tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post2695144007892668985..comments2024-03-19T03:34:30.996-04:00Comments on The Feral Irishman: Just So We Are Clear (BUMPED )Irishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09772405362867585844noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-6475503834733652512018-11-19T17:01:18.148-05:002018-11-19T17:01:18.148-05:00Looking back at some of these comments, one thing ...Looking back at some of these comments, one thing seems to stand out. Many of these commenters prefer to remain anonymous. I wonder if that is because they are ashamed to put their names to the things that they post. I also find it strange that people seem so very certain that they are right, that they are reduced to name calling and spewing venom. Civility must not matter to many of the people when trying to prove themselves correct.pigpen51https://www.blogger.com/profile/01036907880805485560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-35893523004146189732018-11-18T06:06:53.480-05:002018-11-18T06:06:53.480-05:00Preserved the union but not the one the Constituti...Preserved the union but not the one the Constitution founded. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It still is big business. We still have slavery but our constitution no longer has its intended purpose of controlling our federal govt. or guiding our state govmnt. We have states that pass laws in direct violation of Constitution & the feds encourage this. I cry for what Lincoln was not strong enough to defend. But he did his best & if had lived.....Who knows. We might still be a Constitutional Democracy instead of a Democratic Socialist based loosely on those parts they like today.....But only if you agree with them.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05486359280009447908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-71421911415463971782018-11-18T05:36:21.363-05:002018-11-18T05:36:21.363-05:00Now there is some hard historical fact. Here in th...Now there is some hard historical fact. Here in the pacific nw,to better understand how the south felt - my history teacher told us to sub TIMBER for COTTON Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05486359280009447908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-50578880285904783782018-11-18T05:08:49.126-05:002018-11-18T05:08:49.126-05:00Sigh you must be one of Fienstein's trolls. Sh...Sigh you must be one of Fienstein's trolls. She believes that the bill of rights only applies to folks of certain social stature. And only recognizes HISTORICAL FACT if it conveniently fits her viewsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05486359280009447908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-64050062887843031852018-11-18T04:58:21.500-05:002018-11-18T04:58:21.500-05:00Couldnt be because the northern industrialists for...Couldnt be because the northern industrialists forced legislation through that forced Southern States to sell cotton to them at bankruptcy pricesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05486359280009447908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-8048376402767087462017-10-13T10:12:05.378-04:002017-10-13T10:12:05.378-04:00JWMJR, well-written. I especially like and agree w...JWMJR, well-written. I especially like and agree with the 2nd one. But, as the author of the article sates, the cause of the war, was the attack on the southern states by the north. What people tend to overlook, is the fact that the 13 states that that formed the loose association of states...and all subsequent states voluntarily joining this association, had a guaranteed and Constitutionally protected right ..to leave this voluntary association any time they wanted to. The Constitutional United States of America, was not a country, per se, like France. or Spain. It was more like NATO, or the UN, or the European Union...individual states coming together for the common defense, and for trade. like the UN is with nations. Any country can withdraw..secede.... the UN anytime it wants to, without fear of the UN declaring war and attacking it. If Belgium wants to withdraw from the European Union, it can without fear of France, Spain, England, etc, launching an attack. And so it was with states in the voluntary collaboration called the United States of America. Forget, hellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-29583424217634314082017-10-13T09:42:51.582-04:002017-10-13T09:42:51.582-04:00KY and MO militia most certainly did fight for the...KY and MO militia most certainly did fight for the CSA. The States of MO and KY never seceded, and left their Senators and Reps in Congress, where as Georgia, for instance as well as the other 13 CSA states, called their Congressional members home from Congress. But, the state militias of both of those states fought with the CSA. Some of the greatest of the Rangers... mercenary calavary units... were from MO. Lincoln issued an Ex Order calling for the assassination of any pro- CSA men in MO. One of those lynched was the step-father of Frank and Jessie James, which prompted them to ride with William Quantrill, and later, Bloody Bill Anderson. Forget, hellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-91754922161842953192017-10-12T18:53:22.672-04:002017-10-12T18:53:22.672-04:00The only one the author got right was number 9. Sl...The only one the author got right was number 9. Slavery. It was clearly the root of the War. States rights to do what?...to own slaves. The South was Christian, and the North wasn't as Christian? No true Christian would accept owning another human. He also made it sound like the North had as many slaves as the South. Yeah, there were plenty of cotton fields in New York. 150 years is more than enough time to get over the fact that the South lost the war. They fought gallantly, but ultimately got thoroughly defeated, by a superior Army. The North was morally right and Loncoln was our best president. Get over it! Those statues have to go too. Who wants to see Statues of LOSERS?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-91064415777667471212017-09-22T22:13:44.179-04:002017-09-22T22:13:44.179-04:00Given all this, there was no way Lincoln COULD dir...Given all this, there was no way Lincoln COULD directly free "Northern" slaves (that is, those in the FOUR border states that had not seceded - KY, MO, DE, MD) - though in his first months in office he had already lobbied Delaware to end slavery, offering to reimburse them for the economic cost (just as Congress provided for when they freed the slaves in D.C. in April 1862). They rebuffed him, but ended up voting to end slavery before the war ended (though by then no reimbursement was offered). <br /><br />Meanwhile, Lincoln looked for the best way to SECURE the end slavery throughout the nation, eventually agreeing that a Constitutional Amendment was needed for that (not only to end slavery in the North, but to avoid an unfriendly Supreme Court [under Roger Taney, of Dred Scott Decision fame] possibly deciding against the Emancipation Proclamation, or at least that it only applied *during* that war, and that thereafter slaves should be returned to their former masters. <br /><br />So it was that, in January of 1865 the 13th Amendment finally passed - with ratification being completed in December, at which point it went into effect, and the final border state slaves (in Kentucky) had to be freed.<br /><br />The point of all this is that the "free-soil" effort to end slavery had a variety of strategies, based partly on current conditions, and used them ALL to secure its end. They had, in fact, discussed all of these for years, and argued that these were the proper *Constitutional* means to achieve their end. Most criticisms completely ignore their arguments and explanations (which, again, were not simply issued at the time, or thereafter, but well beforehand), and make counter-arguments that ignore the Constitutional issues. (So, for example, it makes no sense to fault the Emancipation Proclamation for not freeing slaves in states NOT in rebellion. Since it was an exercise of war powers, and there was NO federal authority to simply declare slaves free in a state NOT in rebellion, the President COULD not free Northern slaves by this action... though he could push for it by other means, and had already begun to do so.)<br />Bruce Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18439971692893378961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-54901213101388057262017-09-22T22:13:28.306-04:002017-09-22T22:13:28.306-04:00The Corwin Amendment was indeed perfectly consiste...The Corwin Amendment was indeed perfectly consistent with the view of most of those in the North who opposed slavery and sought its end. It simply stated clearly what they already understood the Constitution to say, viz., that the FEDERAL government had no authority to free slaves or regulate slavery except in the national capital and in the territories. They believed that the proper way for slavery to end - and they DID seek to end it - was for the individual slave states to do exactly what non-slave states had done and end it themselves, by STATE legislation (providing, most likely, for a GRADUAL emancipation of their slaves). However, the Republican Party (like various other "free soil" parties before them) ALSO sought to restrict the SPREAD of slavery into the territories, and thereby (as Lincoln and many others argued) to put it on the road to ultimate extinction (this was stated point-blank in his "House Divided" Speech, and many times thereafter). Both sides actually understood by this time that restricting slavery to the states where it was then practiced would weaken it until ending it became the better economic and practical strategy. <br /><br />Again, the Republicans, etc., did not believe the FEDERAL government itself had much authority to end slavery (outside D.C. and the territories), unless they could, with the cooperation of the states, pass a Constitutional Amendment to do so... and they did not, for some time, think they would be able to do that. The only other way federal authority could free slaves would be as an exercise of "war powers" if states should rebel against the national authority (this notion was first suggested in the 1840s by John Quincy Adams). Thus the Emancipation Proclamation was - and specifically represented itself as - an exercise in WAR powers, depriving the "enemy combatant" of an important "resource" for the South's war effort. It specifically listed states and parts of states in rebellion ON January 1, 1863, the date the Proclamation was put into effect, and directed the MILITARY to free the slaves of each area as they were able to take control of it. (This military directive, incidentally, puts the lie to the claim that the Proclamation "freed nobody" because it only applied to areas not then controlled by the Union forces. The whole point was that, AS the Union Army advanced they would put it into effect. ALSO, any slaves that escaped from areas under rebellion would NOT be returned.) <br /><br />Bruce Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18439971692893378961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-48581445017177994712017-09-06T17:50:37.420-04:002017-09-06T17:50:37.420-04:00It's difficult for anyone of our period to und...It's difficult for anyone of our period to understand the motivations and fears of cultures so different than ours today. Certainly, anyone that thinks they can sum up the cause of the war in a sentence or two is not just ignorant, but programmed.<br />Here is something to help some appreciate those times. There is a growing movement in CA to secede now that Trump was elected President eill very little support from CA. Whatever their stated reasons, it was Trump's election that tipped the scales toward the movement. Lincoln was not even pn the ballot in most Southern States! How do you think they felt? Allanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02859287776162277387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-66654407675259864572017-09-05T13:20:39.639-04:002017-09-05T13:20:39.639-04:00A well written piece. I have also researched this ...A well written piece. I have also researched this topic at great length using original documents. In an earlier comment, someone mentioned the Corwin Amendment, which made it impossible for the Federal Government to EVER do away with slavery. It was passed in both houses by March 1861 and was sent out to begin ratification under Lincoln's cover letter. He mentioned it in his inaugural address, and expressed his approval with it. <br /><br />The title of this article addresses causes of the war, however many of the items set forth are really causes of secession. For the South to be fighting a war to preserve slavery, there must have been a force powerful enough to end slavery which was fighting to do so. Since the federal government was seeking to make slavery what Lincoln call "irrevocable", who was fighting to end slavery? And without the North fighting to end it, the South could not possibly be fighting to preserve it. <br /><br />If we are interested in learning what started the "war", then we have to look no further than the US Supreme Court.<br />United States Supreme Court, THE PROTECTOR, (1871) Decided: December 1, 1871 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/79/700.html<br /><br />In this unanimous US Supreme Court decision, it all becomes completely clear. <br /><br />"It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates[of the beginning of the war], and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.[They are about to refer to an act of Lincoln while congress was in recess.] "The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates..."<br /><br />So Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War single-handedly while congress was in recess when he proclaimed his intentions to blockade Southern ports. The purpose of this action is handled in the first point of this article, Tariffs. As stated, Federal tariffs were about 40% and tariffs in the CSA was 10%. Because Lincoln refused to recognize them as a nation, but consider them as states, he constitutionally could not charge a tariff on goods going from south to north. Ship's captains recognized this and numerous newspaper articles were written about it in March 1861. Every ship from Europe was expected to utilize this loophole, deliver their goods to Southern ports, pay a 10% tariff to the CSA and then transport the goods to their final destinations and pay no tariffs to the USA. This is why the Civil War started. The beginning of the war itself had absolutely nothing to do with slavery whatsoever. Marc Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12346975051521784097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-41485389441674888212017-09-05T12:16:47.866-04:002017-09-05T12:16:47.866-04:00Here are more thoughts about the history of 'o...Here are more thoughts about the history of 'our' Civil War. <br />http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?125433-Real-reasons-for-the-Civil-WarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-68295415873717389802017-09-03T16:17:29.627-04:002017-09-03T16:17:29.627-04:00King Arthur is a fictional character! King Alfred...King Arthur is a fictional character! King Alfred was king of the West Saxons - King of Wessex from 871 to 899. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-35637308644963757702017-09-02T22:36:54.286-04:002017-09-02T22:36:54.286-04:00Apparently, Irish, you stepped on some toes with t...Apparently, Irish, you stepped on some toes with this post. Good for you. People still cannot get over their own bigotry, enough to at least look at the cause of the civil war dispassionately. There are reams of resources available on the war, and much of it is not pretty, and much of it describes things that the north did to provoke the south, not all related to the slave trade. Is it enough to make the cause of the war other than slavery? I am not sure that we can answer that today, no one is alive to tell us what the people saw, tasted, and experienced, and you cannot get their actual feelings in a diary, just what they were able to write. But I have followed this with much amusement. Thanks Irish, for a good topic. pigpen51https://www.blogger.com/profile/01036907880805485560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-35043641412759118272017-09-02T19:49:45.671-04:002017-09-02T19:49:45.671-04:00http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_decla...http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp <br />You didn't look very far. Seems that the reason (SC) wanted to demand states rights was because the north didn't like their slavery and wouldn't turn in the escaped slaves. Boo Hoo. So they seceded. Notice they refer to themselves and the other states in the south, NOT as southern states but as "SLAVE HOLDING STATES"!!!! It was all about slavery.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-33598585291987034142017-09-02T18:19:28.318-04:002017-09-02T18:19:28.318-04:00As a person who has studied the Civil War extensiv...As a person who has studied the Civil War extensively and had occasion to teach the subject a few times, I can tell you that most of those 10 reasons are complete tripe. Written BY a southerner trying to justify the South's actions by making the North look like the "bad guys" in this conflict. EVERY reason that the South names for trying to leave comes down to slavery and its preservation in the South. No if, ands, or buts.<br /><br />There is SO much wrong with the highly biased article, it could hardly be seen as any authoritve explanation as to why the Civil War happened. Yes, in some cases he makes good points. But for every good point, there are at least five bad ones, or just straight up fabrications. And he's warping ALL of them to make the South look like the innocent good guy, and the North, specifically New England, and Lincoln's administration, and evil, aggressive, tyrants. It's ALL a load of tripe!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-3239254734473029792017-09-01T21:19:21.033-04:002017-09-01T21:19:21.033-04:00The ten causes of the Civil War:
1. Slavery
2. Sl...The ten causes of the Civil War:<br /><br />1. Slavery<br />2. Slavery<br />3. Slavery<br />4. Slavery<br />5. Southern arrogance<br />6. Slavery<br />7. Refusal to recognize that slavery is evil<br />8. Evil<br />9. Treason.<br />A. Slavery.(c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16113272821958559898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-52408415213734377322017-09-01T21:15:51.089-04:002017-09-01T21:15:51.089-04:00Bullshit.
That's all this essay rates.Bullshit. <br /><br />That's all this essay rates.(c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16113272821958559898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-63344321043086481512017-09-01T09:44:40.295-04:002017-09-01T09:44:40.295-04:00Why?Why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-64312263677692466662017-09-01T01:15:55.827-04:002017-09-01T01:15:55.827-04:00JWMJR - Oh ... Though part ii was better in an att...JWMJR - Oh ... Though part ii was better in an attempt to make a very valid point. It was still just a simple read. Something everyone should already know - just wish they would apply it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-85753167385971473082017-09-01T01:00:37.749-04:002017-09-01T01:00:37.749-04:00JWMJR ... You claim no one rebuts your account of ...JWMJR ... You claim no one rebuts your account of history on the links - but it looks like your screening the posts. Maybe there are more counter arguments than you let on?! Ether way - you articles aren't really that good, you blame the South, you blame England, but no responsibility of the north?!? Then you pepper the document with weak insults about southerns being whiners - I wouldn't use you're writings as references or recommend any of it as reading for students - No, not impressed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-6044364340096448142017-09-01T00:53:22.783-04:002017-09-01T00:53:22.783-04:00Are you sure you can read?Are you sure you can read?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-26126178007834830012017-08-31T23:13:35.717-04:002017-08-31T23:13:35.717-04:00to: Deep South Anonymous August 26, 2017 at 7:33 P...to: Deep South Anonymous August 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM - So, you were born in the “DEEP SOUTH?” Where exactly is the Deep South? And you earned a MA from a Southern university – “a Southern university?” … Really? Down here we all refer to our Colleges and Universities – as “a Southern university”. Just like up North – where you just walk around and refer to your Universities as “Northern universities”! I know this because I earned my degree from “a Northern University”. In fact, from the most Northern University of all Northern Universities – which makes my Northern degree a more knowledgeable degree about Northern stuff than any other Northern degree!! I too, read original records from Northern sources (journals, letters, newspapers, government records, speeches). I also attended and earned a Masters from “a Southern university” and I've read original records from Southern sources (journals, letters, newspapers, government records, speeches), which now makes me a subject matter expert on all things Southern!<br />And … neither University gave me the absolute insight to state “It ignores the facts, the laws of the period, and the Southern society's complete and total reliance on the institution of slavery to maintain their "way of life".<br />I say the crap in the above paragraph – sarcastically … But, I really did attend multiple Universities, and received multiple degrees – and I truly state that I didn’t receive “absolute insight”!<br />I am a Educational Research Scientist (ERS, Wave 6, IERG - (Independent Educational Research Group), http://www.indedresgroup.com) – and I know that ‘true information’ is acquired by gathering empirical evidence; Researching ‘Primary sources’ authored by individuals, respected in their field for dedication to deep research, fact gathering, and verification of data in materials pertaining to a given subject.<br />For anyone to say that there was only one reason for the South to secede from the Union – is foolish! There are very few things in life, of any level of importance – that solely rely on a single item or event – to base a decision. It would make better sense to state “The main reason” was this or that. But, unsupported statements like “the civil war was ‘only’ or ‘mainly’ fought over slavery – Just doesn’t hold up to facts. Contrary to your belief or piss poor education, there are loads and loads of written documentation, tons of data, that exist, that defines most, if not all of the reasons for the Civil War. And ‘Yes’, slavery is one of the reasons! Slavery is not the most important reason, it’s not the main reason, but it is a cause … one of many the South held that the federal government had no right to order or interfere with.<br />As far as this article reads; it’s fairly close to accurate, although it is ‘very heavily biased’ by the author. Every subparagraph is mixed with truth and opinion. No support is sighted where true facts are presented and opinions are stated as facts. It’s for these reasons alone that I call down on this article. If the author would sight support; the Authors, Books, Documents, Legal References, or Historic Materials that some of these quotes and references were drawn from, and remove some of the inflammatory personal remarks – this Article would be excellent. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-365858055267871677.post-8013644527464984462017-08-31T22:36:25.133-04:002017-08-31T22:36:25.133-04:00Actually Rod, there is a distinct difference betwe...Actually Rod, there is a distinct difference between a conservative and republican and you definitely sound like the latter.Greg Broussardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03454167935386430339noreply@blogger.com