October 3, 2017 at 1:51 pm #52418
War of Northern Aggression?
You mean when the southern cowards didn’t want to pay their share?
(Seeing if anyone is paying attention)
Gotcha.October 3, 2017 at 6:23 pm #52434
“Gotcha“?!? Sorry, I didn’t realize we were playing “gotcha” games here in the Forum against one another. But since the game is on, I’ll be sure to add that to my list of things to accomplish here, i.e. watch what Whirlibird posts, so I can first even the score, and then score a decisive lead. [No, of course I won’t. I value this Forum more than engaging in petty gotchagames.] So, I move back to the first point:
You mean when the southern cowards didn’t want to pay their share?
Wow! Defending redistribution of wealth, are we? All you needed there was the insertion of the word “fair” immediately prior to the word “share.” The argument then was not whether the South would pay their share, but what percentage was a fair share.
Perhaps a real time view of the conflict might be helpful, at least to some. From Richard M. Weaver’s “The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Postbellum Thought,” we find the following statement by the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, Alexander Stephens:
If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.”
To which I’d add the following from Britain’s libertarian, Lord Acton, contained in a letter to Robert E. Lee in 1866:
I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. … Therefore, I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”
Finally, we have the chillingly prophetic statement from that anti-slavery Southern general whose statues now must be obliterated from the land, to Lord Acton on 15 December 1866:
I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”
I’ll let those that there were there, then, with personal stakes in the issues of the day, speak in my behalf. If they wish to claim a counter-gotcha, that’s up to them. But amazingly, their issues seemed also to be our issues of today as well.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."October 3, 2017 at 8:21 pm #52437
For those interested, Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist and historian, has researched the economic roots of the (not-so-Civil) War, and specifically into what motives Lincoln and his close associates expressed, in their own words, at the time. Mrs. Tec and I heard him speak in person about his first book on that subject, The Real Lincoln, about fifteen years ago. It is worth reading.
If I remember DiLorenzo’s figures accurately enough, at the time Lincoln took office, about 80% of federal taxes were collected from the agricultural South (mostly from the cotton trade), while about the same proportion were spent in the industrial North (mostly on public works improvements — rails, roads, bridges, etc) Southern states objected to the imbalance, but were perennially outvoted in the CONgress. Lincoln pushed for, and got the CONgress to raise those taxes — in some cases, trebling them. South Carolina refused to collect the new taxes,pointing out that they would ruin many planters (to the benefit of Northern banks, who would become the new plantation owners.) Lincoln threatened to send federal troops to collect, indiscriminately, any amount, or goods, from whoever might be found to have anything worth confiscating, and began to provision Fort Sumter, as for the invasion. The South Carolina Militia attacked the Fort, and the rest, as they say, is the history you learned in the Public Fool System, and on TV.
For those who find reading too much of a good thing ….
Cry, "Treason!"October 4, 2017 at 3:39 am #52440
It’s interesting that we’re discussing this in a Puerto Rico topic. No federal income tax, but citizenship. The government is largely corrupt, the electrical grid was a disaster before the storms hit, and they now have almost nothing with which to generate revenue to help themselves. And sadly, there are still many very decent Puerto Ricans stuck down there, with few if any alternatives.
A friend sent me an amazingly funny, and amazingly accurate 1-minute video that demonstrates the idiocy of the mindset involved with so many that are responsible for cramming policy down all of our throats, and the kind of thinking that results in making conditions in such places as Puerto Rico even worse. The video is all about two liberals (in the video they’re identified as democrats) on an escalator. Make sure your sound is up. There is no dialog in the first few seconds – then the honest hilarity of it all comes out (after the escalator stops):
(By the way – I love DiLorenzo, and also Thomas Woods who hosted one of the above videos. Everyone should read Woods’ book, “33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask,” as well as DiLorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.” Critics love to nit-pick both books, and even where they appear to score a few points, one thing they cannot dispute is the factual evidence he puts forward, even if they don’t like his conclusions about it. So – how does that then change the facts he presents? )
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."October 5, 2017 at 3:17 pm #52441
Actually that was sarcasm with the gotcha being a “made you spit coffee on your monitor” thing.
We can argue back and forth about the causes and effects of political issues going back, 50, 60, 160 years, whether or not Lincoln was attempting to save the union or Lee believing in the southern way of life.
Whether the mayor in PR is corrupt and playing political games, means absolutely zero to us outside the realm of the disinformation cow path.
What matters is here and now, and our plans for the future. Learn from history but don’t live in the past, otherwise you will miss the present.
What it’s really like after SHTF, may not be like PR. It may not be like the Balkan’s, like Argentina, like Hiroshima. Each one of those is not just localized, but are different situations.
War, economic collapse, ethnic cleansing, natural disasters, all play out differently in different places.
Compare PR to New Orleans. Same thing happened, but the results are completely different. Partly political, partly cultural, but we can learn from both.
This is just another version of a temporary SHTF. Learn from it, and move on.October 5, 2017 at 3:59 pm #52442
I started out trying to have just a little bit of fun with some hyperbolic humor about the northern states threatening to nuke the South. That elicited silent sarcasm which got translated and washed out into merely black and white on a screen. Two of us who are obviously seriously challenged mind readers and also color blind, countered the absurd (now known to be sarcastic) cause of the U.S. Civil War, and this has turned into what boils down to a previous point that was attempted in the following thread – which seems to be your point, WB: learn from history, but don’t expect it to duplicate itself every time.
Don’tcha just love internet forums?!?
[Guns now safely re-holstered. LOL]
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."
October 5, 2017 at 4:05 pm #52444
- This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by GeorgiaSaint.
But hey! The DiLorenzo videos were good material in any case.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."October 5, 2017 at 5:57 pm #52445
Agreed.November 10, 2017 at 4:18 am #52603
BrulenSurvivalistNovember 11, 2017 at 1:23 pm #52609
As everybody knows , PR is a US territory . Because they refuse to adopt and enforce US building codes , it doesnt take much to crash their Mexican style infrastructure . I’m not an electrician , but some things are obvious to a blind man . Some of the crap I saw for myself over there in 2010 , made me shake my head , and cringe . Anything goes , thats the problem . They dont even pull over for emergency vehicles on the road , like we do . Its part of the US in theory only . Just sayinNovember 11, 2017 at 11:01 pm #52613
I’ve been to PR 3 times, in better days. I had the experience, more than once, of stopping at an intersection (in San Juan) for a red light, and having the guy behind me leaning on his horn, urging me to suicide-barge through the heavy cross traffic, so he could do the same. The only thing I could surmise was that many of them expect their lives to be so brief, that they must do everything at top speed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.