Dave Moore: The Democrat Party is...
and has always been, the party of slavery. It’s just that now, they don’t care what color their slaves are. They want all of us to be the slaves of a few.
Mike Austin: The Democrat Party is…
the party of slavery, Civil War, secession, the KKK, Jim Crow, the Three-fifths Compromise, Dred Scott, The Missouri Compromise, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, church burnings, Welfare, the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, the first World War, Prohibition, the Vietnam War and its loss, the “boat people”, the defeat in Afghanistan, the Korean War and its outcome, the saving of Lenin and the USSR, the saving of Stalin and the USSR during World War II, allowing the enslavement of Eastern Europe, the Cuban Missile Failure, the salvation of Castro, the betrayal during the Bay of Pigs, the destruction of Law in America, the spread of sexual degeneracy world wide, the creation of race hatred, the destruction of the American republican government and Constitution, abortion, the spread of HIV, Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun control, the strengthening of China, throwing God out of American classrooms and public places, rewarding treason and punishing the law-abiding, Critical Race Theory, the 1619 Project, Drag Queen Story Hour…
My apologies to Satan if I omitted some of his handiwork.
Comments to Noted in Passing: “Living Proof”
![The Complete "Growl" [Because Now More Than Ever]](https://americandigest.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/brainsinjar-150x150.jpg "The Complete \"Growl\" [Because Now More Than Ever]")
Gerard Van der Leun
Comments on this entry are closed.
When someone mentions to me the “Democratic Party”, my response is “oh, the party of ‘Slavery Then, Slavery Now, Slavery Forever!'”. Occasionally, that pisses them off, it’s extremely uncomfortable to be reminded that the political party that they are devoted their life to is the slavery party, most people do not want to think that way about themselves. It pleases me to see that there is at least one other person in the country who has come to the same conclusion.
But don’t let the cadet branch of the Uniparty, the Republicans off the hook. The Republicans had a very uncomfortable relationship with the Abolitionists back in the day, and the freedmen afterwards CW1. Same as the GOPe has with the deplorables today. The GOPe needs them, but they despise them with the blazing heat of a thousand blue-white suns. How do I know that? If you’ve been paying attention, the most wretched legislation is always passed immediately after the election, what they dared not do beforehand. It’s always a big middle-finger fu to the voters, who are to be punished forthwith for their insolence of daring to think that their vote matters.
You can just imagine those Senators and Congresscritters, when they get into their cups and feel themselves amongst true friends, the horrible things they say about their countrymen that they are supposed to represent.
Plus, it was Nixon who went to China. And look where that got us.
Nixon infected the US with a host of evils. China was only one. Recall the EPA. His entire foreign policy was geared to impress a few old men in the Kremlin. He allowed the war in Vietnam to continue, thus causing the deaths of 32,000 more Americans while he and Kissinger played Realpolitik. He placed the entire US Military under DEFCOM 3 solely for the benefit of Israel. Watergate led to two years of the hapless Ford and four years of Jimmy Carter.
Given a vote in the election of 1860 I’m going Democrat on every ballot. Aren’t you? Democrats opposed war, Republicans were the new radical party. Thaddeus Stevens radicalism makes todays radicals look like posers. Lincoln was the kinder gentler face that would make people ignore what was coming. Where have I seen that before?
What we have become since suffrage increased from at most one-quarter of the population to include women and tax eaters is inevitable, it could not be otherwise. Politicians are the effect, not the cause. It is as Madison said–I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of …men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery….who would either desire or dare…. to betray the solemn trust committed to them. What change of circumstances time, and a fuller population of our country may produce requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions.
“Given a vote in the election of 1860 I’m going Democrat on every ballot. Aren’t you?” No. I oppose slavery.
“Democrats opposed war.” That explains why they began one at Fort Sumter.
“Republicans were the new radical party.” Correct.
“Lincoln was the kinder gentler face that would make people ignore what was coming.” Who were those people? Americans on both sides were preparing for war in 1861. Or was First Bull Run a head fake?
“Where have I seen that before?” Beats me.
For all you “Lost Causers” skulking about. From “Gone With the Wind”, a phrase that perfectly describes Southern civilization after 1865. Rhett called it as he saw it: “All we’ve got is cotton, slaves, and arrogance!” After 1865, the South lost everything but its arrogance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S72nI4Ex_E0
It would seem you have never asked yourself if it was proper to, for the first time, draft Americans into a war of any kind, especially a war for independence. Why it was never said that the war was noble and necessary in order to free slaves (in rebel states). And that press gangs would be going into attics to secure more fodder for the war, and Irish off the boats. No, these things all had to wait or the war could never have been prosecuted. Where have I seen that before?
What business could it have been of the Yankee to correct by destruction the less evolved ways of the less enlightened greatly removed in distance to the south? Why, if that were the case, we enlightened must also correct the injustice of Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, and all backward hideouts of the unenlightened. And so here we are, ruled by the most enlightened, made helpless in our righteousness.
“It would seem you have never asked yourself if it was proper to, for the first time, draft Americans into a war of any kind, especially a war for independence.” Both the Union and the Confederacy drafted men for war. Most of the Union and rebel armies were volunteers. And about that “war for independence”: I wonder how the 4,000,000 the South held in chattel slavery would have thought about that? The only “independence” the South offered was for the 4000 or so Southern elites who began the Civil War—and then lost it.
What you term a “war for independence” was really a war to maintain slavery. The true war for independence was fought by the Union. Not only did it free the slaves but it also freed Southerners from the deadly grasp of Sin, the illusion that holding 4 million of God’s creatures in bondage was a good and noble thing.
Your welcome. Glad to help.
The Emancipation Proclamation was what ended Southern fantasies about “independence” and about the nature of all men. Wherever the Union armies went they printed up millions of copies of the Emancipation. Within weeks every slave in the South knew about it. With the approach of Northern armies the blacks abandoned their “masters” and fled to freedom behind Union bayonets. They knew real independence when they saw it. The effect the Emancipation had on the Southern elites has been well documented. The diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut is especially illuminating. She witnessed her beloved South dissolve before her eyes.
“What business could it have been of the Yankee to correct by destruction the less evolved ways of the less enlightened greatly removed in distance to the south?” Because the Southerners were Americans held in the grip of a massive Evil. They refused both Reason and Revelation and clung to their hostages like an alcoholic to his rum. God heard the voices of the 4,000,000 kept in chains in the South, and sent his avenging Angels Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan to do His work. The South responded by murdering Lincoln and founding the Ku Klux Klan. Nice work fellas.
The South committed suicide and blamed the North for it.
And why is it that apologists for the South always change the subject, as if shining a light into the reality of the Confederacy is simply too shocking? What do Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan have to do with the US Civil War?
Yet slavery was ended in Cuba twenty years later. Without a shot fired. One-third of the population were slaves, not one-eighth.
The South did not rely on drafts and press gangs. They depended on shame, an experience mysteriously ever more lacking in our new improved existence.
When slavery was ended in northern states one by one, nobody freed slaves. They sold them to the south. From that the moral superiority of my bettors grew. It grew unrestained for 160 years until it forced equality on people twelve thousand miles away who still hate it, and us. Equality even demands rights for sexual mutants in hardscrabble backwaters.
Leviathon was born in 1865, it’s knee now firmly on your neck no less than any other. You promote war to defeat inequality and even now do not admit to it’s consequence.
The South, for the best and worst reasons, defended the Republic. The northern elite, by virtuous reasoning, ruined the Republic. Where we are right now is not a series of wrong turns, where we are is an inevitable consequence that one moment in the past. Lincoln was not forced into war. He wouldn’t respect an agreement of sovereignty made seventy-two years ago. Not one state would have signed without an opt-out, and seven of the thirteen took the trouble to put that in writing., mostly of the north. Sure enough, New England was the first to threaten leaving. Nobody thought to invade.
I have never defended slavery, or the South. I was a boy from the north when I walked through the south. It was shocking to me, an an alien country. But you were free to leave. It was more alien in 1861. The North invaded alien county, and it was only getting started. Now the same virtuous mind weighs on my neck, but it no longer lives rent free in my head as it long did.
“Yet slavery was ended in Cuba twenty years later. Without a shot fired.” Are we debating the US Civil War or the history of Cuba?
“The South did not rely on drafts and press gangs.” Actually—no.
“The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same.”
You write: “The South, for the best and worst reasons, defended the Republic.” No, it defended slavery. Every single Confederate leader said in speeches and in writing that the South seceded to keep the institution of slavery—what it charmingly called “the peculiar institution”—alive and kicking. All the gibberish about “states’ rights” and “defending the Constitution” arose after the defeat of the South.
You write: “The northern elite, by virtuous reasoning, ruined the Republic.” No, it saved the Republic by remembering the words of the Declaration. Jefferson Davis hated that “all men are created equal” stuff. In his own words—of course before the war:
“African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing…We recognize the negro as God and God’s Book and God’s Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him – our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude…You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be…Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God – let him go to the Bible. . . . I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation. . . . Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments – in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized – sanctioned everywhere.”
Jefferson Davis, like every tyrant in History, claimed his cause was defended by God Himself. And you defend this guy?
Confederate vice-President Alexander Stephens—again, before the war:
“With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.”
And of course, read this gem—written before the war:
“Our new government is founded upon…the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
So there you have it boys and girls. The vice-president of the Confederacy stating that his new nation was founded on slavery.
You wrote that “Sure enough, New England was the first to threaten leaving.” This happened during the War of 1812. Which war are we debating anyway?
You claim that you “have never defended slavery, or the South.” James, that is exactly what you are doing. For the love of Heaven let us speak of things as they are.
It is the evolving republic of Lincoln that is sitting on my neck right now while reaching out and touching literally everything in the world; it is not a collection of slaveowners or reactionaries with the whip. With every defense of the pious morality that has brung us to our knees you are destroying liberty further. Liberty is not a kind or even righteous thing.
No mature adult can learn something without unlearning something. That is a process which people rarely fail to hate. Tocqueville made note of that and it explained to him why even intelligent and learned people were very disinclined toward it. He found his thirst for truths to be as great for truths he hated as much as for those he loved, and through that prism saw the future with a stunning and unparalleled clarity; he could then teach himself to see the past with an unequalied and incredibly unprejudiced eye. One who sees the Civil War as glory and emancipation cannot see that his own inglorious condition on the far side of that. That is not a defense of the South, it is an indictment of the North.
“It is the evolving republic of Lincoln that is sitting on my neck right now while reaching out and touching literally everything in the world.” Lincoln died more than 150 years ago. And you are still blaming him for your current woes? Not only that, but you blame Lincoln for the troubles of the entire world. I didn’t know Lincoln had super powers that reached beyond the grave.
The condition of the US today is because of the tyranny of the Democrat Party from Wilson to Biden. Lincoln was a Republican.
“With every defense of the pious morality that has brung us to our knees you are destroying liberty further.”
I have never been accused of “destroying liberty” before. On the contrary.
“Liberty is not a kind or even righteous thing.” Liberty is not “righteous”? Thomas Jefferson will have a word with you, James:
“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.”
“One who sees the Civil War as glory and emancipation cannot see that his own inglorious condition on the far side of that. That is not a defense of the South, it is an indictment of the North.”
So the US Civil War did not bring Emancipation because I am a sinner?
There is no logical way you can indict the North without defending the South.
De Tocqueville died before the Civil War started. When he wrote “Democracy in America” France had yet to ban slavery.
How about the Tariff of 1823, taxing and financially pillaging the South to finance industrialization of the over in-debted North. The South was done with being the slave of the north.
I’m from So. Cal., you’re from N. Cal. We both got the Northern, victor revised version of history. The North didn’t give a shyte about the southern slaves until Lincoln got worried about too many defeats at the hands of poor, hungry southern peasants kicking ass on the demoralized, well supplied “superior” northern troops.
The South withdrew from the Union LEGALLY according to the constitution. Ft. Sumter was a set up (false flag) to get the South to shoot 1st to stop the invasion into the heart of the Confederacy. The South screwed up, they should have built more support before going hot. The South was by far the lesser evil in the War of Northern Aggression. The North’s evil prosecution of the war is proof that Bankster/industrialist Satanic (just like today), Hidden Hand manipulation by TPTB runs things for “Their” enrichment.
Dear “Tree Mike”:
“How about the Tariff of 1823, taxing and financially pillaging the South to finance industrialization of the over in-debted North.”
Every nation on earth has, at one time or another, relied upon tariffs to finance its government. The South chose not to industrialize because she relied upon slave labor. As well, public debt has been and is a function of economic policies for millennia.
“The South was done with being the slave of the north.” So that’s why it enslaved 4,000,000 human beings, because it was done with slavery? Huh?
“We both got the Northern, victor revised version of history.” I learned nothing from public schools. After military service I began my education at college, and have continued to educate myself since. I was once a “Lost Causer” since my family was absolutely pro-Southern. The only “revised version of history” I got was when I studied the pro-South post bellum arguments confected by Southern apologists. I realized how absurd the “Lost Cause” argument was, and so freed myself from Southern propaganda.
“The North didn’t give a shyte about the southern slaves…” Actually, the North cared a great deal about slavery. Are you familiar with the Fugitive Slave Laws, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Abolitionists and Dred Scott? It was the South that didn’t give a “shyte” about the slaves, raping them at their will and keeping them in servitude.
“Lincoln got worried about too many defeats at the hands of poor, hungry southern peasants kicking ass on the demoralized, well supplied “superior” northern troops.” Ah… too many defeats! Such as Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, New Orleans, Shiloh, Antietam, Gettysburg, Mobil, Atlanta—and so on. And about your opinion of Northern troops: They defeated the South, yes? Or have I been misinformed?
“The South withdrew from the Union LEGALLY according to the constitution.” From the Dubuque Herald, November 1860:
“The Constitution makes no provision for secession. A Government is not a corporation whose existence is limited by a fixed period of time, nor does it provide a means for its own dissolution. The Constitution of the United States provides that it may be amended, and prescribes how this may be done, but it does not, as it exists now, contemplate its own destruction, nor a dissolution of the Government of which it is the living evidence. Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union.”
“Ft. Sumter was a set up (false flag) to get the South to shoot 1st to stop the invasion into the heart of the Confederacy.” How did Lincoln get the South to shoot first? Lincoln must have been really clever to force the South to do something against its own interest. Fort Sumter evinced no Northern invasion, but rather that Lincoln merely resupplied it with food and such—no armaments. Before he did, he notified the government of South Carolina of his intentions. This convinced Beauregard to open fire, igniting the Civil War.
“The North’s evil prosecution of the war is proof that Bankster/industrialist Satanic (just like today), Hidden Hand manipulation by TPTB runs things for “Their” enrichment.” I have not the slightest idea of what you mean here.
Nice
A massive, horrible beating on a national scale is way over due.
Long, long overdue.
And it is time to bring back the punch in the nose as an acceptable part of the argument.
Yes. Or as that great philosopher Al Capone said, “A kind word and a gun will get you more than just a kind word alone.”
ILLUSTRATED from my book, Minims.
Nice. I find it odd that great American criminals and great American gunfighters often come up with superb one-liners. One of my favorites was spoken by serial killer Carl Panzram (d. 1930). As he was being led up the stairs to the gallows he said to the executioner, “Hurry up you Hoosier bastard! I could kill a dozen men while you’re screwing around!”
His biography is…entertaining. For the love of your soul don’t read it after eating. He was quite the guy.
Looked him up.
Jeez.
I’m surprised I never heard of this animal before.
Panzram wrote a detailed summary of his crimes and nihilistic philosophy while awaiting execution. Panzram explicitly denied repenting any actions, including the robberies, murders, rapes, and arsons he had committed. It began with a straightforward statement: “In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and, last but not least, I have committed sodomy on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry.”
Panzram was officially hanged on September 5, 1930. As officers attempted to place a customary black hood over his head, he allegedly spat in the executioner’s face. When asked for any last words, he responded, “Yes, hurry it up, you Hoosier bastard! I could kill a dozen men while you’re screwing around!” He was buried in the Leavenworth Penitentiary Cemetery, where his grave is marked only with his prison number, 31614.
I believe Panzram to be one of the worst men ever to have been born. And you are right: the beast never repented. How many Panzrams are out there right now, walking among us?
I have no idea of what happened to him to have created such a Godless monster.
What a world.
Panzram can’t hold a candle to the killer-trio Gates, Fauci & Schwab. These guys have a more delicate touch, but ultimately a far more deadly one, and are laughing their asses off as millions voluntarily kill themselves. Compared to this trio, Panzram was actually a very nice man.
Excellent point. Gates, Schwab and Fauci are mass murderers.
I one hundred percent agree with you. Gates, Fauci & Schwab are the gang leaders (known so far) that have been, and still are, committing the most hideous crimes in documented history. On top of that, these demented slime balls have thousands upon thousands if not millions of willing worker bees doing the dirty work for them. Every one of these Devils prove Charles Manson was not a rare beast.
Carl Panzram x Charles Manson = Bill Gates. All three will spend Eternity together.
the parties, the legislature&other elected offices, the courts, are a sideshow. the whole are diminished progressively to the trivial.
the agencies administer by diktat- much more effective without the mucking about of the those mentioned above. …oh, and the absence of voters.
Oooops, you missed the nexus to the Republican Party. Justtttttt a lil shy of sainthood,,,,,, not!
VI
All that stuff Mike Austin listed, the GOPe wanted that also, just … slower. They want slaves too, but they want it to be nice and genteel slavery, so they can have salved consciences. Democrats want 1984 slavery and like good satanic followers they tell you up front that is their intention. GOPe want “Brave New world” and want you to be gulled into it. “Slavery with a human face.”
“All that stuff Mike Austin listed, the GOPe wanted that also…”
All? Really? Provide evidence for just ten. (I listed 43.) My criteria were simple: 1. The policy was supported by the Democrat Party locally—as in church burnings, the KKK, Jim Crow; or 2. The policy was supported by the Democrat Party nationally, as in the Kansas – Nebraska Act, the US Civil War, slavery; or 3. The policy was supported by the Democrat president at the time.
Your claim that the Republican Party supported everything I mentioned succumbs to the logical fallacy of “moral equivalence”:
“Moral equivalence is the claim that two radically different ethical actors are really doing the same thing and that they should be judged and treated the same way.”
Your statement that there was something called the “GOPe” involved in all of this is ahistorical:
“Conceived or done without consideration of history or historical context; unconcerned with or ignorant of history; lacking historical perspective or context.”
While both us might despise the Republican Party of today, there is no question that the party offered a real opposition to the Democrats until the mid 1980s at least—or were Reagan and Carter the same? Tax policy, government spending, federalism, foreign policy, social issues, economic philosophy—in these areas there was a clear difference between the parties. Read the party platforms of both parties during a presidential election year. Choose a year at random. A man could enter the voting booth with an understanding that he was supporting a party with a certain set of principles that differed from the other party.
For just one example: Goldwater v. LBJ in 1964. There was no “Uniparty” or GOPe then. Imagine our country today if Goldwater had won.
Why would you imagine our country today if Goldwater had won? He didn’t just lose, he was slaughtered. No imagination required. That was what was left of the country, even then. 1861 was the end of the Republic. 1933 wiped out it’s remnants. Garet Garrett, a great conservative writer who recognized his world had passed on wrote of that in 1938–You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares…There it is, and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be re-conquered.
Every educated man—and you obviously are one—has his own waymarks where “the world was already lost”. I have my own, certainly. But being naturally optimistic—-I cannot see any other attitude for a Christian—I understand that what was once lost can be recovered. Review the History of 3rd century Rome. Recall that Washington was forced out of New York by the British. But then came Yorktown. Men who had retreated from New York could not at the time see any way to reclaim it, that all was lost. They were what you are, “pessimistic”. How did that work out?
Athens lost her empire in 404 BC after Lysander and his Spartans destroyed it. Fifteen years later, she had regained it all back and then some. Rome lost half of the Italian peninsula because of Hannibal. After a few years she regained it all and went on the conquer the world. There was a pessimistic type at Rome after Hannibal’s crushing defeat of Rome at Cannae (216 BC). He advised the Senate to surrender, that all was lost, that Rome could never recover. The people of Rome stoned him to death.
I’m sure you see my meaning. Just because things appear bleak to you does not mean that they are indeed bleak. They certainly don’t look bleak to me.
“You do not defend a world that is already lost.” You speak of worlds as if they were corpses. You cannot reanimate a dead man. You can certainly revive a civilization—or is all of History a lie?
In all my 68 years I have never heard of Garet Garrett, which just reveals my shortcomings. He sounds rather gloomy.
Garrett was not gloomy. He’s an entertaining read.
To believe this country cannot come back is not the same as believing honorable citizens of this country cannot return in the form of this country. They can’t. That slope is has been established for 160 years. Universalism is in the DNA of man.
The Republic of Rome made a major and necessary concession to the times in order to preserve itself. Which led in time to the Empire. That the Empire made changes to preserve itself is not in doubt, but it’s fate was nonetheless sealed. The lesson of Rome is that, at best, it was preferred to alternatives. But without it’s end, and the so called Dark Ages, no Reniassance was ever going to be possible. That is how we are built. This continues on until it grinds to a halt. Whimper or bang, I do not have a clue.
“The Republic of Rome made a major and necessary concession to the times in order to preserve itself.” The Republic (509 BC – 30 BC) made no concessions whatsoever. In fact, when the Gracchi brothers (133 BC – 121 BC) tried to enact reforms the Senate murdered them and their followers. This began 100 years of civil war. It took Julius Caesar (100 BC – 44 BC) to finally force the issue of reform upon the Republic. It responded the same way the South responded to Lincoln—it killed him. The issue was at last settled upon the field of battle (30 BC). War settles things.
“That the Empire made changes to preserve itself is not in doubt, but it’s fate was nonetheless sealed…” That phrase “its fate was sealed” has always sounded odd when used to make a point in History. Has there been any state in all of History whose fate was not sealed? All of History is a story of rise, decline and fall. A nation’s “fate being sealed” thus becomes a mere tautology.
For Rome “having its fate sealed” it still did well, lasting from 509 BC until the fall of Constantinople 2000 years later (1453). Not bad, even though its fate was sealed.
I’m with you on how civilization will end: a bang or a whimper? I have no idea. But I do know how the world will end: with a blare of trumpets. I have this on the authority of a Carpenter.
The concession which the Roman Republic made to defend it’s overreach into foreign lands was to end total reliance on Roman citizens to defend itself. Non-citezens filled the ranks of soldiers, and game on.
The Roman Empire is to be commened, I suppose, for lasting longer than all the rest. Perhaps by that reasoning we can look forward to a few more centuries of being supervised by a phone app and social credit scores. Joy!
An 18th entury German physicist and philosopher wrote that some day perhaps we shall see the Dark Ages as including our own.
Dear James:
You wrote: “The concession which the Roman Republic made to defend it’s overreach into foreign lands was to end total reliance on Roman citizens to defend itself. Non-citezens filled the ranks of soldiers, and game on.”
You are confusing the reforms of Gaius Marius (157 BC – 86 BC) with the Roman military more than one hundred years later after the death of the Republic at Actium (30 BC). Marius as Roman consul ended the property qualifications for military service, thereby allowing a tremendous increase in the size of the Roman army. All soldiers were citizens.
You wrote: “The Roman Empire is to be commened, I suppose, for lasting longer than all the rest.” Actually, Egypt lasted 1000 years longer, from 3100 BC until the death of the last pharaoh, Cleopatra (30 BC).
I agree that the Roman Empire is to be commended. It was so cool that Jesus Himself chose to be born it it. Quite the recommendation!
Now that the uniparty has openly approved of election fraud, we, the people will be totally enslaved, tortured and murdered by the “beast”. Is that the plan . . . It appears this is now going on in testing.
The elite leader class cannot do anything for themselves. They are totally dependent on the slaves. Robots? When the slaves resist and become really, really pissed off in the millions what happens to the elites? Do they go in to their underground bunkers and gorge themselves on their ten years supply of food, booze, illicit drugs and children? We may find out sooner than later.
Individual and mass resistance is long overdue.
WalMart goes along with all the bullshit fuckery the gubmint has to dish out. Who else? United Airlines? Every school board in America? The WHOLE FUCKING CONGRESS? SCOTUS?
Which businesses or small political organizations resist the shittery?
Get on Gab.
Slavery was a normal part of the 13 colonies, of the USA before the EP, and was not eliminated in the northern states until after the war. Lincoln (GOP) didn’t oppose slavery and said as much in his first inaugural address. Anyone near him who suggested freeing the slaves was reprimanded or reassigned to places like Moscow.
The demonizing of the south as slavers was not only hypocritical and disingenuous, but also used as a cudgel to punish the southern states for thinking self governance ala the 10th Amendment was a real thing.
To draw a line of morality between the north and south is pure fantasy. After the war was over, the GOP used Reconstruction to make slaves of the entire southern population, extracting the pound of flesh for attempting to secede as the founding fathers (also slave owners) seceded from Great Britain.
Alas! Here we go again. There seems to be a never ending supply of you “Lost Causers”. And just to state what I have stated here many times: I am a Southerner—from Georgia then to Missouri then to Oklahoma. My family fought with Lee almost until Appomattox.
So hang on:
“Slavery was a normal part of the 13 colonies, of the USA before the EP, and was not eliminated in the northern states until after the war.” This is low hanging fruit indeed. Census data from 1860 shows a grand total of 64—yes, sixty-four—slaves in the North. As for the Union as a whole, there were four slave holding states in it, states that refused to secede: Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland. These slave states had 432,586 slaves. The 11 Southern states had over 4 million.
“Lincoln (GOP) didn’t oppose slavery and said as much in his first inaugural address. ” Then you have not read it. The entire platform of the Republican Party since 1856 was to keep slavery out of the territories. In Lincoln’s own words (March 1861):
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Good enough?
“The demonizing of the south as slavers was not only hypocritical and disingenuous…” You mean the South did not enslave 4,000,000 human beings? Have I been then misinformed? Here is Confederate President Jefferson Davis:
“My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses…We recognize the negro as God and God’s Book and God’s Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him – our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude…You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.”
And :
“African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.”
Here is Confederate vice-President Alexander Stephens:
“Our new Government is founded upon…the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Every single one of the Confederate States had in its Constitution an affirmation of slavery and legal protections for it.
“To draw a line of morality between the north and south is pure fantasy.” So slavery was not immoral?
“After the war was over, the GOP used Reconstruction to make slaves of the entire southern population…” Really? So white Northerners enslaved White Southerners? I had never heard of that before. There were several phases of Reconstruction, and I am not going to go into them here. It is enough to write that Lincoln’s idea of Reconstruction was remarkably forgiving:
“With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Unfortunately for the South, Lincoln was soon assassinated by a Democrat Southern actor which allowed the Radical Republicans to take over the US government. The main intent of Radical Reconstruction was to prevent the defeated South from intimidating and murdering the black man in order to keep him from voting. The South’s response was the Ku Klux Klan.
You “Lost Causers” began right after you lost the war to come up with some reason why the South fought so long and so fiercely. Slavery would not do—oh no, no, no!—as it was too embarrassing to admit that you began a war to keep 4,000,000 men in chains, a war which led to the deaths of 800,000 Americans and the absolute and total destruction of your way of life. Quite an achievement! So you conjured up all sorts of reasons—something, anything—to keep the focus of slavery: “States’ Rights”, the tariff, the “tyranny” of Lincoln, and so on ad nauseum.
Summation: You began the war over slavery; you lost it over slavery. Deal with it and move on.
Dear “Anonymous”:
Have I got a song for you and for your like-minded brethren! It is from 1914, and titled “Unreconstructed Rebel”.
“Oh, I’m a good old Rebel,
Now that’s just what I am;
For this “fair land of Freedom”
I do not care a damn.
I’m glad I fit against it-
I only wish we’d won.
And I don’t want no pardon
For anything I’ve done.
I hates the Constitution,
This great Republic too;
I hates the Freedmen’s Buro,
In uniforms of blue.
I hates the nasty eagle,
With all his brag and fuss;
But the lyin’, thievin’ Yankees
I hates’ em wuss and wuss.
We got three hundred thousand
Befo’ they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot;
And I wish it was three million
Instead of what we got.
I can’t take up my musket
And fight’ em now no mo’,
But I ain’t a-goin’to love’ em,
Now that is sartin sho’;
And I don’t want no pardon
For what I was and am;
And I won’t be reconstructed,
And I do not give a damn.”
My guess is that you already have the song memorized.
“Summation: You began the war over slavery; you lost it over slavery. Deal with it and move on.”
This is such bullshit. The North didn’t care about slavery. Oh, sure, some abolitionists did, just like some SJW’s today “care” about transgender mental cases. But, the war was not about slavery. It was about economic and political control of the South by the financial interests in the North. Whether slavery is the most evil thing in the world (and its not), did, or did not, the South have the right to sever their relationship with the North and form their own sovereign nation? Of course they did! If you say they didn’t, you have to agree that the American colonies had no right to “secede” from Great Britain. What was that thing called the Declaration of Independence?
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Whether you understand it or not, the North had control of the Federal Government and it was obvious that the South was in a position to where they would always have to accept the North’s will, even if it was not in the interest of the citizens of the Southern States. So, “Hey, its been fun guys, but we’re out of here.” Its funny that I’m sure you recognize the right to divorce or the dissolution of contract (which is what the Constitution was), but somehow ceasing to exist in an unequal government is too holy to allow. And the South had the right in the Constitution to do that. Read the Tenth Amendment.
Slavery became a moralistic excuse, especially after the war. And this is because everybody needs to think they are the “good guys”. There are no good guys in government. The little peasants that do the dirty work have no say in what the government (really those that control the government) do. Most contemporary Americans have no knowledge of history and can be convinced that the War of Northern Aggression was fought to free the slaves, and not the real reasons. That way, they can pat themselves on the back and say, “By golly, I’m good, aren’t I?” And, by the way, how has freeing the slaves worked out for America? We’ve really been blessed, haven’t we? /sarc
You “Lost Causers” sure are a sensitive bunch. And you don’t take criticism well. Neither did my 8th grade students. They used words like “bullshit” too.
Even in the face of History, of logic, of morality, of Natural Law, of argument, of simple reason—even when faced with what your own heroes of the Confederacy wrote about slavery and how they contradict everything you have written—you still cling to your same tired arguments to justify keeping 4,000,000 humans in chains. After 150 years, you still spit in the Face of God.
You are as Ahab:
“From hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”
And you self-righteous fools are even more sensitive and can’t take criticism at all. I am not a “Lost Causer”. The War of Northern Aggression was a lost cause. But, you trying to claim you have a grasp of History, logic, Natural Law, can actually argue with facts, and try to declare that you have simple reason is a joke. You are trying to cling to the argument that “keeping 4,000,000 humans in chains” justifies invading another sovereign nation and killing almost a million humans. You are no different than those that claimed we should have invaded Iraq because there were “weapons of mass destruction”. Don’t deny it. You want to pat yourself on the back and declare that war is good, if it makes you feel good about yourself.
Now, answer the actual issues I addressed:
1.Did, or did not the South have the right to secede from the Union? Since this is the real reason the North went to war.
2. How is America better for having freed the slaves? Because, its not just freeing the slaves. They were made citizens, too. I want to see you declare that we are a better country now that we have done that. Especially now that everyone is a slave, not just the blacks.
Dear “Lost Causer”:
My, my! Temper temper!
Anyone who uses the phrase “The War of Northern Aggression” is a “Lost Causer”. You have my permission to pretend that you are not.
“Did, or did not the South have the right to secede from the Union?” I believe that question was answered when you guys surrendered at Appomattox. You were defeated upon the field of battle. Wars tend to settle things—and Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan certainly settled that. It was an answer good enough for Lee and for the entire Confederacy ; it should be an answer good enough for you.
Are there other questions you have about the “Lost Cause” that I can help you with?
Just as there are “Lost Causers” there are “Lincoln Cultists”.
All of this is old news, now, and any more fake discussion is ignored.
Read, and weep.
https://store.mises.org/Lincoln-Unmasked-P324.aspx
Only 8th grade children are still captivated by the whole slavery thing.
And, using gov’t behavior to justify gov’t behavior, is, well, silly.
You know better.
I was wondering when someone would show up with a book that “would set the record straight” and prove his point. And sure enough…
So you get your books and I’ll get my books. And then we will plow through all of them. Books on Lincoln alone total 200,000 volumes. And then there are Civil War books, slavery books, secession books, and forever on and on. Let me know where to start.
“Only 8th grade children are still captivated by the whole slavery thing.” So Thomas DiLorenzo is an 8th grader? Just so you know, the issue of slavery has been and remains one of the major themes in History and Historiography to this day. I understand that you are in no position to know this, but you still should be aware that scholars regularly deal with this issue. All they all 8th graders?
I did not want to mention this, but here goes: I earned two college degrees, one in History Summa Cum Laude, the other in Political Science Cum Laude. I spent half of my adult life lecturing in History in three nations. During my teaching years in Argentina I taught History, Philosophy and Economics at the college level. I read four books a month and have for 30 years or more. And just for you: I once was a “Lost Causer”.
http://mikeaustin.org/books_read_from_1996.htm
On my shelves reside 1000 books of History, Literature and Theology.
All this is certainly no claim to being correct on the issues here involved, but it at least makes the case that I am aware of them.
You and I have had a similar discussion before, where you were unaware of basic historical issues in Western Civilization. Nothing has changed.
“On my shelves reside 1000 books of History, Literature and Theology”.
And you obviously haven’t made the effort to think for yourself concerning History, if we use that logic you think you have. Speaking of your books and his books: Who writes the History, hmm? The conquerer, isn’t it? You seem to be unfamiliar with Orwell’s writings. “He who controls the past, controls the future”. You’re dealing with people that actually play the game of controlling the future. They’re happy when they can claim the “moral high ground” and being “on the right side of History” when it comes to the War of Northern Aggression. Now, who is it that claims being “on the right side of History” these days? Are they? Depends on what you mean. They may be on the winning side, but are they on the moral side? If yes, I guess that means you support gay marriage and transgender rights. That would fit in with your belief that the Civil War was about slavery.
I see why you don’t answer the questions. Only a fool would think that the South didn’t have the right to leave a contract that no longer benefited them. If you somehow think that conquest somehow changes the question, you have a lower IQ than I thought. We are talking first causes. The South seceded. The North invaded. It had nothing to do with slavery. If you believe, as you obviously do, that a country has the right to impose their own morality on other nations, you would believe that your country has the right to invade Afghanistan to free the women that are “slaves’ there. Or, your self-righteous perception of morality would want to invade Mexico to free the LGBTQ slaves there. Oh, that’s different. Sure, it is. Keep on telling yourself that.
It’s funny that you try to claim the moral high ground with “After 150 years, you still spit in the Face of God”. Of course, a self-righteous fool would claim to speak for God. May I refer you to Leviticus chapter 25. Please read it. Is the biblical God your God? It also shows why you didn’t answer my question about how the abolition of slavery benefited the United States. It didn’t. To even claim it did, you’ll have to resort to some kind of abstract “blessing” we received. But, when analyzing whether something benefits a country, you have to point to real examples. You have none. Unless of course, you’re a football, basketball, or rap fan.
” Who writes the History, hmm? The conquerer, isn’t it? ”
Not always. Not always at all although it has become a fashionable and easy response.
Dear “Anonymous White Male”:
May I suggest some things that will certainly aid you in any debate?
First: Take a course in remedial writing. Concentrate on grammar, paragraph formation, verb declension, spelling, syntax and how to construct a sentence.
Second: Take a course in basic logic. You will learn that contradicting yourself is not conducive to an argument.
Third: Eliminate the bombast. Such an attitude convinces no one and makes you appear silly and loud mouthed.
Fourth: Take a course in American History, and concentrate on the period from the Missouri Compromise (1820) until the end of Reconstruction (1877).
Fifth: Stick with the subject at hand. If you are writing about the Civil War, bringing into your argument football, basketball, rap and LGBTQ makes you appear scatter brained and irrational.
Sixth: Avoid insulting your opponents. There is a reason why “ad hominem” is a logical fallacy. (See number 2 above.)
I hope this helps. Let me know how it goes.
“Did, or did not the South have the right to secede from the Union?” I believe that question was answered when you guys surrendered at Appomattox.”
The arguments that you make which are opposite my own beliefs are as strong as the ones that agree. But I’ve never before known you to state an argument that was weak.
“Did the Japanese have the right to seize half of South East Asia?” I believe that question was settled at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
War settles things.
What did the First World War settle? The Thirty Year War, the Hundred Years War, the Mongol conquest of India? A settlement is an agreement, not a surrender.
Dear James:
You asked:
1. “What did the First World War settle?” It settled the question of whether the Germans could defeat the Entente Powers. It could not. Germany began the war with high hopes, the German Kaiser Wilhelm II saying, “The troops will be home before the leaves fall from the trees!” Oops.
2. “What did the Thirty Years’ War settle?” A great deal, actually. It settled the question of who would be the strongest power in Europe—France, as it turned out. It settled whether Spain and her empire would maintain control of half of Europe—nope. It settle the religious issue arising from the wildly misnamed “Protestant Reformation”, about whether Protestantism or Catholicism would be practiced in the various parts of the Holy Roman Empire. This resulted in the statement of “Cuius regio, eius religio” (“Whose realm, their religion.”) Meaning that the ruler of a territory would decide the religion of that territory. It freed what we now call Holland from the grip of Spain. Good enough?
3. “What did the Hundred Years’ War settle?” It ended the fantasy of England that somehow she could rule over France.
4. “What did the Mongol conquest of India settle?” In the words of Will Durant:
“The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”
The conquest took place over a 400 year period. It was not a war so much as yet another instance of Muslims slaughtering whoever they could get there hands on. The result was that part of the Indian subcontinent would remain Muslim—as it is to this day, alas. It revealed that the Hindus were terrible soldiers, but that their severed heads could be made into cool pyramids.
War settles things. Always has.
“I believe that question was settled at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
War settles things.”
What you really believe is that might equals right. Don’t try to deny it. But, since you believe that, WTF are you whining about slavery for? Hey, might makes right. If the Africans couldn’t protect themselves, they don’t have the right to complain about slavery. At least, that’s what you believe. “Your daughter was raped. Too bad man. Might makes right. She shouldn’t have been in that part of town”. Is that the world you want to live in?
Dear “Anonymous White Male”:
You wrote: “What you really believe is that might equals right. Don’t try to deny it.” I did not write what you claimed I wrote, that “might makes right”. I wrote that “war settles things”. It does not settle right or wrong, only the issues that led to war.
You wrote: “WTF are you whining about slavery for?” It was the South that whined about slavery It still does.
You wrote: ““Your daughter was raped. Too bad man. Might makes right.” For the South, it certainly did. Around every Southern plantation were dozens of mulatto children, the products of Southerners raping their black slaves whenever the mood struck them. Frederick Douglass was one notable example.
You wrote: “Is that the world you want to live in?” No. And thanks to Lincoln, I don’t live in such a world. Neither do you.
For all you US Civil War buffs: Here is an animated map of the entire war, day by bloody day. The music is suitably ominous and eerie. It should be. You are watching the death of a culture, of a way of life, of a civilization gone with the wind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDEK4gJBKW0
Had enough of the US Civil War? No? Well then, you’re in luck!
If you are a Northern, anti-slavery type: “Glory”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hVrYRqeT5M
If you are a Southern romantic type: “Gettysburg”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vz5f9NOVuk
If you are really, really, a Southern romantic type: “Gods and Generals”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzghvqz7ZC4
Slavery was a normal part of the 13 colonies, of the USA before the EP, and was not eliminated in the northern states until after the war.
So what. Slavery was a normal part of life the moment organized societies formed millennium ago, and remains so to this day. Just because American ideals put all other societies and forms of government, past and present, to shame is no reason for America to be held up as the poster child for slavers.
Also, do you honestly think you are not under slave conditions today, that you are not being controlled, just as slaves were and are?
Well said. There is not one society in History that did not have slaves.
Correct John.
Here in the “land of the free” I have not lived even 1 single day of my life as a free man.
Fully awake, realizing I can be killed or caged or stolen from completely at any time.
Just like all other “citizens”, slaves, prisoners.
Amazingly, there are some that, while surrendering their wealth to the tyrants, utter “We are still the freeist country in the world.”
No problems with any account, slavery is as old as the world is. It just is!
VI
And it still is.
Absolutely- slavery is here and not going anywhere. The talking heads as well as our government pay lip service to it while they conspire together to make us slaves ourselves. As for the civil war and those times in general I think racism was prevalent in the north as well as the south. Who was more racist or why did the war start can have a 1000 arguments to both sides. Interestingly this was a post today @ Free North Carolina. It is a post linking to the Abbeville Institute website which is a unapologetic pro-south site. The post is about John Rock who was an educated black man from the North. It was interesting reading and one man’s take on the times. Hope this link works https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/john-rock-and-yankee-hypocrisy/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=51554d5b-ceda-4138-b9d8-88843b94c8a6
Mike, that thread ran out, no way to reply.
You and I have not had an historical discussion before.
I am very weak on historical fact, and only knowledgeable on a few points.
I was born in Gettysburg and for 40+ years believed what the history writers wrote.
Then the scales were removed and I contrasted what happened in the mid 19th century with what I seen in the late 20th century and I realized things are not like what I was led to believe. DiLorenzo is just one of many truth-revealers I have seen and even you yourself are one.
Kudos, Ghost. Well deserved.
JWM
I grew up in the Deep South during the 1950s and I’ve been around blacks all of my life. The US is cursed by them. The civil rights activities in the 1960s re-birthed America as the Great Welfare Welfare State…not a Great Society….and it opened all of the doors for the ruination of the US. From that opening volley ill described as a push for civil rights has sprung every evil thing that has occurred in the US since including the growth of alcohol and drug addiction, the emergence of the negroes’ true character as a violent, generally mentally skewed sexual and criminal deviant and the perversions of these things who bond over their depravity under the LGBTQ anagram.
Lincoln stated several times that he had no particular interest in blacks but he did recognize that a strong and independent coalition of Southern States could offer economic opportunities to other world nations and that those states would compete against the remainder of the US to settle western lands and bring them under a confederacy. And for that reason Lincoln would have insisted upon war against Southern secession even if there were no blacks in the mix. Lincoln bears great responsibility for all of the deaths and the destruction that occurred during those years and it is possible that his assassination was a knife that went further into the heart of this nation because he and some members of his corp were working on plans to remove the negro from the US and relocate him to British protectorates and/or back to the continent that God created for them. Had he lived, this country might not be in the shape that it is in now.
But woulda, shoulda, coulda…! If White Americans weren’t such soft headed fools and if they had any ability to think for themselves regarding the truth of the black race it might be that we would not be inundated with all of their issues that are killing the US.
“I grew up in the Deep South during the 1950s and I’ve been around blacks all of my life.” Then you understand them far better than I do. I scarcely saw one until USAF Basic Training (1972). There were three main types: 1. Just normal guys, like you and like me; 2. Radical black power types. I was mystified why they were so damn angry all the time; 3. Deep South blacks who believed that they were inferior to Whites. They told me so. One such, Rodney, said that his grandmother taught him that he should never aspire to what Whites can do. Again, I was mystified.
So true: Welfare and “Civil Rights” destroyed the black man and his family. They survived slavery, civil war and Jim Crow, but they could never survive the attention of the Democrat Party. LBJ boasted that he would have “those niggers voting for Democrats for 100 years!”
Lincoln’s views on the black race were common for his day. He wrote that blacks should have all the rights claimed by whites, but they could never aspire to the loftier heights of civilized society. Jefferson Davis’ view of blacks would put to shame even the most fervent KKK type today.
“Lincoln would have insisted upon war against Southern secession even if there were no blacks in the mix.” Had the South never had slavery, there would have been no need for war. Lincoln believed what Christ taught him, that the nation could not survive half slave and half free; that it would become all of one thing or all of the other. After Dred Scott (1857) it was clear where the nation was heading. Slavery was now legal everywhere in America. The South had won the argument: until early 1861, it controlled the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court. Game. Set. Match. Yet it still seceded.
“Lincoln bears great responsibility for all of the deaths and the destruction that occurred during those years.” Perhaps. But so? To break the stranglehold of slavery upon the soul of the South, war was necessary. To blame Lincoln for the war is like blaming FDR for the war in the Pacific.
The cause of the US Civil War and the cause of secession, and the condition of the black race today, are separate issues. They should be dealt with separately. Your thoughts on today’s blacks have no bearing on the black race of 150 years ago.
Several have commented we are all slaves. It is literally true. Personally, I have endeavored to avoid that status. Four years after the Civil War, Congress created the 14th Amendment. Four years after the war there were all these “freed” black people who had no legal status. The white man did not recognize the blacks as equal beings. They were not going to bestow upon them the recognition that all men are born equal and, as Americans, protected under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment created the “US citizen” which made them a citizen of a corporation called Washington D.C. and a “resident” of the federal zone of NY, VA, GA, NJ, MA, etc. etc. Their country exists only on paper, and that corporation was declared bankrupt on March 9, 1933. The advent of the 14th created taxpayers that could be milked beyond the protections of the Constitution. The 14th created statutory slaves that cannot claim Constitutional Rights. Because so many now have be branded “US citizen” we’re ALL down on the plantation picking cotton. It is because of the 14th that if you mention “the Constitution” you can be found in contempt of court. That judge has taken silent judicial notice that you are a slave who has no rights. The 14th created two citizens… and this secondary invention was duly noted by Supreme Court justice John Harlan. He wrote in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)…..
And I grew up a poor black child! According to all my medical records. Don’t you all grow tired of the nonsense? Color, sex. Had a Dr FINALLY, tell me at the VA hospital, this past week, Mr. Williams, your not black.
Dr, my last name IS Williams, prove to me I’m not. Popeye said it the best, I yams what I yams!.
VI
In the 50’s I boxed at the local boys club. You could spar all week but on Saturday there were regular boxing matches. I feared the black kids in a match not because they were better boxers or stronger but because there was an innate hate for the white kids and a strong desire to kick their ass. But later with 20 years in the military and playing sports both organized and pickup with them (and that innate dislike of whites was always present) I came to respect their athleticism and skill. I couldn’t touch them in basketball. Softball was a totally different thing and few blacks played never mind excelled.
I had many good black friends and I have a black grand daughter. As a group statistically blacks are a problem. 10-20 times the murder rate and violent crime rate of whites. Rarely excel in school. violent, confrontational and precipitous in social situations. Expect and demand special treatment and free stuff. But they are a reality for the U.S. and if we don’t find some way for them to strive to succeed and end their love affair with hate the whitey and free stuff they will bring this country down. How, exactly? Not sure but I know the solution won’t come from whitey because they won’t ever accept that. It must come from their own people, their adults and parents, their leaders, pulling their own kids up and making their own children do the right thing. Without that, they are destined to fail and bring us down with them.
“How, exactly? Not sure…”
========
How many times has that been written?
Unknown, but a lot!
Perhaps there is no solution.
Think: What would people do if grizzly bears started massively killing people at the rate negro’s are killing people? There would immediately be open season on grizzly’s, right?
The worst of all of it is the retarded-criminal whites that believe the CRT nonsense. There should be open season on them too.
“It must come from their own people, their adults and parents, their leaders, pulling their own kids up and making their own children do the right thing.” That is exactly how it worked during segregation, disappeared in desegregation.
When stolen money was swapped for fathers.
Thank you for bumping this, Gerard. Illuminating, thoughtful (as usual) comment thread.
In the last roughly 100 years, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Barack Obama, and now Biden have collectively been the great architects of our long descent into a centralized totalitarian state where “Freedom is Slavery”.
Quite the “Rogues’ Gallery”! You forgot Clinton. I would have added George W. Bush, but that’s just me.
Mike, I would agree with you that both deserve at least a dishonorable mention. Although, I’m not sure they should be viewed through the same lens as the other miscreants I’ve listed.
Clinton certainly was a Progressive. His central planning efforts, attempt to socialize medicine with his wife in the lead, the attempts to use businesses as a government proxy, and the whole “It Takes a Village” social agenda were unquestionably bad for conservatives.
But, I always though Clinton was the guy who just wanted to be the next JFK. My recollection, which may be wrong, is that people like Hillary and Robert Reich pushed him more to left.
Bush made some very misguided decisions – Iraq, compassionate conservativism, much bigger government and entitlements, and significant escalation of government debt.
In the end though, neither man strikes me as having had the same sort of fascist or Marxist leanings as some of the others. You could argue that strict ideology or intent matter less than the damage they did, and you’d be right.
You are right about Bill Clinton, and how his shrew, harridan wife Hillary, and that midget Robert Reich, pushed him to the left. I despise Clinton because of Waco and his misuse of cigars. Probably right on Bush as well. I did vote for him twice. I despise him because of his immigration policies, his inability to win an easy victory in Iraq, and his quisling behavior after leaving office.
I will admit that I would rather be governed by Bill and George than by Wilson and LBJ.