Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith wore Confederate rebel hat in Facebook (trunc)

CNBC ^ | November 20th, 2018 | Dan Mangan

[Mariner]

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith smilingly posed for a photo in 2014 while wearing a Confederate cap and holding a rifle, then put the image on her Facebook page with the words "Mississippi history at its best!"

That image, taken at a Mississippi museum, resurfaced Tuesday as AT&T, Leidos and Walmart joined two other companies, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific, in asking Hyde-Smith, a Republican, to return campaign contributions because of controversy over her recent jest about being willing to attend a public "hanging."

[DiogenesLamp]

Not what he said but I find democrats often lie. And then stealth communists repeat the democrat lie.

And in this message you are replying to someone who gleefully keeps repeating Democrat lies, and even continues to do so once it has been pointed out to them that this particular accusation was in fact a lie.

He would rather embrace the Democrat lies than accept the fact that there is a cartel in Washington supported by both parties in it's efforts to destroy reform candidates that might threaten the Washington DC/New York spending party that makes all the crony capitalists who have influence, rich.

[Alas Babylon!]

Sadly, you are right.

Now, if Mississippi whites stay home...

Alabama demographics: Whites = 68.5%, Blacks = 26.2%

Mississippi demographics: Whites = 59.1%, Blacks = 37%.

If whites are predominately GOP and Blacks predominately democrats, then whites staying home in Mississippi will lead to a debacle for the GOP.

All this talk has two designs: Depress white votes and make blacks eager to vote against “Da (wo)Man”.

[DiogenesLamp]

Fantasies hit the wall of Lincoln. His platform included not interfering with slavery where it existed but the Fire-Eaters demanded that it be allowed to expand.

As the constitution explicitly protected it according to the laws of any state that had it, the more salient question is by what constitutional power could anyone claim to legitimately prevent it from going into the territories?

If it were legal in the States, and protected by the Constitution, by what claim can it be made illegal in non states?

But apart from that, the theory that slavery was going to expand to the territories appears to be a lie. Large scale slavery such as plantation slavery was simply impossible in the territories. There was no farm-able land capable of producing the sort of cash crops that were needed to maintain it.

It could not have expanded to the territories to any significant degree because the lands in the territories could not support it. Here's modern proof of that. (everything in West Texas/and Oklahoma and all parts further west required irrigation systems that could not be built in the 1860s.)

I now suspect the entire fear of slavery expanding into the territories was an astro-turf effort to maintain the New York northern coalition's power in congress, because they had used this power to maintain the system of funneling the profits from all the Southern produced export products into New York city.

Allowing more representation in congress that would side with the Southern states would cause changes to certain laws that were funneling that money into New York, and the power people of New York and Washington did not want that money stream changed.

Same today as it was then. The New York/Washington DC spending coalition keep the money flowing through their hands.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union and won.

He went to war to prevent the South from taking over the European trade from his powerful monied allies in New York. He won because the North had five times the population of the South, and could keep killing men in a war of attrition until the South no longer had sufficient men to keep fighting.

A lot of people died just so the power brokers who still run this nation today, could keep their hands on that economic power.

The South went to war to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor and lost everything.

Lincoln was going to preserve that too. He made every effort to keep the slave system going, including supporting a constitutional amendment to further protect slavery. Lincoln was okay with slavery when 75-85% of his government was being paid for by slavery. He wanted it destroyed when it became clear his crony capitalist power brokers would no longer be able to control it.

It was all about the money and who was going to control it. Nobody in positions of power gave a sh*t about the actual slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

The North didn't open fire first. The South did.

Lincoln opened fire on April 6th when he sent a fleet of warships to attack the confederates surrounding Fort Sumter. What did you expect them to do? Wait until the cannon balls of his ships were killing them before they did anything?

Lincoln sent the war fleet to kill. He fired the first shot.

[DiogenesLamp]

The disaster was looming because the South wanted to expand slavery into new states and territories and the North opposed it.

Wasn't possible to expand slavery into the territories, and even if it were, by what Constitutional authority could you claim to prevent it? If the constitution requires the return of anyone escaping slavery (which it did) then how can you administer a ban on slavery in the territories?

Can you forbid travel by slave owners into the territories? Can you forbid them taking slaves with them? Can you free the slaves if they do?

How does any of this work? The very idea that you could prevent expansion of it is anti-constitutional.

George Washington himself kept slaves in Pennsylvania long after it had banned slavery. Nothing was done about it, and of course Washington kept it low profile.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now in the truest sense, I have no dog in this fight (my ancestors immigrated to the US after the Civil War).

Same with me. My ancestors didn't arrive until the 1900s, and they didn't settle in any of the Confederate states.

Lincoln certainly had the right to see both Davis and Lee hanged..

No he didn't. In fact, the judicial authorities informed the Union prosecutors that if they brought Davis to trial, it would go very badly for them. According to one of the Supreme Court justices commenting on the case, they would lose everything in court that they had gained on the battlefield.

They wisely let Jefferson Davis go, because his trial would have exonerated Davis and condemned the North. In fact, I think the very words of that Justice were "Would condemn the North."

In the last few years, i've learned there is a lot about this war that people have refrained from including in the normal history lessons on the subject. Till a couple of years ago, I had no idea that Lincoln sent warships with orders to attack the Confederates around Fort Sumter!

I think most people have absolutely no knowledge of this aspect of what started the war.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Founding Fathers won their war against Britain.

Not at all. The King just ordered a cessation of it. Had the King been as fanatical as Lincoln, we would still be part of the United Kingdom. Mad King George III was more adverse to continued bloodshed than was Lincoln.

But do not mistake, he had the power to vanquish us. He just chose not to use it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I do have a dog in this fight. I have an ancestor who fought for The Army of The Potomac.

And as a result of your need to defend the conduct of your ancestor, you cannot speak honestly about what really happened. Your following sentence is an example of this.

The South launched a violent war of secession to preserve an economy based on the use of slave labor.

Lincoln launched a war of conquest to preserve a Union based on legalized slavery. Most of his government was funded by legalized slavery, and he supported an amendment to further strengthen legalized slavery.

So when you accuse the South of supporting slavery, you are deliberately lying about Lincoln and his government's official support for slavery and preserving the slave states as part of the Union.

You distort the truth, because the actual truth is far more ugly for your side. You don't want to talk about legal union slavery, because you can't attack the people who wanted independence from the control of Washington DC/New York power cartel, when your side is just as guilty on the issue of slavery.

The United States had "four score and seven years" of legal slavery, plus another extra six months of legal slavery in the Union after the Confederacy was defeated. The Constitution of the United States explicitly protected the institution of slavery through article IV, section 2, and at the time the constitution was written, the vast majority of all states were slave states.

[DiogenesLamp]

As I stated The Founders won their war against the English Crown.

No they didn't. King George simply relinquished the territory and put a stop to the fighting. With the forces at his command, he could have won. Had he been as willing to shed blood as Lincoln, he would have won.

Stop trying to distort history because you want it to support your arguments.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, believe me Ive done plenty of research

So long as it supported what you wish to believe.

[DiogenesLamp]

I propose the second line of reasoning is nonsensical—Would the Confederate cause have become just if 700k died and they emerged victorious? Also, if the blame lies on Lee and Davis, why not also on Lincoln, who could have opted to let the CSA go its own way and spared bloodshed entirely? Would the morality of the American Revolution be different if we had lost?—in fact, from a moral standpoint that willful separation is probably worse because we separated ourselves from an anointed monarch instead of a mutually agreed-upon Republic (unless one were to contend that Charles Stuart (“Bonnie Prince Charlie”) was the real divine-right monarch of England... but that’s an entire other rabbit hole).

Thank you. I have long since grown weary of this claim that "winning" makes one morally right. It doesn't. The Nazis won plenty of times, but this did not make them the "good guys."

The Founders were not morally right because they won, and the Brits were not morally wrong because they conceded. Neither was the North morally right because they won, nor the South morally wrong because they lost.

The North kept legal slavery longer than did the confederacy, and this makes a mockery of the claim that anything they did was as a consequence of their concern regarding slavery.

The concern of the government in Washington DC was that a huge economic power might escape their control. All other considerations were secondary.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please, stop with the bs, ok? Slavery is evil and the South undertook the most destructive and costliest war in our history to preserve it.

The North fought the most destructive and costliest war in our history to preserve slave states remaining in the Union *WITH* slavery intact. Stop ignoring the truth. If they had quickly won, slavery would have continued to be legal in the Union.

What the Union did had nothing to do with eradicating slavery, and everything to do with maintaining economic power. You deliberately attempt to deceive people by continuously claiming that Union actions had anything to do with stopping slavery, when they did not.

Abolishing slavery was just a revenge for the Union and destroying the economic power of their enemy. There original intent was to keep it going.

[reasonisfaith]

You’re buying into the lie you’ve been told by the progressives.

[reasonisfaith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Kb3p56qA8

This touches on the larger idea.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then why did they go to war to preserve it?

Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie.

Why did the Union go to war to keep slave states in it?

If I lie in the manner that you do, I would say "Why did the Union want to keep the slave states? "

Why was the Union trying to preserve the slave states remaining in it?

See how this sort of lying works?

[jmacusa]

More Lost Causer bs.

[DiogenesLamp]

No. The North didn’t fight to end slavery, it fought to preserve the Union and won.

It fought to preserve a union of legalized slavery, and it won, then illegally abolished slavery to stop the economic power of the South from threatening the New York/Washington DC power cartel that has been controlling the nation ever since.

But when it started the fight, it was planning to keep the slavery.

[RegulatorCountry]

Nothing BS about stating historical facts, that the Union fought to prevent slave states from leaving, that the Union itself had four slave states, and that the Union didn’t bother amending the constitution to outlaw slavery in the US until after the Civil War ended.

[jmacusa]

You can continue to try and make your opinions into facts but it ins’t going to work. The South violently seceded from the Union to preserve slavery. It then proceed to seize Federal installations and culminated with the attack on Ft. Sumter. All you revisionism isn’t go to change that fact. Bottom line, unalterable historical fact is the South started a war and lost.