Post #332,952
9/23/10 7:20:05 AM
|

CSA! CSA! CSA!
Dennis G. on the underlying political aims of many of the teabaggers. It's not rolling back Clinton, Carter, Johnson and/or FDR - it's rolling back Lincoln:
In many ways it should not be a surprise that a political fight that led to so much blood letting 150 years ago is still an active force in American politics. Around the planet many other Nations and Peoples still fight about issues with much deeper roots. America is not exempt from this kind of ongoing multi-generational political battles. We are in one today.
Now some think the goal of the Astroturf TeaTards is to roll things back to pre-Obama. Other think pre-Clinton or pre-LBJ or pre-FDR. And yes, they would like to roll past all of the laws, rules, traditions and regulations of all of these guys. But the real target is Lincoln.
It was Lincoln changed the term ÂUnited States from a descriptive term about States sometimes working together into a proper noun that named our Nation. It was Lincoln who began the move away from gold and issued paper money. It was Lincoln who could multi-task with an eye to the future. While he was kicking Confederate ass he also financed a transcontinental railroad, land grant schools and education and land for homesteaders. It was Lincoln who worked to protect free labor and to end slavery. Ending slavery, he also set up the first government run welfare effort to help former slaves transition to freemen. And it was Lincoln who led our Nation to soundly defeat the Confederacy and deliver to these traitors a well-earned ass whopping. Their ideological descendants are still holding a grudge towards the America that Lincoln shaped.
In all of these efforts and many more, Lincoln changed the rules of the American economy to favor the working class, the poor and to create new entrepreneurial opportunities. He totally screwed the Southern oligarchs who were used to running the Country. To protect their power, those Southern planter oligarchs created the Confederacy. The modern oligarchs in America have created the TeaTards to protect them from market forces. Then as now, the appeal to the gullible is racism, fear and the promotion of ignorance as a source of strength.
A little broad, but just a little.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #332,953
9/23/10 7:34:27 AM
|

Not to far from the mark.
Except they are wrapping themselves in "Christianity" and "Family Values" on top of trampling over the gullible with racism, fear and doubt and promotion of ignorance.
|
Post #333,123
9/25/10 4:01:30 PM
|

+5: Admirable Concision
rendering several library shelves-full about the minutiae, almost superfluous.
Nice find!
|
Post #333,124
9/25/10 4:57:30 PM
|

a little broad? is bridgitte a midget?
poor mr linkum, had to lockup the newspapers, suspend habeus corpus and burn and kill everything from atlanta to the sea to support the idea that greater force makes the rules. Oh that slavery thingy? He was too busy killing freeborn white americans to get around to freeing slaves in the south until 2 years into the war and he waited until war end to bother freeing the northern ones. All these pretty misconceptions to fit a mindset. Here, have a free drool on me.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,126
9/25/10 5:00:43 PM
|

I guess the Confederates should have won, then?
|
Post #333,128
9/25/10 6:00:15 PM
|

didnt happen did it
http://americancivil...uth/jeffdavi.html
We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. doesnt sound like racist manipulative ranting to me. The war between the states was a complex disagreement and slavery was a very small part of it.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,130
9/25/10 6:28:07 PM
|

Yeah, it was a just and glorious cause. Not.
http://avalon.law.ya...ry/csa_missec.asp
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
And so forth. The Civil War was all about slavery and its expansion.
Lincoln had his faults, but was on the right side. The Teabaggers who want to go back to the antebellum days are on the wrong side.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,134
9/25/10 6:49:06 PM
|

Yeah, it was a just and glorious cause. Not.
Slavery was a part but not the whole.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. snip "I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
http://www.americanstalin.com/ quite the emancipator, he didnt give a rats ass for the black folk. It was an economic war of occupation
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,137
9/25/10 7:43:03 PM
|

Great site, there.
"American Stalin." Really? :-/
Lincoln's overarching goal was to preserve the Union. Lincoln was elected on November 6, 1860. South Carolina seceeded on December 24, 1860 - months before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Six more states joined SC before Lincoln even took office. Yeah, sure, it was Northern Aggression... :-/
http://www.mrlincoln...ID=39&subjectID=3
The Civil War was a war of contradictions. The South seceded to perpetuate slavery and instead ended up destroying it. North vowed not to interfere with slavery and won sufficient support to kill it. Unlike many abolitionists, President Lincoln understood he couldn't eliminate slavery without first saving the union. And unlike many conservative Republicans and Democrats, he realized he couldn't save the union without eliminating slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to help the Union win the Civil War and thus preserve the Union. "To fight against slaveholders, without fighting against slavery, is but a half-hearted business," wrote black abolitionist Frederick Douglass. "War for the destruction of liberty must be met with war for the destruction of slavery."1
Emancipation was justified by a military necessity to preserve the Union. "If the Proclamation of Emancipation was essentially a war measure, it had the desired effect of creating confusion in the South and depriving the Confederacy of much of its valuable laboring force. If it was a diplomatic document, it succeeded in rallying to the Northern cause thousands of English and European laborers who were anxious to see workers gain their freedom throughout the world. If it was a humanitarian document, it gave hope to millions of Negroes that a better day lay ahead, and it renewed the faith of thousands of crusaders who had fought long to win freedom in America," wrote historian John Hope Franklin.2
The effect and interpretation of the Emancipation Proclamation varied by audience. "The meaning of emancipation has been profoundly shaped by Judeo-Christian concepts of deliverance and redemption," wrote David Brion Davis. "One thinks immediately of the rich symbolism associated with the Hebrews' deliverance from bondage in Egypt. The promise of God revealing himself to humanity through a chosen people was signified by an emancipation from physical slavery and a grateful acceptance of a higher form of service. Christian commentators frequently elaborated on the significance of the ancient Hebrew Jubilee, the day of atonement and of liberating slaves in the seventh month following seven sabbatical years."3 According to William Wolf, President Lincoln "told his callers many times that his concern was not to get God on his side, but to be quite sure that he and the nation were on God's side. An interview in June 1862 with a delegation from Iowa led by Congressman James Wilson threw more light on this point. It revealed again Lincoln's strong predestinarian conviction about God's will. A member was pressing Lincoln for more resolute action on emancipation, saying, 'Slavery must be stricken down wherever it exists. If we do not do right I believe God will let us go our own way to our ruin. But if we do right, I believe He will lead us safely out of this wilderness, crown our arms with victory, and restore our now dissevered union."4
President Lincoln did not believe he had the power to end slavery because it was evil, but he believed he could end it to preserve the Union. Historian T. Harry Williams wrote: "Lincoln was on the slavery question, as he was on most matters, a conservative. Unlike the ultra Radicals, he could tolerate evil, especially when he feared that to uproot it would produce greater evils. But he was not the kind of conservative who refused to move at all against evil, who let his pragmatism fade into expediency, who blindly rejected change when it could not be denied. Yet there were just such men among the ultra Conservatives of his party, and Lincoln opposed them as he did the ultra Radicals. He knew that he was not completely with them, and...he would not let the Conservatives control the slavery issue. He knew too that he was against the Radicals and also with them. Speaking of the Missouri Radicals but doubtless having the whole genre in mind, he said: 'They are utterly lawless  the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with  but after all their faces are set Zionwards.' He did work with the Radicals but he also resisted them. He used them  as he did the Conservatives  to effect a great social change with the smallest possible social dislocation. It would indeed be an error...to make too much out of the conflict in the Republican party over slavery. It would be a greater error to dismiss this unique episode and its unique issue as something normal or average and to treat it on the level of ordinary politics. There is little about the Civil War that is ordinary."5 Historian Harry Jaffa wrote:
Both in the pre-inaugural period, and in the opening stages of the conflict, the danger of disunion, now the paramount danger, did not come from the forces of slavery alone. It came as well from the abolitionists. Now the name 'abolitionist' was applied to a number of shades of opinion, although it is usually identified with the most extreme among them. However, there was a spectrum of opinions, beginning with those who insisted upon instant emancipation of all slaves, by any means, without regard to existing legality, without regard to the disruption and injury it would cause among both whites and blacks, and without regard to existing legality, without regard to the disruption and injury it would cause among both whites and blacks, and without indemnity or compensation of any kind....As the spectrum proceeded from left to right, at some point the name 'abolitionist' ceased to apply, and that of free-soiler replaced it. Lincoln was always a free-soiler, never an abolitionist, and in some respects Lincoln agreed with his Southern brethern that the abolitionists were a curse and an affliction....
In the spectrum of antislavery opinions...Lincoln himself would have to be placed at the farthest limit of the extreme right. He was the most conservative of antislavery men. He did not, in any campaign, urge any form of emancipation other than that implied in the exclusion of slavery from the territories. First privately, later publicly, he favored gradual emancipation, and in the plan he recommended to Congress in December, 1862, the state action which he envisaged might have been extended over thirty-five years, until 1900. In the plan he put forward while a Congressman, in 1848, for emancipation in the District of Columbia, three factors were crucial: it had to be gradual, voluntary (it had to be approved by a referendum in the District), and compensated. But Lincoln's task, as war came, was to preserve the Union. All the emancipation Lincoln desired, and probably a good deal more, was assured if the Union endured. If it did not endure, all the lets and hindrances exerted upon slavery by the free states in the Union would be removed. The extreme abolitionists, in the supposed purity of their principles, would have abandoned the four million slaves to their fate.6
The President followed a moderate policy between Republican Radicals and Conservatives. "In the President of the United States Providence has vouchsafed a leader whose moral perceptions are blinded neither by sophistry nor enthusiasm  who knows that permanent results must grow, and can not be prematurely seized," editorialized Harper's Weekly in June 1862.7 Historian LaWanda Cox wrote: "For Lincoln, limited policy and sweeping principle were morally compatible. During one of the debates with [Stephen] Douglas in 1858, he advanced the explanation. In defense of the men who had fought for the revolutionary principles of equality and freedom, and then established a government that recognized slavery, he argued that to the extent 'a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it.' Slavery existed, and agreement on the Constitution could not have been had without permitting slavery to remain. But the necessity did not invalidate the standard raised in the Declaration of Independence: 'So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can.'"8
[...]
FWIW.
I'm done - you can have the last word.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,138
9/25/10 8:06:13 PM
|

secession is not aggression
under the constitution the states had that right. Only abolitionists were against slavery and they were a minority
http://www.iahushua....hist/lincoln.html
There were two factors about the Republican campaign in the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860.
Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.)
Second, the Republican party--unlike any of the other big political-parties that had come along--was purely a regional (Northern) party, not a national party. if the Republicans somehow managed to gain control of Congress AND the White House, they would then be able to use the federal government to enact and enforce their party platform--and thus convert the prosperous Southern-states into the dirt-poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. And given the 19th-century trends in demographics, the Southern states would never be able to reverse that process. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would then have been subverted completely: the Southern states would no longer be governed with the consent of the governed--but instead bullied mercilessly by the Northern majority. Why, then, remain in the Union? snip This move took the Northern capitalists completely by surprise. The South was like the little boy who was forever crying "wolf." Southern states had been threatening to secede ever since the Tariff of Abominations and the days of Calhoun; the North no longer took those threats seriously. But with the South now gone, there would be no federal funding to industrialize the North--because the Northern citizenry would certainly never agree to be taxed to pay for it. And far worse than that, the many, many Northern-capitalists who had been earning fortunes factoring the Southern cotton-crop, transporting the cotton, and buying the cotton for New England textile-mills now faced financial ruin. The South normally bought its manufactured goods from Britain, anyway. Now, as a sovereign nation, the South could easily cut far better deals with the British financiers, shipowners, and textile mills to supply the South with all of the necessary support-services--leaving the Northern capitalists out in the cold.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,150
9/26/10 10:45:14 AM
|

So lemme get this straight
Slavery was a just cause, the maintenance of which justified the so-called confederate states to secede from the Union. Have I go that right?
Welcome the the U. S. of A., Inc. jb4
|
Post #333,151
9/26/10 10:56:53 AM
|

NO NO NO...
Its was all about the Northerners want take over the cotton and tobacco plantations and steal all the money from the south.
According to *MANY* CSA-ers... that is truly what the illegal Civil War was about.
Yeah, I agree.
|
Post #333,155
9/26/10 11:19:03 AM
|

didnt know you were such a gw bush fan
we invaded iraq to free the population right? Operation Freedom? You think in 1861 people were that different?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,152
9/26/10 11:10:03 AM
|

nope slavery was a side issue
http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, ÂThe Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776, p.319.
Whether it was officially encouraged, as in New York and New Jersey, or not, as in Pennsylvania, the slave trade flourished in colonial Northern ports. But New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies. if it wasnt for yankees, slaves wouldnt be as prevalent in the south as they were. The south seceded so they wouldnt be subjugated and have their land owned and operated by northern financiers. It didnt matter, the yankees started the war to take control of southern assets. What the south feared came true. It lasted until the 1970's when the atlantic states finally started to gain independence again.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,153
9/26/10 11:11:35 AM
|

if it was slavery why wait till 1865 to free the slaves in
north?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,266
9/28/10 12:17:38 AM
|

Dennis G. continues...
http://www.balloon-j...-old-time-tactic/
He's had a semi-occasional post on this topic for several weeks. I think this one is one of his best.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,270
9/28/10 7:57:04 AM
|

I have to agree.
I see it along the same lines and extremism. They want it all or there will be hell to pay.
Oh well, guess it is CSA.
|
Post #333,293
9/28/10 11:38:46 AM
|

The Senator from SC provides the proof.
http://www.washingto...010_09/025880.php
Sen. Jim DeMint warned his colleagues Monday night that he would place a hold on all legislation that has not been "hot-lined" by the chamber or has not been cleared by his office before the close of business Tuesday. [...]
Traditionally, the Senate passes noncontroversial measures by unanimous consent at the end of most workdays, a process known as hot-lining. DeMint, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and others have fought against the practice for years and have dedicated staff members to reviewing bills that are to be hot-lined.
As a result, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have generally given DeMint, Coburn and others time to review legislation before proceeding with unanimous consent agreements.
But in a terse e-mail sent to all 100 Senate chiefs of staff Monday evening, Steering Committee Chief of Staff Bret Bernhardt warned that DeMint would place a hold on any legislation that had not been hot-lined or been cleared by his office before the close of business Tuesday.
Maybe we should have a unicameral national legislature... :-/
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,299
9/28/10 1:10:45 PM
|

he wants to read legislation before passing it? the horror
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,301
9/28/10 1:21:42 PM
|

Interesting take. :-/
|
Post #333,310
9/28/10 5:08:01 PM
|

If that was really the goal he would offer some lead time
If his goal was really to read everything before it goes to vote, he would offer some reasonable lead time. If he did that, I would support him, far too many bills go through Congress without ever being properly read and reviewed.
What he is actually doing is trying to abuse the rules at the last minute to get in the Democrats way.
Jay
|
Post #333,313
9/28/10 5:40:06 PM
|

lets discuss this tactic in january
where every one will be attempting to convince me that this is a sanity check when dems do it
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,359
9/29/10 2:08:39 PM
|

Yeah, he just wants to read the bills first.
http://www.washingto...010_09/025900.php
Gail Collins wrote about this the other day, noting that a simple bill clearing the way for the [National Women's History] museum was already [unanimously] approved by the House, but like everything else, is tied up in the Senate. The proposal intends to sell an unused piece of federal land to a private group, which would use private funds to pay fair market value for the land and construction. If financing falls apart, the land property would simply revert back to federal ownership.
[...]
As for DeMint, the religious right told him to intervene.
Abortion politics are also in play: The senators' action came two days after the Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, wrote DeMint asking for a hold. The group's CEO, Penny Nance, wrote in July that the museum would "focus on abortion rights without featuring any of the many contributions of the pro-life movement in America."
Noting the far-right senators' consistent opposition to measures related to women and women's rights, Kate Conway concluded, "The question is not why Senators Coburn and DeMint are blocking this no-brainer of a bill, but rather why we would ever expect a person who has scorned issues like mammograms and recourse for rape victims -- issues so immediate and vital to the well-being of American women -- to think that an institution dedicated to those women would be worthwhile."
I guess only DeMint is standing in the way of abortion factories in museums, or something....
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,361
9/29/10 2:14:00 PM
|

now he is servicing his constituents? the horror!
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,362
9/29/10 2:19:39 PM
|

How's that work, exactly?
The House doesn't seem to think that constituent service is an issue here.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,365
9/29/10 2:23:17 PM
9/29/10 2:23:35 PM
|

what, the group isnt bribing the house enough? I dont know
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Edited by boxley
Sept. 29, 2010, 02:23:35 PM EDT
|
Post #333,363
9/29/10 2:20:06 PM
|

So...
the guy who represents one state gets to shaft all the people outside his state who disagree with them?
I can hardly wait to see your reaction if the Dems do the same thing starting in January.
IMHO the cloture rule needs to go... it is bad for democracy.
|
Post #333,364
9/29/10 2:22:45 PM
|

In january I will be looking up all of nothers
posts about the horrible stalling tactics, repost under my sig and have a blast watching nother defend them :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,368
9/29/10 2:53:35 PM
|

its fun.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #333,272
9/28/10 8:34:06 AM
|

I have a little violin for this tard
hmm, confederates were slave owners, lets fram every disagreement against the rush to socialist paradise with racism so people who disagree will be uncomfortable and be quiet. Fuck him and his nazi politics
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,273
9/28/10 8:35:25 AM
|

btw still dont see any response
to my post about how the north grew rich supplying slaves to the south, cat gotcha tongues?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,281
9/28/10 9:29:26 AM
|

"I'm done - you can have the last word." HTH.
|
Post #333,283
9/28/10 9:30:30 AM
|

Okay, bothers you when the north loved slavery doesnt it :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,284
9/28/10 9:40:05 AM
|

Heh. Nice try.
|
Post #333,282
9/28/10 9:29:34 AM
|

like the comments
This core mythÂthat the American Government is the enemyÂis at the heart of the rhetoric, talking points, spin and bullshit of wingnutopia these days.
What myth? Spying, murder, kidnapping, drug-running, profit-war, oligarchy, theft, you name it. got that right
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|