You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

I'll agree the rebels lost, but IMHO, no one "won".

As for the military options, sure there were others; but one need only look at how Maryland was treated to see what Virginians would expect once the army was raised and sent south. Face it, Lincoln was a tyrant at that time, with his only goal being to protect Washington and prevent further secession (especially in the states contiguous to Washington); the army would clearly have been deployed to Virginia to make it a district under the control of the federal government, with any statements of contrary views being severely (and illegally as Taney ruled) punished. Sure, he had significant concerns, but then the road to hell..., and hell it became.

Recovery of federal property? Who owns that property--the federal government or the people, the rightful sovereigns of the USA? The government that oversaw its construction, or the people who paid for it. You might dispute its outcome, but South Carolina and its people clearly had a claim to that property in its harbor, much as the people of Virginia and Williamsburg had a claim to the ownership of the Governors Mansion and State House four score and seven (OK maybe 5) years earlier. If Lincoln hadn't been so pigheaded about secession as a challenge to the federal government's (and ultimately his) authority, ultimately a sort of amicable divorce might have been worked out (indeed, I think it was likely). Would we ultimately still have gone to war afterwards? It's interesting to speculate, but who knows? Sometimes when people get a chance to cool down, more rational solutions become possible.

What is pretty clear is slavery would have eventually ended due to financial pressures (it's time was gone, as most of the world recognized), and some of the south may well have asked to come back into the union when they saw that there are benefits to it. Instead we fought and killed a lot of a generation of young men and fanned the flames of hatred for generations to come. A settlement could have been a win for both sides, but the war was a loss for both.

One other thing, your citing of Marshall's 1807 opinion is deficient in one regard, treason can only be committed by people in the US; once secession began, the states were independent republics (and ultimately part of the CSA) and their actions were no more treasonous than Mexico waging war against the US was. At least I think that is how the Taney court might have seen it (and possibly Marshall as well--who knows; it's not like we ever saw something like this boefore). It all comes down to whether you view the USA as a compact among states which can be revoked by those who previously agreed to it, or not. I come down firmly on the side that it is.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Well, you may not agree with Lee's analysis that the Constitution was binding, not a keep-it-as-long-as-you-like-it compact, but I guess you do agree with his disinterest in freeing people from the bonds of chattel slavery. :cry:
Big RR wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:33 pm
What is pretty clear is slavery would have eventually ended due to financial pressures (it's time was gone, as most of the world recognized), and some of the south may well have asked to come back into the union when they saw that there are benefits to it. Instead we fought and killed a lot of a generation of young men and fanned the flames of hatred for generations to come. A settlement could have been a win for both sides, but the war was a loss for both.
[R E Lee] How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

I guess you do agree with his disinterest in freeing people from the bonds of chattel slavery.
Not really, I disagree but Lincoln joined Lee's opinion like Lincoln did:
If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
He was similarly disinterested in the freedom of the enslaved, his concern was not to be the president when the union dissolved.

FWIW, I have said many times that I could have understood a war to end slavery, but that was not this war.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by BoSoxGal »

You are entirely disregarding the evolution of Lincoln’s opinion on that matter BigRR. He did not feel the same about slavery by the end of the civil war.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

I agree, but whether it was a real change or a politically motivated one, I am not sure. Lincoln pushed strongly for the 13th amendment, near the end of the war (after 1864), but in 1863, when he enacted the emancipation proclamation, he did nothing about the slaves held in the union states and claimed he did a great thing by freeing the slaves in territories he did not control. This "freeing" of the slaves was a purely political act done without any real concern for those held in bondage, but just to get some perceived political advantage. I'm honestly unsure about how much he saw abolition as important as opposed to a way to achieve a political advantage.

In any event, I also don't know how Lee felt re slavery at the end of the war. At the beginning, which is the time we were discussing, I believe neither of them were too anxious to end slavery, although it appears both at least believed the end was inevitable.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13925
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Joe Guy »

Interesting. Here's the second paragraph on Larry Elders' Fight California Election Fraud! web page....
As is the case, we implore you…our fellow citizens…to join us in this fight as you are able, primarily by signing our petition demanding a special session of the California legislature to investigate and ameliorate the twisted results of this 2021 Recall Election of Governor Gavin Newsom.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:06 pm
. . . in 1863, when he enacted the emancipation proclamation, he did nothing about the slaves held in the union states and claimed he did a great thing by freeing the slaves in territories he did not control. This "freeing" of the slaves was a purely political act done without any real concern for those held in bondage, but just to get some perceived political advantage. I'm honestly unsure about how much he saw abolition as important as opposed to a way to achieve a political advantage.

In any event, I also don't know how Lee felt re slavery at the end of the war. At the beginning, which is the time we were discussing, I believe neither of them were too anxious to end slavery, although it appears both at least believed the end was inevitable.
In 1863 (or in any other year beforehand) "the President" had zero power, authority or standing to "free slaves in the Union states". No proclamation, no fairy wand in the hand of the Executive could do that. It would have been a clear violation of the Constitution. It would have achieved the alienation of state governors and legislatures, not to mention hundreds of thousands of citizens. It would have destroyed the Union for Trump . . . er sorry . . . Lincoln to defy the law and utter meaningless bullshit.

Your ability to read Lincoln's mind is amazing. You should write a book. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a political act but a military one. (You may split hairs and argue the two are the same - use both sides of the paper). It "proclaimed" slaves were free in areas of the United States then in rebellion. It did not and could not "proclaim" freedom in areas under the control and authority of the United States, including those areas of rebel states now under that control and authority. It "freed" nobody. The people freed themselves.

What it did do was give hope and create the conditions under which blacks could become part of the army in increasing numbers.It created a precedent that Congress would never be able to rescind - putting the power of the national government behind the principle that slavery was wrong. The North would never stand for a post-war return to slavery of the hundreds of thousands who had been "freed" in law, though mostly not in fact until Federal troops arrived.

See what he did there? He couldn't free slaves in territory controlled by the Federal government - but he could free them before the Federal government returned. Genius move.

As to attitudes, the war didn't start to free anyone. Pre-war, Lincoln's attitude was that the "problem" of slavery - a moral problem but more immediately a practical one of sheer presence - should be solved by agreement. End slavery by compensating the slave holders. A voluntary return to Africa of all (or almost all) blacks. It was not Lincoln who signed the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law which was a political strike at the institution by northern abolitionists as part of a compromise (ha!) with the slave states that contributed immensely to the rebellion of states which accepted that compromise for as long as it suited them.

I'm really quite perturbed Big RR by your continued defense of slavocracy, waiving of historical truth and wish that the south had been allowed to go their way because slavery would some day die out and in the meantime they could jolly well just shuck and jive while being beaten, their families broken and their rights as human beings left to rot. Until whatever time you think appropriate for it just to have withered away.

You're not like that, I know. I'm just pissed off about it. Sorry
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Oh wow. So they plan on using Benford's Law to analyze electoral results, again.

Trumpists raised this idea after the 2020 election and it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Benford's Law is a perfectly good mathematical theory with wide application to certain types of data sets. Electoral results are too constrained for Benford's to be relevant or useful to their analysis.

We discussed it back then.

Edited to add this: to be clear, Benford's Law in its usual application deals with the distribution of the first digit in a data set of some sort. In this sense there is no useful way in which Benford's can be employed to ascertain the likelihood of falsification. There are limited circumstances in which the second digit can be used. The theoretical distribution of the second digit is much less skewed than the distribution of the first digit in an appropriately selected data set so any fiddling of the numbers would be far less obvious. The Trumpturds who raised the possibility of using Benford's to support the Big Lie were proposing its use on the first digit which is clearly nonsense.
Last edited by ex-khobar Andy on Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

I'm really quite perturbed Big R by your continued defense of slavocracy, waiving of historical truth and wish that the south had been allowed to go their way because slavery would some day die out and in the meantime they could jolly well just shuck and jive while being beaten, their families broken and their rights as human beings left to rot. Until whatever time you think appropriate for it just to have withered away.
You know Meade, I usually enjoy discussing things with you, whether I agree or not; indeed, I had planned to respond to the issues you raised until I read this. I give up discussing it anymore when you resort to bullshit ad hominem attacks. you want to discuss issues, I'm happy to do so; but I will not when you start this bullshit and accuse me of defense of whatever "slavocracy" is; this will be my last post on this matter in this thread. If that makes you feel like you won, feel free to pat yourself on the back and feel good about yourself; you did end the discussion. Congratulations; your argumentative skills are too much for me. :roll:

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:40 pm
:roll:
Guess I don't get partial credit for a semi-apology then.
You're not like that, I know. I'm just pissed off about it. Sorry
Oh well.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

To be fair, I'll give you the partial credit, but that's all.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Well that's all right then. Thank you
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

You're welcome; and FWIW, I am not personally offended, but I think it better to end this exchange now.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

And that idiotic biased expensive unscientific Arizona audit of the November vote has decided that Biden was undercounted by 99 and Trump overcounted by 261 votes.

Per Huff Post quoting the draft report.

No reaction yet from Mar-a-Lago.

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Bicycle Bill »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:56 pm
And that idiotic biased expensive unscientific Arizona audit of the November vote has decided that Biden was undercounted by 99 and Trump overcounted by 261 votes.

Per Huff Post quoting the draft report.

No reaction yet from Mar-a-Lago.
No doubt he'll claim that the same as-yet-unidentified masterminds behind the "Big Steal" were also able to get to the auditors and gimmick up their results too.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Econoline »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:56 pm
And that idiotic biased expensive unscientific Arizona audit of the November vote has decided that Biden was undercounted by 99 and Trump overcounted by 261 votes.

Per Huff Post quoting the draft report.

No reaction yet from Mar-a-Lago.
I liked this comment:
Adam-Troy Castro on the fraudit.jpg
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
eddieq
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:08 am

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by eddieq »

Image

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Burning Petard »

I never heard of Adam-Troy Castro, but I like the way he thinks.

Are Arizona tax payers gonna pay for this farce?

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Post Reply