why you need to get out of the city... NOW

[Peter]

Brant wrote: Interesting how you like to cherry-pick quote one of our worst Presidents, in terms of damage done--a man who sanctioned an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 soldiers or 5% of the population . . . end quote

It was not a Civil War. It was a war of independence per Walter Williams.

WALTER E. WILLIAMS: War of 1861 wasn't really a Civil War

Biloxi Sun Herald July 21, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "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 I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion."

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion -- such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri.

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better."

Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

Write to Walter E. Williams, a professor of economics, at Department of Economics, MSN 3G4, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444. Email: wwilliam@gmu.edu

[moralist]

Brant writes: Interesting how you like to cherry-pick quote one of our worst Presidents, in terms of damage done--a man who sanctioned an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 soldiers...

By your own words you obviously regard that as an evil act done by an evil man.

I do not. I regard it as a good act by a good man.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

The religious use of war and force means it's worth the cost. That's whatcha you imply. You may say I imply Lincoln was evil but I don't think of him that way. That's just grease and juice for the sluice to war. That's why Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. He tended to keep his fundamentalism in the background, which helped his policies go down easier with the secularists. The likes of you were in his pocket.

Lincoln was a better man than the war he had so much to do with. He became the proto-typical modern President. The bad Presidents were spaced by the not so bad ones until more modern times with their no relief in sight yet, and if it comes the result could be horrific regardless, for the temporary peace would be psychological relief for most and practical relief for statism as it gets ready for its next attack. To call him "evil" means calling the others evil too--others like the two Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman(?), Johnson, Nixon(?), Bush the younger, and Obama. The last is the closest but it makes no value to make him the semantic exception and let the others off the "evil" hook. Evil is a whole another categorization first for the totalitarian monsters like Stalin (and Lenin), Hitler, Mao, Pal Pot, etc. Then come all the enabling moral and statist doctrines. Etc. Lincoln wanted to be great and good and found himself surrounded by a slaughterfest of a war that was supposed to be quickly over with.

So, Lincoln, to me was bad and that war was bad maybe evil--whatever word makes him and it neither better nor worse except for clear thinking--my main point.

Lincoln to you and the war was good.

Whatever happened to your stick-at-home--close to home--itis?

--Brant

would you have fought in that war knowing it from now? (you are telling all those killed and maimed men they were right to fight--the ones who actually did--and are you telling me the same about Vietnam?)

your brain seems like the Grand Canyon--hard to get from one side to the other, for the obvious reason

[Selene]

Brant wrote: Interesting how you like to cherry-pick quote one of our worst Presidents, in terms of damage done--a man who sanctioned an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 soldiers or 5% of the population . . . end quote

It was not a Civil War. It was a war of independence per Walter Williams.

WALTER E. WILLIAMS: War of 1861 wasn't really a Civil War

Biloxi Sun Herald July 21, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "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 I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion."

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion -- such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri.

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better."

Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

Write to Walter E. Williams, a professor of economics, at Department of Economics, MSN 3G4, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444. Email: wwilliam@gmu.edu

This is a credible argument about viewing the secession of the South not being a "classically" defined war.

Frankly, I never looked at it that way and I was too narrow in that view.

Thanks for posting this Peter.

Kinda quite different than the nullification arguments in a key manner.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

You can call the War Between the States a "Civil War" in the sense the two factions were fighting over which would rule the Confederate States. "The Civil War" was the victor's nomenclature, however, a kind of self-glorification with the implication of the North heroically fighting off the evil South which was trying to conquer it.

--Brant

[Selene]

You can call the War Between the States a "Civil War" in the sense the two factions were fighting over which would rule the Confederate States. "The Civil War" was the victor's nomenclature, however, a kind of self-glorification with the implication of the North heroically fighting off the evil South which was trying to conquer it.

--Brant

However, it is a fair way to describe what actually was the triggering act to the war.

[moralist]

Whatever happened to your stick-at-home--close to home--itis?

I'm enjoying the benefits of that war today at home.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You can call the War Between the States a "Civil War" in the sense the two factions were fighting over which would rule the Confederate States. "The Civil War" was the victor's nomenclature, however, a kind of self-glorification with the implication of the North heroically fighting off the evil South which was trying to conquer it.

--Brant

However, it is a fair way to describe what actually was the triggering act to the war.

Yes.

We will keep calling it The Civil War to know what we are talking about without elaborate explanations. But basically the South was fed up with protectionism and the North with slavery. Not to say it was that simple. The instigating successionist states did not leave the Union because they were afraid of losing slaves as property, but because without more slave states through western expansion they would be more subject to tariffs rammed through Congress, especially the Senate. The North wasn't threatening war with the South unless it gave up slavery. Underlying everything was the quaint idea--quaint now, not then--of States' rights. Emancipation was the pile on moral justification in the middle of the war to sustain the North's efforts in the bloody conflict and damage the South's when mere federalism wasn't hacking it good enough. Sort of like the appearance of tanks on the battlefield in WWI (or the Americans). You might even say protectionism was a backdoor economic goad to the South to succeed so abolitionist states could forcibly end slavery. South Carolina attacking Ft. Sumter was then like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor--an inverse sucker punch.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote: South Carolina attacking Ft. Sumter was then like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor--an inverse sucker punch. end quote

The military channel had an excellent documentary on the nuking of Japan and they will probably rebroadcast it. When all of the evidence was in, it seems justifiable, with possibly one million US casualties and millions of Japanese casualties so it is possible the nukes lessened the overall number of dead from the war. But the filmmakers also noted that The Soviet Union had just attacked Japan in China (at our urging) and implied the bombing of Japan was also a cautionary tale for the USSR.

[Selene]

When all of the evidence was in, it seems justifiable, with possibly one million US casualties and millions of Japanese casualties so it is possible the nukes lessened the overall number of dead from the war.

They did and the firebombings killed more Japanese anyway.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch13.htm

[Peter]

Adam wrote: They did and the fire bombings killed more Japanese anyway. End quote

I remember reading an account of it, so I dont think I will read another, but what astounded me then was cigar chomping General Curtis LeMays reasoning, strategy, and timing of the Tokyo bombing. He wanted to create a cyclonic fire storm with our incendiary bombs and he did.

The morality of using your best weapon for the job of decreasing your enemies will to fight is questionable only because nukes became our next, best weapon. My Dad was a Naval NCO (called a chief, with two ships sunk from under him, one I remember was the cruiser Vincennes in the Battle of the Sitting Ducks).

He was on a ship off Okinawa after the invasion and he says ALL the other sailors and officers talked about was their chances when the US invaded the main Japanese islands. I dont think any of them knew about The Bomb, but their idea was that our battleships 16 inch guns and our aircraft first kill every effing Jap possible.

But with nuclear bombs the long term precedent was established. The same rationale is being used by Iran. Kill every effing Jew and American possible. And extending the analogy, average Americans are like the sailors on those WWII ships about to invade. Except we know about our bombs and we know we will retaliate. How many Americans are hoping, if Trump (or any newby) becomes President he will turn Iran into a parking lot for the good of America, and oh yeah, Israel . . . and I guess the Saudis . . . .?

[Jules Troy]

Israel would be more likely to turn Iran into a parking lot than America, if they feel threatened enough, especially since America had been giving them a cold shoulder as well as lifting sanctions off of Iran...

[Brant Gaede]

Nobody is going to turn Iran into a "parking lot." That's not the way it's done. 50 years ago that would have been the result of MAD.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Yeah I know Brant.

[moralist]

...but it feels so good to say it.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Yeah, I know.

Now let's examine why saying the same thing about Saudi Arabia doesn't.

1) They don't call us names

2) They aren't trying to make la bomba

By the metric of 9/11--never mind how insane that might have been--it was Saudi Arabia that should have been invaded, not Iraq. That country has been using its oil wealth for decades--great multiples of tens of billions of dollars gotten from us and other oil consumers--to export its fundamentalist terrorist religious philosophy. And where did the hijackers and OBL come from?

--Brant

war feels good in the abstract, then when it is revealed to be SHTF one's perspective changes, especially for the combatants and their loved ones

[Selene]

"SHFT" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<????????????????

[anthony]

"SHFT" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<????????????????

Something to do with the brown stuff impacting with whirling blades, I suspect. ;)

[Selene]

"SHFT" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<????????????????

Something to do with the brown stuff impacting with whirling blades, I suspect. ;)

S H T F - then - G M O - The Brantian God is a "mixed" dyslectic - now I am really confused....

[Brant Gaede]

SHIT

HITTING

THE

FAN

--Brant

help is available--always

[Peter]

More death to America crap, and an era of increased nuclear proliferation. Is it seriously time to get out of the cities? I still think the wisest thing to do is disperse our population and our water supplies, as a national policy. I have well water and a generator, and I am still thinking about getting a propane generator and a tank of gas that will last months. My brother had one in Charlottesville. Before he died, he literally had no worries about power outages – just pancreatic cancer.

What will a new President do? I am still waiting for the anti Trump videos showing him with his itchy finger on the trigger, and a nuclear blast blowing away Broadway, and little puppies in suburbia.

BY AP AND TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF August 17, 2015, 1:52 pm 6
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the fate of a historic nuclear deal with world powers is still unclear as lawmakers in both the Islamic Republic and the United States review it. Khamenei, speaking to an Iranian media convention, strongly impugned the motives of his country’s major negotiating partner.

“In their understanding of the deal, of which its fate is not clear since it is not clear if will be approved here or there, their intention was to find a way to penetrate into the country,” he said, referring to the US.

Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran, has not publicly approved or disapproved the deal, though he repeatedly offered words of support for Iran’s nuclear negotiators during the course of the talks. Khamenei was quoted Monday by his official website. Taking to Twitter, the supreme leader elaborated on the US attempts to “infiltrate” the Islamic Republic.

“We waste no efforts to shut ways of infiltration into the country. We’ll allow neither economic, nor political, nor cultural intrusion of US,” he wrote. “Americans also try to penetrate into region. They want to disintegrate #Iraq & #Syria. We do not allow this and it won’t happen by God help.” The supreme leader also offered to arm anyone “fighting the Zionists.”

[Mikee]

I'll play my guitar while America burns...

[Peter]

Mike wrote: I'll play my guitar while America burns...

Scoff will you? From my inbox.

The year was 1947. Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little more than 66 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air Force, as well as other Federal Agencies and Organizations. However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April, year 1948, nine months after the alien crash, the following people were born: Barrack Obama, Albert A. Gore, Jr., Hillary Rodham, William J. Clinton, John F. Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Charles E. Schumer, Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden. This is the obvious consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses. And now you can stop wondering why they support the bill to help all Illegal Aliens.

[Selene]

Clinton, William, J.

DOB 8-19-1946

Get your facts straight.

A...

[Mikee]

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts...

[What about all the rest?]

[sheep and jackasses have been slandered here]