It appears AG Jeff Sessions has become the latest victim of DCS (Dixie Chicks Syndrome). DCS is a terrible disease far worse than Dementia, Alzheimer's, or Schizophrenia and it affects millions here in the United States. DCS occurs when the area of the brain which controls a person's factual, logical, and rational thinking processes is overcome by "feel good" emotions. "Feel Good" intentions is by far the most common cause of DCS and one of the most dangerous. However, other factors such as greed (political posturing and contributions) or fear can take hold (blackmail has been known to be a huge contributor/ i.e. "we found that picture of you screwing a goat on top of the Dairy Queen and you say what we tell you or we are going to the press with the pictures" or "what would your wife think if we showed her the photos of you coming out of a motel room with that ________________?") of a person and cause extreme incoherent babbling. Dixie Chicks Syndrome seems to progress in stages. The most serious and worst form of DCS is the Quisling Syndrome. Some of the symptoms are; abandoning core values, turning against the truth as well as against kith and kin. Complete isolation of the victim and rope seems to be the only known treatment.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III appears to be the latest victim and symptoms indicate he may be in the Quisling stages of the disease. He was overtaken suddenly and the affliction has apparently caused him to not only confuse reality with a Marxist fantasy version of history but to say things that he himself knows to be complete falsehoods. I would like to wish Jeff a speedy recovery, but I feel he may be "too far gone". Watch the video and read the article to see the terrible effects of this disease.
LINK
AG Jeff Sessions: "Slavery, not states rights, caused the civil war"
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said slavery and not state's rights or economic differences led to the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil.
Speaking at the Abraham Lincoln Foundation of the Union League of Philadelphia's annual Lincoln Day Celebration, the former Alabama Senator dismissed the idea that the Civil War was more about state's deciding their own destinies than it was about slavery.
"The thing was brewing from the beginning of the Republic," Sessions said. "Though many Southerners try to say otherwise - and I love my people - slavery was the cause of the war. It was not states' rights or tariffs or agrarian versus industrial economies. Those issues were all solvable and would have been solved. The cloud, the stain of human bondage - the buying and selling of human beings - was the unsolvable problem and was omnipresent from the beginning of the country.
"And the failure, the refusal of the South to come to grips with it, really to actually change this immoral system of enslavement led to the explosion," Sessions said. "As to slavery, it had to end. The nation could stand the disgrace no longer."
Sessions, confirmed as AG a year ago this month, has been criticized in the past for his stance on civil rights.
You can see Sessions' comments here.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said slavery and not state's rights or economic differences led to the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil.
Speaking at the Abraham Lincoln Foundation of the Union League of Philadelphia's annual Lincoln Day Celebration, the former Alabama Senator dismissed the idea that the Civil War was more about state's deciding their own destinies than it was about slavery.
"The thing was brewing from the beginning of the Republic," Sessions said. "Though many Southerners try to say otherwise - and I love my people - slavery was the cause of the war. It was not states' rights or tariffs or agrarian versus industrial economies. Those issues were all solvable and would have been solved. The cloud, the stain of human bondage - the buying and selling of human beings - was the unsolvable problem and was omnipresent from the beginning of the country.
"And the failure, the refusal of the South to come to grips with it, really to actually change this immoral system of enslavement led to the explosion," Sessions said. "As to slavery, it had to end. The nation could stand the disgrace no longer."
Sessions, confirmed as AG a year ago this month, has been criticized in the past for his stance on civil rights.
You can see Sessions' comments here.
No, it was money.
ReplyDeleteThe protective tariff. When I was a kid, they beat us over the head with it in school.
Since it doesn't have the race angle and makes the abolitionists look like the bad guys, you don't hear about it anymore.
And Sessions is just fine.
Sessions should have stayed away from this argument. I don't believe this is as cut and dried as those on all sides think it is. IMHO at the time of secession slavery was the number one reason although the North and other interests had placed many economic and states rights vs constitution issues on the table too. It is because the South lost he war that slavery has fallen in their minds from being the major reason for secession and states rights (which sounds better) has become number 1. Everyone born in the South since 1865 has been taught and convinced that the war was not about slavery but about states rights. So therefore they "rightly" (in their minds) believe that to be true.
ReplyDeleteWhat the war was about was a few thousand very rich landowners who needed slavery to retain their wealth beat the drums of war. They controlled who was elected to congress from the South. They were the elite and called the tune. They very effectively used Southern pride to convince a couple million or so poor Southerners who owned no slaves that the North was pushing them around. That is what the war was about, pure and simple. The argument/propaganda at the time that the North was unfair and bullying the South was so effective that it prevails still to this day (partly because there was indeed some truth to it).
Almost no one alive today who argues that the war was about states rights is descendant from those rich landowners. There are simply the descendants of those poor schlubs who were coerced to fight because of Southern pride or something. They are simply arguing from what they have been told all their lives.
The intent of this was to ask "why Sessions and why now"?
DeleteI wasn't really wanting to hash the age old argument of "why we fought", but since you brought it up anon. I will begin by agreeing with you in that people "simply argue what they have been told all their lives".
I'm 53 and have been bombarded with SLAVERY, SLAVERY, SLAVERY most of my life. I did have a couple of objective Alabama History teachers who did a good job of hitting all the "high points" and one very good history professor in college who taught that the root cause wasn't slavery at all. There are many people from the end of the war till now who have researched real history and do not tow the line of slavery sayers. your comment has prompted me to ask you one simple question.
If the war was about slavery, why did Lincoln offer the Corwin Amendment to placate the South and make slavery Constitutional in 1861?
Jeffery I am 4 years older than you. I had the pleasure of having s 6th grade teacher who was a grand-daughter of Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston. She had his journal and would read his views prior to the succession and his theory on military strategy. It was also pointed out that up until the Emancipation Proclamation almost 90% of the blacks that were fighting were CSA troops and he lost almost a quarter of his soldiers due to that.
DeleteSlavery was not in any reasons I was taught about the causes of the civil war. Ignoring the decade long border war of Kansas and Missouri, the three main reasons I was taught were:
Northern Industry vs. Southern Farming.
States' Rights.
Western Expansion.
"why did Lincoln offer the Corwin Amendment"
DeleteHe didn't, Corwin offered the Corwin amendment. There was a lot of effort to prevent secession and to prevent the war likely to follow it. Not every effort/idea was a great one. But this issue was 100% in the hands of the Southern elite, coincidently exactly the same people who held hundreds of slaves and who's wealth depended on slaves.
I agree that Northern industry was trying to limit the Souths ability to sell their cotton to England. I agree that a strict interpretation of the constitution and more specifically the papers and statements by those who wrote the constitution did indeed allow a state to secede. The Western expansion argument more supports the idea that the war was about slavery because that issue was the single issue that was a problem for Western expansion.
I think that the war was the only option left to the country after the Southern states began to secede and I think in spite of the long war and suffering it was the right thing. Probably we would all be speaking Spanish or Russia today if we had split up. However I also agree that the government and in particular the North treated the South extremely poorly after the war ended and treated Southerners extremely poorly as well. AND it was that poor treatment that caused the 150 year butt hurt that causes anyone and everyone who traces their genealogy to the South to choose to see reasons other than slavery for the war. Again I will say there were other reasons, but those in charge, the Southern elite, caused the war to happen because of slavery. Many/most of those who fought did not own slaves and in fact were dirt poor in a state where the very rich owned slaves and thus kept the common Southerner down. BUT they had pride and that pride was manipulated by the elite. And they did it for slavery.
What a spin Anon. Ok, so Lincoln didn't "offer" the Corwin Amendment, but fully supported it. Do you work for MSNBC?
Deletehttp://cognoscenti.legacy.wbur.org/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
Poor people will only fight a rich man's war for so long. It would be near impossible to coerce anyone to fight for the possessions of a rich man for four and half years. The bottom line is most Confederates answered the "call" because they had been invaded.
" The bottom line is most Confederates answered the "call" because they had been invaded."
DeleteThe civil war began on April 12, 1861 when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard open fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay. Who invaded who?
No spin. There are a couple dozen different and probably legitimate views of how it started. I read one book with seven different theories by seven different professors. You are welcome to your theory, defend it if you can, but don't assume everyoone who disagrees is some not or not informed.
For what it's worth I put no blame on the vast majority of Southerners both those who fought and those (mostly families) who stayed at home. They were proud people with hunting and woodsmans skills and they were duped into a war fought for the slave owning elite. After the war our government abused them and their fellow Southerners. In their mind they were fighting the good fight. So between their strong sense of pride and their lack of complicity in the slavery issue they felt abandoned AND resented the claim that they did it all for slavery.
The key word in my last post was"most". In April of 1861 the Confederacy had very few men under arms. Most did not join until yankee troops had crossed the Mason-Dixon line. As I stated most Southerners joined up after the invasion.
DeleteThere is a myriad of reasons for why the war began, but you stated the primary cause was slavery. I am still waiting for an explanation of Corwin Amendment from you. The Corwin Amendment is completely counter to the myth that "the north fought to free the slaves".
http://cognoscenti.legacy.wbur.org/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
According to this it was about the expansion of slavery, not slavery, covers the reason for the Corwin Amendment. https://americanvision.org/14639/the-corwin-amendment-and-its-false-absolution-of-the-south/
DeleteThat is my whole point Gjetson. If the WAR was fought to free black men and women in bondage (SLAVERY), why would Corwin, northern lawmakers, and President Lincoln want to EXPAND or allow slavery to exist? This is one of the greatest proofs that slavery wasn't the real reason for the war. Lincoln himself said basically that if keeping slaves would preserve the union, he'd do it. Skybill is right. Follow the money.
DeleteYou recently read about the Corwin amendment and jumped on that as though it somehow proves something. It proves nothing except that just like today there were 100 different opinions and ideas and someone thought that there was a political compromise to stop the war. The Corwin amendment is a red herring dragged through your consciousness by a civil war apologist on another web site. It was never realistic and would probably have made matters worse. It was never something that those opposed to slavery would have considered. it simply had zero to do with the war and other choices by both sides. It isn't "counter" to anything it is meaningless.
DeleteTo say that "Most did not join until yankee troops had crossed the Mason-Dixon line" kinda misses the point. Most Northern fighters did not join until after the attack on Ft. Sumter. Most wars build up after the war begins. To ascribe justification being proved by this is silly.
The rich landowners and primary owners of slaves were a handful of families. There was also a double handful of not so rich and not so big families who owned slaves but owne few slaves. THESE were the people who felt threatened by the growing disagreement with slavery. They could see the handwriting on the wall. They, many of them not all, conspired to make the issue into an issue of states rights. They did this because they knew that 95% of Southerners did not own slaves, were not rich, or middle class and being dirt poor farmers that they would not come to the rescue of rich plantation owners who had a couple hundred slaves and lived like royalty. The engineered the politics of this to make it appear that the North hated the South and wanted to take what was rightfully theirs and they made sure that the newspapers printed false news so that the common Southerners would believe that story. Secession was a gambit, a false flag, like sacrificing your pawn in chess. It was a politically motivated move that they knew would result in making everything worse and then there would be now other choice but war. In other words this small percentage of Southerners declared war on the rest of the Southerners and used the Southerners own pride and prejudices (I mean prejudices against the Yankees) to make them eagerly enlist to fight for the rich landowners. Simple as that. And everyone since then has been trying to tell the story in a way that makes themselves and their kin look good OR absolves them from the slavery issue.
One last point: During the build up to the war and even during and after the war politicians put forth ideas, laws, programs and a thousand different things that had nothing to do with how the war started. You can research all these things looking for straws to grasp and it won't change a thing. If the Corwin amendment doesn't absolve you and yours then surely there are other things you can cite as "proof" that it was all someone else's fault. It isn't. It is pretty much just exactly what we see and what it has always been. Those who were fooled (the 95% of Southerners who paid the price) are not at fault. Those from the North who paid the price are not at fault. It was a handful of rich people and politicians who caused it all and make no mistake their underlying reason was money and in this case slavery is what made the money flow in. Simple as that.
You are really full of it Anon. Many northern troops after 1862 were right off the boat and straight from Europe. Most of these were from Ireland and all were paid "bounties" to pledge their allegiance. The vast majority of these immigrants were destitute and hungry. They were promised clothing, food, a monthly salary and a bonus if they survived the war. Most would have never enlisted had they not been signed up at the docks. You keep writing about being duped. It seems like someone truly worked their magic on you just like the northern industrialists, railroad barons, and Lincolnites convinced so many to wage war and eventually subjugate their fellow countrymen. You come across as Southern sympathizer, but your motives are anything but Southern. You continually speak of how naive Southerns were and are today in subtle ways, but I think most on this site can read between the lines. I also believe it is you who is trying to tell a story. It is as simple as that.
DeleteYou still haven't effectively explained the Corwin Amendment in relation to your case that slavery was the real cause of the war.
How does being conscripted into the war or being bribed into the war suddenly prove that the war was not about slavery??? Please, you are grasping at straws. And the Corwin amendment is another one of those straws. It was someones brain fart some 150 years ago. It was NOT a solution to the problem nor was it proof somehow of some higher purpose in the South's decision to secede.
DeleteConscription proves young men had to be forcibly pressed into service to fight for a "cause" regardless if they are for or against said "cause". Mercenaries fight for money regardless of cause. I thought you'd be smarter than that.
DeleteYou have yet to refute the reason(s) for the Corwin Amendment.
Secession was 100 percent constitutional/legal and in the best interest of the Southern States at that time. Slavery was not the direct cause the war. The main causes were an abuse of power by an errant federal government and money. "The Powers That Were" did not want to give up their cash cow (the Southern States). Unless you can get past some Mickey Mouse 7th grade history book fantasy mantra, I will not again reply to your posts in regards to this thread. Thanks for stopping by.
Remedial material:
http://www.ushist.com/general-information/10_causes_of_the_war_between_the_states.shtml
I know I've heard all the arguments before. The simple fact remains that is if the South had given up slavery in 1860 there would have been no war in 1851. You can search the weeds for other reasons until the next civil war if you want to but it won;t change the facts.
DeleteI get it, the South had a proud heritage and everyone who grew up in the South since the civil war ended has been told that it was all the North's fault and your pride and sense of justice for all those good people who fought and died demands that it not all be reduced to "slavery" especially since 95% of the Southerners in the old South did not own any slaves. But it is what it is. I have respect for all veterans of all wars. Both sides were made up of common men doing what they felt was the right thing. I hold no animus for any of them. Sorry we don't see eye to eye and at this time I will secede from this discussion. Wish you well brother!
Hi Irish!!!,
ReplyDelete"FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!"
skybill
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is a great representation of what Skybill is referring to when he says "follow the money".
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/lWXnTF2iACo
the weakest ag I have ever seen. crime all around him, in the fbi the doj the clintons the obomo's, and he's nowhere near them. the muler "invetigation is a total scam and he's not doing anything to stop it. and now this crap trying to rewrite history so liberals will stop calling him a racist and being mean to him.
ReplyDeletethe south fought the was of northern aggression because the north invaded the south. what were they supposed to do, roll over and let the north take whatever they wanted. which is what they did anyway. the southern states had ever right to succeed. there was nothing in the constitution that said they couldn't.
ReplyDeleteIf the Civil War were about slavery, the South could not have raised and maintained the mass armies they had. None of those foot soldiers owned slaves, nor did they have any vested interest in slaves. They were patriots of the original American kind, loyal to their states.
ReplyDeleteThe South threatened to secede if an anti-slavery Republican was elected.
ReplyDeleteLincoln was elected (he tried to say that he was not anti-slavery, but nobody believed him)
Secession ensued, civil war broke out
Slavery had become a marker for other political divisions (just like religion in Northern Ireland), but itcannot be separated from the causes of the Civil War
Sessions knows little of his own Alabama history as it appears he does about enforcing the law.
ReplyDeleteGreat Site: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/
I think he is losing his mind or someone has their hooks in him. He has gone way to far on this "asset forfeiture BS. I have met him a couple of times and I never thought he'd drink the Kool-Aid, but he is showing all of the signs.
Delete