words are intended to mean.
But in the end it comes down to reading the official documents themselves (i.e. Bible, or Constitution) that I count as the gospel truth.
Well here you go then!
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
This was one of those secession statements that doesn't get mentioned because it doesn't fit the narrative people want to believe. It correctly points out the economic argument for secession.
The same with determining the reasons why the Dim states seceded: a columnist's opinion might be helpful except that the Confederate states' declarations mention slavery a hundred times.
Pretty sure the official documents of the US Government mention "slavery" thousands of times. Not sure what significance we should impart to that.
But again, if you understand that Independence is a right, and that it is articulated in our own Declaration of Independence, then what difference does it make what reasons people have for wanting Independence?
Do they lose their right to it because some people don't approve of their reasons?
So who started the war?
Well Lincoln did. He sent a force of warships down to Charleston with orders to attack the Confederate troops surrounding Fort Sumter if they did not cooperate with transferring supplies into the fort.
What would anyone expect to happen when a fleet of warships starts arriving with orders to attack? It started a war, just as every member of Lincoln's cabinet told him it would *IF* he sent those warships.
Hmmm...was For Sumter part of the seceded South Carolina or still part of the Union (given that the United States is who built the fort and it was on an island)?
The original land grant to the US Government by the South Carolina legislature provided the land for the purpose of building forts to defend Charleston from attack by Sea. It specified time limits for the creation of the fort and the garrisoning of the fort, and the US Federal government never lived up to any of these requirements, so legally the land reverted back to South Carolina.
Also, as the Southerners had for years produced 72% of the total federal revenue, they not only paid for all forts in their territory, they had paid for plenty of them in the North as well.
But at least South Carolina should have had to pay the Union for the fort before claiming it. Did they do that?
They repeatedly tried to do that. In March of 1861, a group of delegates were sent by the Confederate Congress to meet with Lincoln to discuss the dispositions of the forts in Southern territories and to arrive at agreements as to what payment might be regarded as satisfactory to settle all debts with the Union. Lincoln refused to meet with them and stalled them at every opportunity. One of the Supreme Court Justices acted as a proxy for Lincoln, continuously putting them off, but all the while assuring them that Lincoln intended to meet with them to peaceably settle the issues of the forts and any other debts.
Eventually they were told the truth, that Lincoln had no intention of meeting with them, and so they returned to the South.
On Jan 9, 1861, Dim Confederate forces attacked a steamer ship carrying supplies to Ft. Sumter.
That ship was the "Star of the West", and it was on a secret mission to carry troops and munitions to reinforce Fort Sumter. It was the first belligerent act by the Union government against the Confederacy.
Other Southern ships had observed the troops being offloaded from the USS Brooklyn onto the Star of the West and upon arriving at port, telegraphed the Confederate authorities, making them aware the US government was attempting to sneak troops into the fort under the pretense of a "supply mission."
But I bet you didn't know that. :)
Dim president Buchanan had told the U.S. forces to stay put at Sumter, then Dim Confederate forces started a siege on Sumter. IMHO, that's the confederate Dims starting the war.
Don't forget that Fort Sumter was not garrisoned, but was in fact still under construction when Major Robert Anderson spiked and burned all the cannons at Fort Moultrie, and moved all his troops in the middle of the night to seize Fort Sumter from the workman who were still there building it.
The people of South Carolina and specifically the Governor had been informed by the then Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, that all forts in Charleston were to be shortly in the future turned over to the state of South Carolina.
Waking up one morning and finding a belligerent Union force had seized Sumter in the middle of the night, and then threatened to turn its guns on Charleston, was seen as a shockingly hostile act by them.
In February 1861, Dims in Maryland tried multiple times to assassinate President-elect Lincoln while he was touring the neutral, but slave, state to tell them that he had no intention of forcing abolition at the federal level.
Official acts by the Southern government, or simply rogue hot heads who took it upon themselves to kill Lincoln?
Perhaps the Dims trying multiple times to kill Lincoln should be considered an act of war and, thus, the start of the war.
Official acts by the Southern government, or simply rogue hot heads who took it upon themselves to kill Lincoln?
What was John Brown? Was he an act of war by the North against the South? Or was he a rogue hot head who took it upon himself to start a war?
On April 8, 1861, Dim Confederate President Jefferson Davis threatened to attack the United States of American forces on Ft. Sumter if they didn't leave, without so much as offering to pay for the fort that the United States had built.
Well that's not correct. They offered to pay many times. Lincoln just refused to discuss it. Secondly, Davis had been made aware of Lincoln's fleet of warships that had been ordered to Charleston to attack his troops. (Ships started Sailing around April 1st, and the Confederates knew they were coming.)
With warships on the way, his men would be caught in a crossfire between the ships and the fort. It became imperative to neutralize the fort before the ships arrived and began attacking.
General Beauregard staved off attacking the fort as long as he could. He even tried to arrange a truce between his forces and Major Anderson's forces. He offered the agreement that if Anderson would refrain from firing on his forces should they engage with the warships, he would not fire upon Anderson's forces.
Anderson told him that if he fired on any Union ship, he would be obligated to fire on Beauregard's forces with the cannons under his control.
When Beauregard received this response, he sent a message to Anderson informing him that he had no choice but to initiate an attack that morning.
Anderson acknowledged that if he didn't "batter them to pieces", they would be starved out in a few days anyways.
On April 12, 1861, Dim Confederate forces threatened to attack Ft. Sumter if the United States didn't leave. U.S. Major Robert Anderson replied that he would stay until he ran out of supplies in 3 days. The Dims didn't wait 3 days. They attacked immediately
They didn't have three days. The Warships had arrived, and they were about to be attacked. They had to neutralize the fort immediately, or they would be forced to undergo assault from both the fortress and the warships at the same time.
Any decent commander concerned about the lives and welfare of his men could not allow themselves to be placed in such a crossfire. Beauregard had no choice but to neutralize the fort before the War fleet could organize their attack.
So it's still Lincoln's fault. Without having sent those warships, there would have been no attack on Sumter.
Here's a review of what you forgotten from post # 59.
South Carolina's Declaration mentioned slavery 18 times. Mississippi's mentioned it 7 times. Florida's Declaration of Causes mentions slavery 14 times. Alabama's states slavery 1 time. Georgia's mentions slavery 35 times. Texas mentioned slavery 1 time. Virginia mentioned slavery 1 time. Arkansas' mentions slavery 28 times.
That's a total of 8 confederate states boldly claiming in their declaration to the union and the whole world that slavery was very much a reason for secession. Saying that slavery isn't a main reason for secession would be like me claiming my fat isn't due to overeating.
I'll give you credit, though. You've caused me to rethink my position that the south is the one who started the war. It looks very much like you're right that it's the north who were the first to be aggressive. The southern states had a right to secede for whatever reason they wanted to.
The way you parse it is misleading. Virginia says "and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."
Yes, it mentions slavery in the context of those being the group of states the federal government is oppressing.
It's stated reason for leaving has nothing to do with slavery, but with the federal government launching a war against its sister states.
But as I mentioned before, if states have a right to independence, why does it matter why they want independence? If they have a right to it, they have a right to it, even if they are motivated by a bad reason.
I'll give you credit, though. You've caused me to rethink my position that the south is the one who started the war. It looks very much like you're right that it's the north who were the first to be aggressive.
I didn't know any of those things when I first started discussing this topic. I learned each bit of it piece by piece and I said at the time "this puts an entirely different light on what happened, than what I had been taught all my life."
I had never heard about these warships being sent, and I had also never heard that the Star of the West was carrying troops with the intention of putting them into Fort Sumter.
I could only conclude at the time that this information was deliberately omitted because it shows the events in an unfavorable light for the existing government.
The southern states had a right to secede for whatever reason they wanted to.
That is the conclusion I have reached after weighing a lot of evidence both pro and con. The evidence that states had a right to independence is overwhelming, while the evidence that they didn't is very sparse.
The Civil War was a tragedy that should have never happened. Some of the lingering effects of it are still damaging the nation today, such as the 14th amendment "anchor baby" citizenship.
I don’t want to spend another year going over and over and over this like a hamster running around in a wheel and not getting anywhere. Like I said, I’m glad that we had an election and aren’t talking about splitting up the country afterwards. Enjoy your year.
We do not need that.
All we need is an originalism clarifying moment.
Either the 14th Amendment is a slavery amendment and that’s what they discussed while creating the amendment, or its these other Christmas tree items and Santa is going to deliver BIG on any issue your heart desires.
Perhaps its time to admit that the real reason the civil war was fought between north and south was because of gay marriages and abortions. The huge issues of the day in the 1860s. *sarc*
It wasn't but the disaster at Appomattox established the federal government as the supreme power that can declare homosexual marriage and abortion rights are spelled out in the language of the 14th - and make everyone live with it.
At Appomattox people in our nation lost not only the sovereign rights of their states but the remedies provided for in the Declaration of Independence.
It is unclear to me why the doctrine of the living and breathing constitution is so popular with conservatives.
If the right is absolute, then trying to discuss their "reasons" is ignoring the fact that they don't have to explain or justify their reasons, they had a right to do what they did."
This is DiogenesLamp's Big Lie from which many other smaller lies proceed.
The truth is, our Founders never claimed an unconditional "right" of independence at pleasure, meaning: for any reason or for no reason.
Instead, they built the legal case for independence on the parade of horrible facts presented -- that the king had abused and usurped power:
And DiogenesLamp's Big Lie that they did is the foundation for every other lie he has posted here for many years now.
It isn't.
Instead, it's our pro-Confederate Lost Causers who howl from your roof-tops that the Declaration and Constitution granted slavers the unlimited "right" to declare whatever the h*ll they wanted to declare, for whatever reasons, or no-reasons, they wanted and everyone else must, must obey -- be they slaves, freedmen, women, Southern Unionists, Northerners or anyone else, they all must obey whatever the 1860 slavers declared.
The conservative constitutionalist response is: not just "no", but "h*ll no!"
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.