Desecration of statues and monuments instigated by racial hatred of Whites needs to end. Great men and women were from all walks of life, and the enormity of their lives should be celebrated. Ignorance is no replacement for history.

There’s a great fish restaurant chain and also a great Tex-Mex chain here in the South. They each have relatively few locations despite the burritos/fried fish being equal to or better than the food at Red Lobster and Chipotle, each of which has many more locations than their smaller competitor. While there’s no dessert at Chipotle, the Tex-Mex chain has churros. Both Red Lobster and the smaller fish chain have Key lime pie but no apple pie. The prices are just about the same when you compare the large and small chains.

The only possible reason I can see for Red Lobster and Chipotle being the much larger chains is that, unlike Red Lobster, the smaller fish chain doesn’t have lobster tail, and, unlike Chipotle, the Tex-Mex chain doesn’t have Mexican pulled pork. You can apparently bring many people in with signature items like lobster tail or carnitas. Those smaller restaurant chains should offer their own lobster or carnitas. Since their menus are superior otherwise, if each chain adds one of those special items, they’ll attract many more customers and take over their respective markets in the South and then maybe the whole country.

I am a direct descendant of a Confederate soldier of a slaveholding family. I see no cause for preserving the idea or the honoring of a purported reconciliation. Acceptance of the changes produced by the Civil War never came, and the notion of reconciliation was and is still is a lie. The evil done the enslaved and then to the freed, the deaths dealt and destruction done to the country and the continued violence to force the end of Reconstruction and suppress the aspirations of freed slaves and their descendants, by the despicable fraud of SCOTUS rulings, on duly passed laws on equal rights, to be unconstitutional for the institutionalization of Jim Crow laws along with lynching to enforce them, the violence of committed in attempting to crush the Civil Rights movement, all speak to that question. We should not listen to voices of the present who want to push notions that there should be reconciliation as two families that can kiss and make up over what one of them did to the other. Or what both did to each other. It’s also what they both did to freed slaves. My ancestor gave some of his land to ex-slaves freed from him by the Civil War. That was one real step toward, one measure of, what is meaningful over vague “reconciliation”: compensation.

The problem, of course, is race, that terrible, intractable problem that caused the war to begin with.

This is incorrect, as any serious student of the war could tell you. The war was caused by the deliberate and inexorable economic strangulation of the South by Northern mercantile interests, who were on the verge of total and permanent control of the national legislature.

All my ancestors on both sides of my family were Confederates. There is not a single Yankee in my family tree, so my lineage is about as Southern as it could be.

My own ancestry, for better or worse, includes men who fought on both sides. I have a photograph of two of them—one from each side, and one missing an arm—shaking hands at a reconciliation encampment fifty years after the war. Such a thing would never be allowed today.

The northern states were foolish to object to the Confederacy and their workforce.

Letting them go and keeping the bulk of blacks with them would have worked. As it is the whole continent is now a cesspool of race mixing and a plague to kill them all is probably the only desirable solution.

Lincoln’s dream of peaceful race separation was the height of Caucasian naiveté.

One aspect of life before the “War of Northern Aggression� was the fact that the federal government had little power and was subservient to the states.
In those times, an individual citizen regarded himself to be a citizen of his respective state–NOT a “citizen of the united States�. A person living in Virginia considered himself to be a citizen of Virginia and likewise citizens of other states who were citizens of their respective states.
In fact, in the early days of the republic, the word “united” was never capitalized, reinforcing the doctrine that the federal government was subservient to the states.
At the time, the only responsibilities that the federal government had was to coin lawful money, run a post office, and have the ability to gather troops to repel invasions, nothing more.
The “War of Northern Aggression� was illegal on its face, as states always had the right to secede from the “union�.
The requirement that the “states in rebellion� sign a statement recognizing the inviolability of the federal government before readmission was done under duress and were not valid contracts. The only state that never signed a “no secession� clause was Texas. To this day, Texas could tell the feds to “take a hike�. There would be very little the feds could do about it.
That all changed with the conclusion of the “War of Northern Aggression� when the states were subordinated to the federal government, illegal powers being taken by the federal government. It was all downhill from there…

Afrikaners have something in common with the American South, the Irish and the Scots- we were colonized by our fellow whites.

With friends like Jared Taylor the South needs no enemies.

An argument might be made that reconciliation was the sole prerogative of the men who were the combatants in that war. The effort accomplished what they intended, a reunited country As southern historian Shelby Foote observed, before the war, people said “the United States are� and after, they said, “the United States is.� Now we complete the painful work begun by that long dead generation. We must acknowledge that there can no moral equivalence between an insurgency that was the result of a corrupt oligarchy’s refusal to accept the result of a free and fair presidential election, and the response of the great majority of United States citizens and voters, of “Union, now and forever, one and inseparable,� in the ringing words of Daniel Webster. Either democracy is real thing, or it is not.

Sadly, it remains an indecency to remove monuments in cemeteries. These are the places where time stands still, where the voices of those who have fallen silent speak to us, in stone and bronze, of what mattered to them. Their mistakes, if they be such, cannot harm us now. They are beyond our ken and care. But we must never erase them. As Lincoln sagely observed while the war was yet raging, “Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.�

Now we still have in this town a nice black man who goes around with a Confederate flag on his pickup truck, smoking.

that would be clayton bigsby.

Video Link

With that innate love of virtue and real worth which has always distinguished the American people, there has long been growing up, even among those who were the fiercest foes of the South, a feeling of love and reverence for the memory of this great and true-hearted man of war, who fell in what he firmly believed to be a sacred cause.

To think of the weak and foolish of today, cursing and belittling men of honor, makes me despair of the human race. It is a bitter kind of irony that the men who actually fought one another each respected the other side, and went on to name works in their honor, while poorly educated ungrateful mutants talk shit. Those “progressives” I’d bet, have never had a fist-fight, gotten up after getting their asses whupped, and shaken hands with the victor. We used to call people like that “pussies”. Some of us still do. They deserve to be stranded alone on an island with a bag of seed and a shovel, to see what kind of grit it takes to build something out of nothing.

Pedantic tank note: It was the British Army that named the tanks ‘Grant’, ‘Lee’ and ‘Stuart’ and also the ‘Sherman’ and ‘Chaffee’ tanks. Prior to that US tanks were denied names but the US Army took up the generals-for-tank-names convention themselves with the ‘Pershing’ at the end of WW2 and that has continued up to today with the ‘Abrams’.

One of the most important yet unappreciated accomplishments of General Lee was the ability to recognize that the game was over. There were a not insignificant number of confederates including Jeff Davis who wanted to pursue guerrilla warfare against the occupying US Army. Lee put the kabosh on that and allowed a fairly civilized reunification.

There are zero niggers that know English better than I.

Paul “America is an idea� Ryan is a RINO piece of shit who prevented Trump from enacting many of his policies, especially on immigration. He ruined Trumps first two years, which is what he was selected to do by the deep state. Pro open borders but has a wall around his property. Overall a disgusting dick sucking weasel who was a detriment to the country.

Much of the campaign of hatred against the Confederacy has been led by elites who can be called white only as a courtesy

The haters will always be there but I reserve particular disdain for Paul Ryan and his pathetic attempt to contradict President Trump’s respectful treatment of the statue defenders in order to curry favor with his favorite donor class types who were pressuring him to do so. You can guess the ethnicity.

He saw the conflict as a tragedy though. Which it was.

You fucking idiot. Don’t you dare correct my English. My little finger knows more English language than your entire pea-brain will ever dimly view in the far, far distance.

“…the wise magnanimity displayed by the victors.”

This is a hideous gloss on the era of Reconstruction.

If you’re “guessing” then you don’t know.

I guess Lee was a dignified man. But Longstreet was a much better general.

There’s a quote that goes something like “Just look around today and you’ll see what 258,000 Confederate soldiers died trying to prevent.”

the rebels were destroying the unity of the one nation

jluker made the important point but it bears repeating. There was no separate nation with its own organic powers created after the separation from Britain. Nor was one created by the constitution which goes to great lengths to articulate that point in the Tenth Amendment (Bill of Rights) which was the necessary accommodation of the Federalists to the Anti-Federalists and which makes explicit, to avoid any confusion, that the powers aren’t granted or even recognized but DELEGATED. Delegated powers are always reserved. In other words, the federalists lost.

The United States was, and remained until Northern victory and the post war amendments, an administrative and subservient arm of the states. Nothing more.

Honestly Observator,

What are you talking about? A constitutional republic is not a nation. This isn’t a nation now or a union. The constitution of 1787 was an union of sovereigns, not a nation. A republic of republics if you will. The U.S. government is an inferior not a superior. If the States of the North wanted to “preserve” a union all they had to do was assemble in convention and reaffirm that constitution or draft a new one if they chose. Instead they dissolved their sovereignty over the specious pretext of “preserving the union,” or “emancipation” (just not the New England Slave trade).

Undoubtedly Europeans cheered the dissolution of that Republic but they didn’t dissolved it. That was the homosexual bastard son of a whore Lincoln and the Bankers who financed him. That so-called “nation” destroyed itself and since then it is nothing more than a military despotism based on executive order 100.

Yet, Sir Garnet did his bit to crush the Boers. He was ill at the time of the main Anglo-Boer War which happened later and didn’t participate, but did he have any kind words for the Boers or any of the other small, plucky peoples he helped conquer?

Wolseley was in the Confederacy as an observer during the Civil War and had Confederate sympathies. He wrote of the Fort Pillow battle, when colored troops were allegedly slaughtered after surrendering, “I do not think that the fact that one-half of the small garrison of a place taken by assault was either killed or wounded evinced any very unusual bloodthirstiness on the part of the assailants.”

It’s best to have a little more skepticism about the tributes of one warrior for another and not take them at face value.

Good article.

A lot of people in those days on both sides of the Atlantic thought of the Anglo-Saxons as their common heritage.

Perhaps, no it’s too late.

Many Englishmen admired the Confederates

Well of course they would: the rebels were destroying the unity of the one nation that would have both the means and the motive to replace the British empire as the global hegemon if left to flourish in its natural course.

It would be generous to estimate that 10% of the population today could appreciate this article. And that’s if they stumbled upon it. That is where we stand today.

Video Link

Paul Craig Roberts is vindicated in the Georgia secession document.

https://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2018/7/1/secession-documents-georgia

This article (disguised as an interview) is nothing new. It’s well known that the US Civil War was not about slavery.

Aside from that, unfortunately, Paul Craig Roberts lost credibility long ago when he allied with the gang of charlatans who constantly preach ridiculous fear dogma in order to push gold. Roberts, Ron Paul and many others.

Some of the claims Roberts has made in recent past include “the banks are going to fail, the dollar will collapse, etc.”

Roberts is a paid shill for gold dealers. And he tells his audience what they want to hear in order to pad his bank account when he asks for “donations to pay expenses of his blog.”

I’m not sure why anyone would even give him the benefit of the doubt given that he is a former editor at the Wall Street Journal which is a criminal periodical. It’s amusing how Roberts trashes Wall Street today, but he kissed their A** for years when he was at the WSJ. From this alone, he cannot be trusted.

A careful investigation into Roberts will confirm my claims.

Rosenthal revealed truths.
But, he was used to distract the John Todd’s ones (Rothschild is the top of the Grand Druid Council 13 families , etc.)
to Jews, I think.

Revolutionary war and Civil war are said in the next one :

・The Hidden Tyranny
Harold Wallace Rosenthal

・https://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/The-Hidden-Tyranny1976.shtml

in the language of Paul Craig Roberts, if only the South had been less Insouciantâ„¢ to plans of the North then outcomes would have been different.

The best site I’ve found is http://slavenorth.com/. Very professional.

I was recommended one of DiLorenzo’s Lincoln books ages ago & read it, heard it referenced more times than I can count since then but I had no clue it was so slanted. The things you mentioned here are at complete odds of the main theme of that book which is basically dogma among so many people. Seems it’s yet another one of those things where the ‘alternative’ history is itself a lie, I’ve only seen shitlib denunciations of DiLorenzo that didn’t actually address what he wrote.

I’m definitely going to check out Orilin’s book which I had unfortunately never heard of until you mentioned it, my knowledge on Lincoln & the Civil War is admittedly very lightweight. Glad I saw your comment, thanks.

This is one of the very best summations of the war and our current situation resulting from it that I’ve read in a long while. I’m now going to share it far and wide. Thank you.

Thanks for the excellent bibliography.

Most likely one must have access to a university library in order to read them.

LHO’s involvement was as some kind of intel asset, recognized starting with the later Congressional assassination review.

Going on 60 years now, JFK’s removal in broad daylight and in living color has been extraordinarily obfuscated. First, the *mist* in front of JFK’s face is a bullet entry, never mind the momentum evidence of skull piece and backwards movement of Z film, the Z film suppressed for years. The back shot and the initial throat shot did not have exit wounds (subsonics) – also long suppressed and then claimed as a single shot after Congressman Ford “moved” the back shot’s place on the autopsy drawing. A clear shot hole through the front window is known, also a fresh bullet dent in the interior trim. A bullet furrow in the grass goes MIA. A concrete curb is bullet pocked and the spray wounds a bystander too.

So the physical evidence includes too many shots, at least one front shot, and subsonic bullets too. That’s multiple shooters and a conspiracy. Conspiracies before and after.

Mark Groubert does a pretty good job of assembling and presenting vacuumed up details on various bits in his Untold Stories video series. Not perfect, but a lot better than the pap we’ve been fed for 60 years.

Oh yes the Union Army was positively crammed with 1848ers who fled to America in the wake of their failed revolutions, and many of their children who had since come of age. Baden Revolutionary Franz Sigel was made a major general, not for his military acumen (he was a disaster) but because he himself probably raised an entire army of German-speaking soldiers who had the same revolutionary fervor they did 15 years prior to unite all the princely states under a strong central government.

Memory fades but I remember an anecdote about a descendant of John Tyler being lectured by a German officer in the Union Army about what the constitution meant.

Ok so basically Obama somehow slipped his Jew handlers without getting the Trump treatment, the Constitution which is the second governing structure of the United States prevented the slave colonies, which seceded from Great Britain and won independence through force of arms, from seceding from the United States and winning independence through force of arms, a naval blockade (act of war) did not legitimize the Confederacy as a sovereign state, and group mockery of an obtuse nitwit is “pilpul.”

Very enlightening, thanks.

How many days old were you when you found out Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln were pen pals? pic.twitter.com/NsjoacI3xA

— Joel Ellenwood (@_InfiniteZeal) September 27, 2023

According to this article it was Marx and the ’48er communists who pushed Lincoln to make abolition a centerpiece of his war against the south.

Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists

When we turn our attention to the Non-German socialists the connection between the Republican government and socialism becomes even more clear. It is thought that Lincoln himself offered Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Italian leader of socialism against the Pope the position of commander of Union forces, a position Garibaldi declined upon Lincoln’s refusal to reframe the war as being “anti-slavery.�

Carl Shurz was another forty-eighter, who had met Karl Marx at the Democratic Club in Cologne. Schurz later went on to deliver the votes of 300,000 German immigrants to Lincoln in 1860. He was rewarded with an appointment as ambassador to Spain. War broke out just before his departure, but Lincoln prevailed upon him to go anyway. While in Spain, Schurz concluded (1) that the possibility of Europe recognizing the Confederacy was very real, and (2) that Lincoln should declare the War a crusade against slavery. It was Schurz’s ideas and influence that eventually held sway with Lincoln, and resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation.

I find the idea that Lincoln was the first communist to be quite fascinating. Tt was the Marxists in the Union Army that looted the south and then “reconstructed” it in the same fashion as Germany was “de-nazified”

Curle: “With all due respect, this is not a legislative proposal or even a commitment to future action. It isn’t even a statement of resolve. Nor is it a proposal directed to Congress. The imagined body who will effectuate change isn’t named and Lincoln asserts no role for himself in driving that change. He’s simply musing that if blacks get the vote he would prefer they be very bright and a veteran. Ok, noted. That would have likely been Lee’s position as well were he having a ‘what if’ conversation about giving blacks the vote. ”

At a minimum it shows he wasn’t opposed to the idea of negro citizenship and the vote, and didn’t expect them all to volunteer to leave. It establishes conclusively that the idiots who say he was resolutely opposed to making them citizens and voters are clearly wrong. As I see it, any reasonable interpretation of this “musing” (as you style it) is that it was his plan all along. Unless he intended and expected the vast majority of negroes to stay, he would never have relied on his ridiculous voluntary “colonization” scheme to get rid of them. He was shrewd enough to know that it would fail and was only going through the motions in pretending to pursue it.

You say he wanted them to be both a veteran AND very intelligent, but that’s not actually what he said. A closer reading reveals him to be endorsing the idea of a grant of the franchise and citizenship to the very intelligent OR veterans, and there were almost two hundred thousand negros who served in the Union army. Given the average negro IQ, I’m sure you can imagine how “intelligent” they all were. LOL And anyway, how, in a time before IQ tests, could a negro’s intelligence possibly have been determined objectively? There was no way for them to do it. This is just another example of Lincoln being deceptive. He’s proposing intelligence as a test, but it’s not a serious proposal because men of that time would have had no way of quantifying it. It’s just window dressing to make the grim prospect of having to give these things to negroes more palatable. The result would necessarily be what Booth and the South feared that Lincoln was working towards from the beginning. It’s what actually happened: a universal grant of citizenship and the vote to negroes by means of Constitutional amendment.

“ I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … �

With all due respect, this is not a legislative proposal or even a commitment to future action. It isn’t even a statement of resolve. Nor is it a proposal directed to Congress. The imagined body who will effectuate change isn’t named and Lincoln asserts no role for himself in driving that change. He’s simply musing that if blacks get the vote he would prefer they be very bright and a veteran. Ok, noted. That would have likely been Lee’s position as well were he having a ‘what if’ conversation about giving blacks the vote.

Lincoln was just as Edgar Lee Masters characterized him . . . slippery. Too bad Booth wasn’t good at reading Lincoln when he was in full Slick Willy mode. I say that because Lincoln may have been of some use after the war keeping that servant of Satan Thaddeus Stevens under control.

Curle: “[The grant of citizenship and the vote to negroes] wasn’t immediate. Lincoln was dead and no longer in charge, the South was prostrate after the destruction Sherman wrought and the Radical Republicans, Thaddeus Stevens et al. (Lincoln’s intra party political enemies), were running the country and did not hesitate going where Lincoln never claimed to be going …”

On the contrary, Lincoln claimed to be going in that direction when he endorsed the idea of giving citizenship and the vote to negroes.

The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them?
– Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865

Some historians (and I mean actual historians, not the likes of PCR or Thomas DiLorenzo, who as far as I know have never even mentioned this speech) report that John Wilkes Booth was in attendance and vowed on the spot to kill Lincoln because of it, saying “That means nigger citizenship. … That is the last speech he will ever give.”

John Wilkes Booth was a great racial patriot, and he gave Lincoln the reward he so richly deserved. A bullet in the head!

What exactly are you smoking?

You really are fooling yourself if you think anything you’ve written matters. So keep writing that pilpul nonsense if it makes you happy. Bullshit is bullshit. Anyway I don’t care. I was only pretending to be interested because your comments were good for a laugh.

But your right about one thing I won’t give you any intelligent commentary. Loup-bouc might pretend to be interested like he pretends to be a lawyer.

My dear Lord, I’ve been writing to a fool, who says he’s impervious to any thought but his own. I did write some nice essays, clarified my own thought a bit, but without intelligent commentary there’s no point on continuing the interaction.

Dgygj,

The slaves were not emancipated as a prize of war, that is stupid. The slaves were the contraband. Contraband is an illegal article such as drugs or weapons. Lincoln treated the slaves as mere things, not humans, hence contraband. That is not emancipation, that is enslavement. Emancipation is the same today as it was then, which is the emancipation of a ward from their guardian.

Yes their does need to be a “legal” reason and if there isn’t then it is an unlawful confiscation, such as when railroads under color of authority confiscated the lands of the people of New England beginning in the 1830s. Furthermore, such legal reason must be by the consent of the people and not an arbitrary or bribed court as so often happens today.

Once they were confiscated as mere things they became property of the dictator Lincoln and were disposed of in a number of ways. I refer you to the prize cases of 1863. I believe that is the approximate date but if you wish I can send you a copy and also the statutes regarding confiscation which by the way, applied to the North as well as the South.

“Nobody north of a certain line is going to tolerate the emergence of a hostile power or allow them to consolidate.�

It need not be hostile. Tennessee, composed of both secessionists and farmers, farmers whose markets included states to the North, was split on secession along those lines. The war came down to the tariff and the North should have left that matter alone.

The Articles of Confederation

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.�

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783

In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.

Article 1st:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

t is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without
its consent. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as
one of the attributes of sovereignty…, Federalist Papers pg. 363.

It surely does not follow, that because they have given the power of making laws to the legislature, that therefore they should likewise give them the power to do every other act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and affected. Ibid, pg. 294

yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active
sovereignty…,Ibid., pg. 213

In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in
all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation…Ibid, pg. 210

Declaration of Independence

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Article 46 of the Federalist: “ The federal and state governments are, in fact, but different AGENTS AND trustees of the people, instituted with different powers…”The ultimate authority [“absolute supremacy â€�] wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone.â€� And he said, in the convention of Virginia, in reference to the parties to the union, that the phrase “ the people â€� did not mean “ the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.” (The people are the State and the State are the people).

In his speech of 1833, Daniel Webster, the head of the Massachusetts school, decisively admits the above, and destroys the basis of himself and school as follows: “The sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America: . . . with us all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign; and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such power as they please. None of these governments is sovereign.� (The people are the State and the State are the people).

When speaking of sovereign States the inference is clear that the sovereign people are being reference. There States are their sovereignties. The confusion lies in those foreign countries wherein the State whatever despot is sitting on the throne at the time. As Louis XIV stated, “I am the State.”

Today of course we have an empire of which “ the government � is a corporate sovereign.

The Constitution was an agreement between existing sovereigns. It can be no other way, or did the Constitution just mysteriously spring up out of nowhere like manna from heaven?

If you’re reading Seabrook you may have also read THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT! by two Kennedy brothers. It’s sort of a textbook for arguing for the Southern cause. Originally published in the early 1990’s, it’s been almost rewritten for the recently released 3rd edition.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War by HW Crocker is decades old but still ageless, also.

1. I agree. I just don’t run from the field of battle.
2. I’m not a boomer, I’m a Redneck.
3. I can’t sing, but I can whistle Dixie.

Pretend Dr. Morgan,

You say, “Aurorus: “My point is that anyone who says that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is ignorant beyond all imagination and has no business pontificating on the history of the event.â€�

Are you referring to the Northern Slave Trade as having nothing to do with the war? As far as I can tell, No one in the North was afraid their slave trading was going to be interfered with.

I’m not sure how slavery justifies a war of conquest? Would you be so kind as to point to one example in history of a war to “free slaves” at the expense of dissolving governments, constitutions and establishing dictatorships. I know of wars to capture slaves but not the other way around.

I am also unclear by what authority this war was conducted other than the edicts of a dictator. No war was declared and no peace treaty signed. Why is referred to as a war? Perhaps you can point to that authority.

It certainly wasn’t the Constitution of 1787, to the contrary just the opposite. In not less than six points does it recognize the legality of ‘slavery,’ and establishes the claims of the master.

1. It prohibited the abolition of the ‘slave’ trade until 1808. In the very act of
establishing the Union, and by the adoption of the Constitution, legalized the importation of
slaves’ for twenty- one years. (Northerners were happy about that one)
2. The Constitution allowed a tax of not over ten dollars for every ‘slave’ imported, thus deriving a revenue from slavery and funding the government of the united States.
3. It especially provides that ‘slaves’ escaping into the northwest territory, ceded by Virginia, should be returned to their masters.
4. It provides for the taxing of ‘slaves’ as property.
5. It provides for the representation of ‘slaves’ in the Congressional apportionment.
(3/5th compromise. The North did not like that one)
6. It demands that all ‘ slaves’ escaping into other States shall be given up on claim.
(The fugitive slave law passed by both Northern and Southern votes at a later time)

Add to that all the various Statutes and other laws regulating slavery and the whole of the Union was devoted to the protection of slavery.

You see the conundrum don’t you? If you say “slavery” was a reason for the war, then the Constitution, State laws, our forefathers, nay the Republic itself had to fall in order to “free the slaves.” But why wasn’t the Northern Slave Trade attacked? Why wasn’t the North invaded to stop that nefarious traffic?

If you deny that slavery wasn’t a consideration then what was the reason for the war?

Loup-Bouc,

I would also like to add that your simply copying and pasting a lot of disjointed paragraphs to create a volume of words. But they are not connected or sourced. That is false attribution. Wikipedia is not a source, its a propaganda site. You never wrote any of that you just copy and pasted.

Today, this continent is a civil law jurisdiction. I challenge you again, point to a common law court. You refuse because you cannot. Indeed, I can’t find one though I leave open the possibility there may be one.

Civil law is simply Roman Civil Law because this political society however one may characterize it is an empire. The Romans were noted for their expertise in imperialism.

Your other sources are irrelevant as well. You have to use the sources of the relevant time period to understand how people in that period thought and acted.

You state, “The term “warâ€� does not mean “an act between sovereigns.”

Yes it does. Specifically, “bellum iustum,” or just war. See, I can use fancy foreign language to. If your having a discussion on just some fighting going on it matters not. Is the Ukraine conflict a fight or a war between sovereigns? Relevant question don’t you think?

Another boomer who believes in “lawyers”. If only you sing the right magical spells then Gandalf will happen in court. As if fantasies about doctrine controlled the legal process.

There is literally no such thing as lawyers, no such expertise and no such specialty. It’s just buffoonery.

All of that is a delusional fantasy which only exists in your mind. Power is not created by simplistic belief, it’s an historic process that evolves over many generations. All that matters is winning, and you clearly lost. There’s no such thing as the federal government, and there’s no such thing as Massachusetts or South Carolina either.

Now go shout at the sky, like a little f****** retard moron.

The Tariff was the alternative to war. Nobody north of a certain line is going to tolerate the emergence of a hostile power or allow them to consolidate. An independent Confederacy would control the Gulf of Mexico and the Southern Mississippi, and branch out into the Caribbean. It threatened the border states and expansion into the West.

Loup-Bouc,

Quit pretending you’re a lawyer, you’re not one and your pretense is transparent.

In my view Common Law is dissolved, although there may be another way of putting it but there are no common law courts. Point to one. In the meantime, I refer you to

HOW EQUITY CONQUERED COMMON LAW: THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, Stephen N. Subrin. Enter that title in the search bar and it will bring up the link.

Your citing cases prior to 1900 is irrelevant and an obvious trick. I remind you that this is the year 2023. You’re presuming nothing changes or varies in the law and it does.

You say you searched Bouviers and obviously that’s not true. I have the manual if you want, I can send you a copy. Or download it at archive. gov.

“In at least two earlier comments, I proved that the South’s secession declaration did not make the Confederacy an independent nation. Dr. Roberts’s argument is, partly, that the South (believed it) acted according to the federal constitution. That constitution did not validate the South’s secession; rather it prohibited the secession. [I shall not reargue the point here. See my earlier comments.] Just so, history terms the North/South conflict “the American Civil War.â€�

You proved nothing because no one ever said that the Souths “declaration” made the Confederacy an independent nation. The people of South ordered their governments to secede, and they voted on it. The pretend Dr. Roberts assertion is irrelevant. The South acted as sovereign, and pieces of paper had nothing to do with it. Pieces of paper confer no powers. Pieces of paper are inanimate things. People are real, and the principle that the governed decide who governs them is the only principle that matters.

A lawful war is an act between Sovereigns, and I care nothing for a foreigner such as Clausewitz. He is no authority, and neither is Military Magazine.

Your pretend resume is simply made up. Where did you attend law school? What degree did you receive? Name some firms you’ve worked at, or anywhere else for that matter? Cite the titles of any of your publications.

You are a black lier Sir. Prove me wrong and I will retract and apologize.

“showed yourself utterly ignorant of the pertinent law and legal usage, and your ignorance would be hilariously obvious to any competent lawyer who does conveyancing or real estate transactions or is an expert in property law of America of the 17th century to the present or England from Edward II through today.”

Except you’re not a competent lawyer or any lawyer at all, you’re a pretender. If it makes you happy, I will revise the term to, absolute title. Defined as the ownership of the land from the heavens above to the earth below for eternity. Happy!

“Your second assertion — “The Constitution of 1787 was a deedâ€� — is jaw-droppingly astounding idiocy. I suppose I ought trust that most Unz Review readers must appreciate the idiocy of that assertion. But, again, what the fuck. Who was the grantor of what property interest that was granted by the constitution?”

Quite the opposite, the instrument was in fact a deed that included grants of authority and permissions from the people in the whole through their agents the governments of the sovereign States. I’m not sure what property your referring to but if your speaking of lands acquired other than the public and private lands of the sovereign States, then it was the people through their agents by grants of power that were the grantors.

If you desire a reference, I recommend Daniel Webster’s speech c. 1824 on the Constitution. I will have to look the exact date but not difficult to find on the Globe.

Another source is Bouvier’s Common Law Dictionary, DEED, conveyancing, contracts. A writing or instrument, under seal, containing some contract or agreement, and which has been delivered by the parties.

That is some pretty French you’re using; I assume to impress everyone. If my translation is correct it says:

“Please seek a brain transplant or attempt suicide, Mr. Moron — for the benefit of the few Unz Review commenters/readers who are intelligent, scrupulous, and honorable and possess strong egos. [All expressions sound better if pronounced in French (the most beautiful language) — even bad wishes.]”

And best wishes to you Sir. But in French, obviously.

Aurorus: “My point is that anyone who says that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is ignorant beyond all imagination and has no business pontificating on the history of the event.”

Certainly you are correct, but nevertheless I think you’ll find it’s a popular notion around here. Economists such as PCR and Thomas DiLorenzo have turned misunderstanding the causes of the war into a cottage industry. The reason they do it is pretty easy to understand. Their training in economics gives them the hammer, so everything looks like a nail. For such people, all wars are caused by financial incentives, don’t you see? Add to that a knack for explaining everything as a conspiracy, and you’re guaranteed a following of like-minded conspiracy nuts who will buy your books and read your articles, no matter how absurd they are.

Although it’s true that money plays a significant role in human affairs, it’s the height of stupidity to think that it’s the only thing that could possibly motivate people. In American history, the role of mania induced by the Christian religion should never be underestimated. Here’s a paragraph from your insightful comment above in #41, quoted for truth:

Abolitionism was growing and unrelenting. Arguments were breaking out in every social context over the morality of slavery: especially in the churches, which were the font of abolitionism and the center of many Americans’ social life. The arguments were fierce and the differences irreconcilable. The “new School� of the Presbyterian Church had already splintered into northern and southern factions in 1857 over the issue of slavery. The Methodist and Baptist Churches had already split their denominations in the 1840s over the issue of slavery. At no point in any of this church “secessions� was a tariff mentioned. As time went on, slavery became the topic of debate everywhere in the nation. Little else mattered. It became a national obsession. Anyone who has read any newspapers, letters, or anything from the period knows this. Roberts obviously has not read anything from this period.

But to understand how important “racial justice” is to Americans, we don’t have to go back to the nineteenth century. It remains so even in our own times, as was just recently proven again during the George Floyd riots. Can we imagine such riots getting worse and worse until there’s another civil war? I think so. Just imagine what would happen if some block of states in the US got fed up with the disorder and decided to reimpose slavery on the poor, oppressed negroes! Wouldn’t whites all over the rest of America rush to invade those states and abolish slavery once again? Wouldn’t they fight to the last bullet and the last drop of blood for “racial justice”; so that the black man could once again be free? Of course they would! Financial motives would have nothing to do with it. They’d be happy to kill their fellow whites just for the principle of the thing! So it was in Civil War times too.

It was Thomas Jefferson in the 1st Continental Congress that proposed that slaves have their own land and territory. Jefferson never freed his slaves because they would have starved to death. Where were they going to live? They had no land. Who was going to provide for them?

When Lincoln “freed the slaves” he kicked them off they plantations and they starved by the hundreds of thousands, and if that wasn’t enough he put many in concentration camps to die of disease and hunger. That was exactly what the South was trying to avoid.

As far as “my” definition of slavery I have none. There is only one definition of that word and you find it by looking at its etymology. Slavery is the TRADE of slavers, such as the Northern slave trade. The root of the word goes back to the trade in white Slavs by the Venetians to the Muslims.

In the South their status was a labor by indenture and Whites were guardians. There contract was perpetual. The word means until the contract is abrogated by time, sale, release or some other reason. The Southern laws are are voluminous, and developed over time beginning with the first constitution of Massachusetts which defined what was and was not a lawful slave. Interesting reading.

“It’s not for me to explain the workings of Christian hypocrisy, but apparently people of the time saw a big difference between the two, and considered owning slaves and making a living from their labor as much more reprehensible than merely bringing them over from Africa and selling them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?”

If I understand you it was more compassionate to capture or trade trinkets for them in Africa and toss them overboard when they were of no use, instead of the care and security they received on a plantation in the South. Hypocrisy I grant you, but as you say, you can’t explain it. You should review the material I cited earlier. You can educate yourself on the horrors of the middle passage.

“The timing of formally abolishing slavery, and extending citizenship and the franchise to Negroes at the conclusion of the war, obviously. Was this timing a coincidence? Why do it then, unless it was the object of the war all along? Nothing can explain such a ridiculous move except the mania for human equality induced by the Christian religion. It was virtue signaling avant la lettre.”

Still makes no sense. Slavery wasn’t abolished. The black wards of white masters were simply made wards of the despotism established in Washington. The 13th Amendment so-called clearly created slavery by imprisonment. They were Citizens of the United States which jurisdiction is the District of Colombia. A citizen of a sovereign State is the citizen of that State. It wasn’t a ridiculous move, it was planned. Why, to control the black vote as if it mattered. The North had always thought that the representation of blacks in the Constitution allowed the South to dominate the political landscape. But it wasn’t true. Making blacks “Citizens” never gave the North any real advantage in politics. Besides they were immigrating millions of Europeans and exterminating their native Anglo-Saxon population.

“They are citizens and vote, last I heard. That’s inclusion. There’s really no need for you to play stupid.”

It wasn’t my intent to play stupid but the reality is their vote means as much as mine or yours, nothing. Money wins elections and votes are bought. Universal suffrage dilutes all votes.

Colonization was never a pipe dream, indeed it was a brilliant idea. You should study the papers of the colonization society, they are illuminating to say the least. People always go where it is in their best interests. Had the society been able to achieve its goals the black race would have emigrated to Africa providing a massive market for our trade, especially in the manufacturing North.

Again, I shall not proofread. Trashing your shit is consuming too much of my time. You eat any typing/editing errors I any commit

I shall use this comment to refute not only your comment # 311, but also a few others of your comments that purport to address mine.

Your comment # 311 states just one correct proposition — but only by implication. That proposition is that Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction. Otherwise, your comment is a set of false statements.

Ignorant how? Are you referring to the Northern Slave trade? There was no problem there. No one was advocating invading the North to stop that slave trade. Or, are you “ignorant” of the Northern Slave Trade? Say so, because the scholarship is overwhelming.

I’m not accusing you of taking sides, but slavery was a mere pretext. You can’t possibly claim that slavery was an issue and then say it was ok for the North to continue its slave trading. That is just pure hypocrisy. Wars are about conquest and plunder and nothing else. Wars are not caused they are planned. They are not about anything, they have goals and objectives. There are no coincidences, only purpose and intent.

You may go on about the absurdity of abolitionism all you want. They were mere agents of the oligarchies who wanted to dissolve the republic and establish a paper money empire. Abolitionists like the Sumners were slave traders, or at least his brother was. Lincoln owned and sold slaves. Garrison was a British citizen and a member of the free trade association.

How much study have you done on the Northern slave trade? I know of wherefore I write. Here is a small bibliography to get your started.

Excerpts from Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery. Presidential Committee on Harvard & the Legacy of Slavery. last updated on April 25, 2022. legacyofslavery.harvard.edu.

“In fact, slavery thrived in New England from its beginnings, and was a vital element of the colonial economy. Colonists first enslaved and sold Indigenous people, and they dispossessed and massacred Native peoples through war. They also enslaved Africans and played a key role in the Atlantic slave trade, building a thriving economy based on “an economic alliance with the sugar islands of the West Indies. “This trade involved the provision of food, fuel, and lumber produced in New England to plantations of the Caribbean, where those goods were exchanged for tobacco, coffee, and sugar produced by enslaved Africans—or for enslaved people themselves. “This effectively made Boston a slave society,� according to a leading historian
of the region, “but one where most of the enslaved toiled elsewhere, sustaining the illusion of Boston in New England as an inclusive republic devoted to the common good.� By 1700, New Englanders had made at least 19 voyages to Africa and then to the West Indies, the chief route of
the slave trade, as well as many more voyages between Massachusetts Bay and the Caribbean.

From THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1638-1870 BY W. E. BURGHARDT Du BOIS, Ph.D. (Harv.).

Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860. The long and open agitation for the reopening of the slave-trade, together with the fact that the South had been more or less familiar with violations of the laws since 1808, led to such a remarkable increase of illicit traffic and actual importations in the decade 1850-1860, that the movement may almost be termed a reopening of the slave-trade.

The fitting out of slavers became a flourishing business in the United States and centered at New York City. �

The city of New York has been until of late [1862] the principal port of the world for this
infamous commerce, although the cities of Portland and Boston are only second to her in that distinction.

Slave dealers added largely to the wealth of our commercial metropolis; they contributed liberally to the treasuries of political organizations, and their bank accounts were largely depleted to carry elections in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.�

During eighteen months of the years 1859-1860 eighty-five slavers are reported to have been fitted out in New York harbor, and these alone transported from 30,000 to 60,000
slaves annually.

“The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England’s economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy.�–Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,� p.319.
An extensive but not comprehensive bibliography is listed for anyone interested in further research.

My point is that anyone who says that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is ignorant beyond all imagination and has no business pontificating on the history of the event. No other point. I am not taking sides… labeling the North or the South right or wrong… engaging in moral debates or anything of the sort. I refer only to the facts of history.

I could go on at length, if you wish, about what prompted the growth of abolitionism. I could write several pages about life on a southern plantation, and many other such things: none of which pertain to the argument at hand. While in grad school, I was a research assistant on a book on southern plantation life in the 1850s and have looked through many of the archived plantation documents that have survived from that period as well as letters, diaries, newspaper articles, and so forth from the 1850s. I know whereof I write.

The question was tongue in cheek but I have no idea about it. Until some things are declassified, I’m sticking with Oswald was the shooter – the only one. I know without out a doubt it’s possible to have made the shots as claimed. I’ve seen independent ballistics analysts insist he couldn’t have, only to be followed by independent ballistics analysts insist he could have. Oswald’s offhand “patsy” claim may have meant someone was supposed to help him escape. Maybe he was just a tourist. It would be interesting if a future president declassifies all this. Although, if he tries he may suffer the same fate.

Maybe Mrs. Surratt was similarly a patsy. Maybe she was duped into the incriminating errands under contrived circumstances.

Dgygi,

If you admit the “federal government won the Civil War…” then you admit the “federal government” is a dictatorship and not mere agent of the sovereign States. You admit the States were conquered and submitted, ALL States. You admit the arrogation to power of a dictator. You admit the dissolution of the republic and the Constitution.

Loup-bouc,

Secession isn’t a right it is simply a fact. If you claim a sovereignty can’t secede from an association then you deny sovereignty entirely. But you haven’t have you? You have freely admitted the sovereignty of all the Southern States and the Confederate States of America. A sovereignty is the highest power and pieces of paper are irrelevant.

And of course the Southern States are sovereign. I admit the rest of the provinces (States) had nullified their own sovereignty in the 1860s and voluntarily submitted themselves to the elected monarchy in Washington. They have done so again in the 20th century, but no Southern State ever has prostrated itself. In short, we are foreigners. The South is sovereign and independent and the rest of this continent is one consolidated mass.

Constitutions are deeds between sovereigns and perform no corporeal action. A piece of paper has no power or authority, it is just a piece of paper. It was the entity styled the united States in Congress assembled, or the Union, that promulgated statutes and delegated authorities by the stipulations in that deed.

The powers stipulated in that deed were only delegated, and hence must be wielded by trustees and agents, chosen by, and subordinate to, the delegating states, while the “powers not delegated are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people� of the same. The states are sovereign over the federal government, this being their mere agency, or, in other words, a part of their machinery of self-government.

The execrable faction that conquered the North were the direct descendants of the monarchist, or the Federalist party. The goals were always paper money, an elective monarch, the submission of the sovereign States to mere counties, and a world conquering Empire.

For if “the government â€� has “ absolute supremacy ” over the states that made it, as the Philadelphia Convention of 1866 declared, its unlimited right of taxation, and of raising armaments, enable it to control all states and sections of states at will, and, finally, to establish an empire.

It is vain to talk of constitutional restrictions, when rulers by perjured usurpation act— and glory in acting— in the infinite field of discretion “outside of the constitution.â€� And it is vainest to suppose that the phrase “according to the Constitutionâ€� is other than a meaningless one, as long as the phrases, “absolute supremacy in the government,” and “ state sovereignty is effectually controlled,â€� are recognized as constitutional ones; for “ state sovereignty” is precisely “the sovereignty of the people.

The so-called governments in Washington however they style themselves have no original power and neither did the usurper Lincoln. They are poseurs, pretenders, who by war and destruction arrogated a supreme power to themselves and to themselves only. You make be so naive to think they will let you into their party earned by your absurd defense of their past actions, but they despise you as much as they despise everyone else.

The North bent the knee, the South never will.

The parallel between Mary Surratt and Lee Harvey Oswald may be degrees of involvement. While Oswald never denied being involved, he claimed that he was not the shooter but just a “patsy”. Two days later he was dead and dead men tell no tales.

Surratt was involved because her house was involved, although the extent of her role is unknown. Maybe she just knew too much. Due to the summary execution of the Lincoln conspirators, they could not identify others involved in the assassination plots. Perhaps this explains why newly-appointed President Johnson did not commute Surratt’s sentence, as many were expecting

Loup-Bouc,

You really need to calm down, your going to get a heart attack. Try drinking till you vomit, always works for me.

Bye the bye, I’ve lost sight of what exactly your defending or attempting to prove. Why not quit the legal fencing, you lost that debate the moment you stepped into the arena. Are you trying to justify the invasion of the South by a conquering faction in the North? You can’t, and it doesn’t matter. War is conquest and plunder. Once the contest is entered its the wager of battle. An excuse is just that, an excuse and everything else is just talk once battle is joined. Trust me, I’ve got 6 operational deployments and 20 years of experience as a former field grade office.

Are you defending the Northern invasion of the South? No need. The North did not invade the South. People don’t go to war, they can’t because they delegated that power. Politicians go to war, not people, we are just cannon fodder. Did any politician ask you for permission to invade Afghanistan?

Are you trying to cover up the land confiscations in the New England States beginning in the 1930s; or the extermination of the Anglo-Saxon race in the North beginning in the 1830s; or the conspiracy to dissolve the Union in the Hartford Convention in 1814; or the dissolution of the Constitution and the Republic by the decrees of a usurper; or the insolvency of State and local governments by the forced issuance of paper disguised as money; or the establishment of a world conquering empire?

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish?

Very good article. Food for thought. True? Truth has many aspects. Seems to me this is one. Would like to possibly extend this line of thought in other directions. Horace Greeley brought about the first newspaper of national distribution in the US. He supported Lincoln in his presidential election bid. Horace found a noted intellectual to write columns, comment on speeches by Lincoln and editorialize in his newspaper. Difficult writing, as being a nationwide paper, he needed to produce copy viewed favorably by the North, South, East, and West. But Karl Marx was up to it. You could say the North preferred a new kind of (color blind) slavery, wage slaves, to the old-fashioned kind in the South.
As noted, the War did not start out well for the North. Lincoln was worried. Then he gets a letter from Garibaldi, the brilliant military commander who had led Italy to independence (also had a hand in the Bolivarian revolution in South America). Garibaldi says he would be willing to lead the US troops on two conditions: One, he would have sole and complete control of the armed forces. And Two, that the US abolish slavery because otherwise the rest of the world would see this conflict as simply an internal affair. According to the Sec. of State for Lincoln, Lincoln was willing to accept the first requirement but said he was not ready to free the slaves. About this time, Lincoln gets a communication from Czar Alexander saying Russia has received an un-official offer from Britain and France to join with them in support of war on the side of the South (You see, European industry was in competition with the US North industry and did not want to lose the cheap resources of the US South). To understand the North-South thing look at the history of any Central or South American country. Well the Czar had just 4 years previously freed the serfs (yet another slavery in addition to US North industrial slavery and South classical slavery) in Russia and politely declined the Europeans offer. The Czar warned Lincoln to be prepared to lose the war if England and France entered on the side of the South and should consider ending slavery. In addition, the Czar said Russia would send two battle fleets to the coasts of the US to dissuade the Europeans from entering the war, which he did.
So there you have it, the communist Karl Marx got the Republican Lincoln elected, the Czar of Russia won the war for the North, and Garibaldi got the slaves freed. True? Historically true maybe. But in today’s world of digital shape-shifting reality, truth is indistinguishable from a lie and history morphs to fit the circumstances. What history exposes is not its principal value, but rather the questions it elicits in those who study it. Lots of Truth out there, like trash, people throw it away as soon as it does not benefit them.

Thanks. I’m not going to use pilpul and not because of all that silly nonsense your spouting but simply put, I’m not impressed. You might feel sorry for loup-bouc but the fact is he got in over his head and was thoroughly defeated time and again and he simply couldn’t take it.

Bottom line is a bullshit artist is a bullshit artist. You want to beat the pilpulists and all the other bullshit artists you stick to the facts; be diligent and accurate in your reasoning. All that other shit you said is for the loup-boucs and pilpulists like yourself, though you pretend otherwise.

There is only one thing that matters in life. Balls! Big fucking hairy balls. Those who have the guts to stick it out and do it the right way no matter the adversity you face. The rest is just talk.

I see. But then firing on Fort Sumpter wasn’t an attempt at trying to preserve what was left of the union, it was in fact the an assault on a foreign force occupying the lawful land of South Carolina. Your saying use lies against their lies. Pretend an alternate reality or just make one up like you just did. Neat trick.

I know you meant to say that loup-bouc made of fool of himself trying to prove without any ability to do so that the property of a sovereign State actually belonged to another inferior government. But I see point. When Loup-Bouc was thoroughly defeated, he should pretend otherwise. It’s the black knight method from Monty Python.

Me:Now stand aside.
loup-bouc: Tis but a scratch
me: A scratch! Your Arms off!
Loup-bouc: no it isn’t
Me: But whats that then?
Loup-Bouc I’v had worse.

Incidentally, do you think it was Obama’s “Jewish coalition backers” who outed him as a cocksucker? Maybe that was how he “overstretched” the empire.

Not that I’m a fan of that peter-puffer, but really, who cares.

What you should understand about @Djygi, , is that they have the authoritarian mindset; they believe that the federal government is the final ultimate authority of the country(world?) and all power flows from the top down; they believe that the states were created by the federal government and even if you legally prove it otherwise it will not change their position for they believe power is more important than law.

In their minds the federal government is god( as well as a father figure)which is why they take the souths ” rebellion” so personally. If Texas or Alaska legally seceded they would take it as an affront against big daddy and demand the same punitive punishments against those states as earlier Unionist called for against the Confederates.

That’s why many people in the north want to treat the South as simply a hostile power to be conquered and destroyed, the same as any other country. It was constraint on the part of Lincoln and his party to call them Rebels, it allowed the union to survive and to bring the Confederates back to the federal government of America. Others more wisely wanted to simply treat them as conquered territory and abolish all of the deep southern states, and dispossess everyone in favor of the blacks

It’s all there; the childish malignance and the belief in the Federal Empire. These cretins appear when whenever the Civil War comes up.

https://nevertrustawizard.substack.com/p/right-wing-authoritarianism-properly

Next up…. Oswald.

The Declaration of Independence speaks to secession:

“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…”

The Union is a political question that has no constitutional answer, but no state was ever required to permit slavery in their boundaries. Hence no state was ever required to permit the capture of people as Runaway slaves, mutual faith and credit means extradition on the basis of similar law. It just firms my belief that all right wing idiots are morons beyond explanation. Some geriatric fool sitting in a stuffed suit waving his hands around babbling, welcome to UNZ

You call us morons but you’re ignorant of many right wing Lincoln worshipers that call the Confederates traitors.

The Constitution is a treaty between independent states. If some states make hostile Confederacy and seize all the southern ports, the Mississippi River the Gulf of Mexico then it’s a question of War. Everybody at the time understood instinctively what was at stake, and the first thing was to buttress the southern border of the United States, at the Potomac River

So was the war about slavery or geopolitics/intrapolitics? You’re implying it’s the latter here.

The constitution bears zero language that can support the proposition that the constitution permits a state to secede

Does the constitution prohibit secession? If it did I imagine one of you Unionist would have mentioned that.

Since the constitution does not authorize any state’s secession, especially by an armed belligerent state, clearly the Confederacy and its belligerency agents committed treason against the United States

I see, you think in order for state secession to be legal, the constitution needs to specifically give them the right. Where in the constitution is this idea supported?

I was a under the impression that the federal government could only do what was expressly permitted, while the states could do anything as long as it wasn’t expressly prohibited.

Am I mistaken?

Isn’t loup-bouc a simple troll?

Most commenters on unz seem willful and with apparent interest. This one flails.

Do you fight fire with fire?

No. It’s a sure loser.

a) The pilpul SOB practitioner has quite often been trained in pilpul, which is still an Ashkenazi technique justified by its use in Ashkenazi theology and religious justification of Ashkenazi behavior. You might as well try to take on an MMA artist bare handed in a cage match, you’re up against a pro on his or her or its home ground.

b) Pilpul without political support fails. Even if you were a pro, you can’t win a pilpul match without supporters. The supporters supply the baculum for your ad baclulum argument (or, in other environments, the money for your argumentum ad crudendum (bribe)).
Take a look at the Loup-Bouc chain (to give it a name). Note that other commenters join in the criticism of Loup-Bouc. That’s the political part of the pilpul. You can, if you want, compare “pilpul” to “deplatforming”. The howling mob not only gets to shut the other side down, they get to say that their side “won the debate”, that “the answer to the question has been established”, and that further discussion is therefore forbidden.
If you don’t have other commenters , you lose. This is why there is money in commenting (not much money, but money) if you are a political hack. Putting a support claque in the audience is a technique that goes back to ancient Greek democracies, and is still used.

As even the Huffington Post says, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522 , pilpul is essentially an argument ad baculum, and it is a negative sum game that results in an ultimate appeal to force. This appeal is now unmistakable in the present international and domestic situation of all economically important countries worldwide. Not too surprisingly after the US has led the West and then the entire non-Russian world for about 75 years, the entire world has become synchronized to US political cycles (see Howe’s The 4th Turning is Here , 2023). The US is rejecting pilpul in favor of ad baculum, and so is the world. Pilpul’s days are over. Now that the Black coalition has defeated the Ashkenazi in the US, no politically important audience cares to listen to pilpul.

So, my advice is don’t use pilpul. Here’s some other advice, on about the same level of obviousity:

Video Link

Yes, it’s probably more a question as to the extent, if any, of Mary Surratt’s awareness of and involvement in the plot kill multiple members of government. We shouldn’t assume the conspirators would involve a woman by applying today’s standards to another time. Did she knowingly use or let her boarding house be used as a central meeting place for the plot? Did she run errands and relay messages for the conspirators? Was her involvement limited, such that the punishment exceeded the crime? They are fair questions and probably don’t have simple yes or no answers, but I think it would be hard to argue that she was totally oblivious to what was happening at her house

Said every debate loser ever!

So are there any counters? Do you fight fire with fire?

Understanding what’s going on, how pilpul works, is the most effective counter on a personal level. First step is not to fall for the shift in argument. Establish that the pilpul artist is a BS artist, trying to pull a fast one on his or hers or its arguments.

In practical matters, find something that can be enforced — get a bigger club. For example, If the person is in breach of contract, say so and bring suit it the issue is important.

If the person is simply engaged in character assassination, say that.

If the person is trying to deny obvious basic reality, say that. The assault on Fort Sumpter, for example, was not exactly a way to ensure peace with what was left of the Union. To use legal pettifogging to obscure this is an obvious attempt at baffling them with bullshit, a BS attack.

Loup-Bouc showed that the legal argument being made was invalid, That turned out to be a mistake. The problem here is that Loup-Bouc’s audience was not educated in the law. The pilpul user simply rejected Loup-Bouc’s argument, relying on his own authority to establish its validity. Loup-Bouc’s opponent could rely on much of that audience to consider a simply detailed reply (no matter how invalid) to be a valid reply.
For a general refutation of the idea that logic compels, see: https://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Classwork/Phil250/Achilles%20%26%20Tortoise.Carroll.pdf . Logic is a highly productive game, but a game nonetheless. The light of the Enlightenment was a revelation of just how productive the game of logic can be, not that the game is mandatory. A shoplifter, for example, doesn’t rely on logic (although his or her actions can be described by logic).
But the critical thing to defeat large scale pilpul is that it needs political backing to succeed. No political backing, no pilpul triumphs.

Which is why Obama was able to defeat his Jewish coalition backers. After the wholesale theft “securitization of home mortgageâ€�, Obama’s backers (“Wall Streetâ€� was the label) were highly unpopular. Obama abandoned them in his re-election, and brought in his own economists — who likewise failed. Obama then entirely rejected Jewish coalition support. He ruled as dictator by decree and by support from the Federal bureaucracy, using the “I have a phone and I have a pen” method that the Biden administration is also using. For a rough description of how Obama could ignore the Legislative Branch, see R. G. Kaiser, So Damn Much Money 2010. Obama’s hold on the Federal Government was domination of the large urban areas by Black street fighters.

Obama had defeated pilpul by his control of the street fighters who dominated the urban centers.

Obama, however, has overstretched the US on both domestic and foreign policy.
An opposition candidate, Trump, DeSantis, possibly RFJ, Jr., now appears likely to be elected to the US Presidency and to destroy much off the political infrastructure that Obama relied upon.
The US Empire is now in serious trouble. ( see: https://www.unz.com/runz/natos-losing-proxy-war-in-ukraine/ ). When Ukraine goes, Europe will either ally with Russia or it will de-industrialize and be occupied from Africa. Since Russia also does not want that to happen, Europe and Russia will ally with each other. That will cut off the massive sale of US debt to the rest of the world, and impoverish very many people.
During this disaster, public will lose their belief in BS pilpul and lying SOBs along with their livelihood and property. Pilpul, without its political push, will become ineffective.

Just the run-up to the end of US borrowing has caused widespread disbelief. With the reported 20% to 30% of the Black population apparently in favor of Trump, the governing elite’s “true believers” are down to the Trans people, and their only proposal is castrating or spaying gullible children. Serious economic loss will further disbelief, and, for a time, defeat pilpul.

For a second example, consider, the idea that the rich are behind wars, take a look at: Sheidel, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, 2018. Turns out that during the big wars the wealth of all almost the pre-war rich is used up by the combatant governments. WW II ate the American rich, leaving the US Federal Government as the sole proprietor of the US. The pilpul argument in this case would be “Of course, the rich are thieves who control the publishers, what else would you expect?”. Try debating that directly if you want to waste time and look like a thief yourself. The right thing to counter a BS argument would be something like: “You’re just trying to get money from the government. Of course government took all it could from the rich — who else had the money to pay for the war? The poor? Ha.” Rush Limbaugh used a roughly similar approach.

Moreover, there is a an important co-benefit: finding obvious answers to pilpul helps your own thoughts — the process of organizing them often makes new discoveries, such as:
The outcome of the Ukraine was obvious from the start, and I include the loss of Europe. The reward matrix (from Games Theory) very strongly favored that outcome.
The eventual election of a vengeful Trump (or somebody even more vengeful) was very likely from about half way through his first term, and inescapable after the 1/6 setup.
Both of these realizations were much easier when trying to counter or at least escape the prevailing pilpul.

I see what your doing. It had escaped me I think its called speculation or something like that. The “explanation that fits best…” but with no evidence to back it up. Hey look, its an opinion and nothing wrong with that. We all have ’em no matter how silly they are. You have no proof but sometimes random speculations are best.

You seem though to have an intimate knowledge of Lincoln like your a Lincoln whisperer or something. Let me ask, do you think Lincoln’s homosexuality had any bearing on his ability to “fool some of the people all of the time.” As a closeted homosexual it would make sense that Lincoln could be so devious. Your “explanations” don’t make much sense to me but a practicing homosexual has to learn to hide and pretend and all that stuff, and quite naturally could develop those skills at deception that will fool a whole lot of people all of the time.

Lincoln’s rail-splitting queerness has been you must admit fairly well established. I mean where there is smoke there is a flamer. Here is what I found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/97
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/9163
https://allthatsinteresting.com/was-abraham-lincoln-gay
https://queersinhistory.com/was-abraham-lincoln-gay.htm
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-family-history-provides-more-evidence-that-lincoln-was-gay_b_2169482
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20924927/
https://en.unionpedia.org/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln

Have you seen any pictures of his kids or those claimed to be his kids? They look nothing like him, and lets face it Lincoln hit every limb on the ugly tree coming down, or going down as it were.

Lot of Lincoln worshippers like yourself have tried to find excuses for his behavior but more and more evidence keeps cropping up and at this point it just can’t be denied. Still, a great achievement. He “frees the slaves” and is the first queer President.

What are your thoughts, or “explanations?”

aah Dr. Morgan, or is it pretend Dr. Morgan? I missed this missive. I like how you try to protect the traitor Lincoln but I’m confused about a few things. Perhaps with your mastery of sophistry you can help me out. How do you explains these Lincoln comments?

“I will say, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races…I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (Johanssen, R.W., The Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1857. NY, 1965)

Negro equality. Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogism as this? (The collected works of Abraham Lincoln, Ray Basler, vol 2, p. 339)

Such separation if effected at all, must be effected by colonization…[W]hat colonization most needs is a hearty will…Let us be brought to believe that it is morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interests to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. (McManus, J., Black Bondage in the North, 1973)

There must have been some fear in the North over emancipation. Lincoln sent a message to Congress in which he noted: “But why should emancipation South send free people North? And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them? (Mumford Beverly, Virginia’s Attitude towards Slavery and Secession, 1915)

Or these facts concerning several Northern States regarding blacks.

Blacks were barred from voting in Rhode Island in 1822, and in Pennsylvania in 1838. Illinois, in 1862 passed an amendment to their constitution declaring that “no negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.� (Mumford Beverly, Virginia’s Attitude towards Slavery and Secession, 1915)

By what authority did Lincoln invade the sovereign Confederate States? If memory serves didn’t Congress have to declare war something like that?

Was that authority based on Executive Order 100 drafted by Francis Lieber which established permanent martial law over the whole continent?

Where exactly in the Constitution of 1787 is the term martial law mentioned?

The first mention of slavery as an official or unofficial “cause” of the war was at the Republican Party Platform of 1864 – June 7, 1864. Specifically paragraph 3. “Resolved, That as slavery was the cause…” Can you provide any evidence that the dictator Lincoln asserted slavery as the so-called cause of this war prior this event?

Please enlighten me Doctor!

I didn’t see the rest of your rant, I will continue. Your making things up again.

There is no “obtain by acquisition.” A cession and an acquisition are two different things.

Again your making things up. A transfer is the conveyance and the assignor cedes the assignment. The definition is simply using words that imply intent. Again produce your imaginary title. The stipulations to the cession were so stipulated by South Carolina. There are no phantom transfers, titles or these other imaginary creatures or actions.

I did state a conclusion that S. Carolina was the assignor of the cession because that is correct conclusion. You really are struggling aren’t you. I warned you not to wing it, your just looking like a fool.

I didn’t say an assignment was a cession, but a cession is an assignment.

Merriam Webster is irrelevant. That dictionary was used at the time for any discussions or proceedings in law and is therefore irrelevant. You may as well use the code of Hammurabi, its just as relevant.

Your are so perplexed at this point I think you may be drinking.

The land in the jurisdiction of the sovereign States is their land and that’s it. I noticed you keep dodging all the other points I made. But at this point our desperate, I get it.

I assume your tactic is that you think no one else on this site is not well versed in land tenure at that period and you can just pilpul your way through. Maybe your right, obviously not in my case.

If there are any actual lawyers viewing these comments I would be most interested in hearing what they thought.

Oh, are you ever going to produce the phantom title you keep bringing up?

Again, your out of your league. That is a quote from Bouviers, which notes if a law is common or civil. There are times when definitions vary. And the so-called United States is a civil law jurisdiction as the common was dissolved by the 1960s. Pleadings are done in civil not in common law. In fact, there is no common law jurisdiction on this continent. Its easy enough to prove, just point to ONE common law court. Texas and Louisiana are civil law States from their beginnings. The Constitutions of some States are construed by common law definitions but that doesn’t pertain to their corporate structures as all “states” are incorporated entities.

jluker: “I’m just not getting your point with Lincoln. In your view, was he or was he not trying to deport the blacks? I’m just asking. ”

He was pretending to try by making their departure voluntary. Had he been serious about getting rid of them, he would have advocated a forcible roundup and compulsory expulsion. Surely that ought to be obvious even to you. How many times and in how many ways do you expect me to re-state this simple point?

Now you’ll probably ask why he would pretend to try. Well, what did you expect him to do? Insist from the beginning of the war that all whites in America accept illiterate negroes as their legal equals as citizens and voters? Had he done so, he never would have been elected. The explanation that best fits the facts is that he was a closet abolitionist all along, with a hidden agenda, although on occasion, depending on who he was talking to, he did let his mask slip, as in the quote I gave above in #240, and also in his final public address before being assassinated, when he openly endorsed negroes being made citizens and given the vote.

Lincoln is supposed to have said that you can fool some of the people all of the time. If you still can’t understand what he did after all of my patient explanations, I have to conclude that you are ineducable, and one of the people he was talking about.

You are a fucking liar. I did not admit any of what you assert I admitted. Your do not quote an any of my statements. You just lie.

Tomorrow, I shall expose more of your lies and instances and other fraudulent devices to try to cover up your legal errors, misrepresentations of law and fact, and grotesquely idiotic arguments that appear in your comment to which this comment replies and others of your comments.

You start with the conclusion you desire and you use any device, even intentional falsehood, to try to win, rather than prove a case legitimately. But you do so with risible stupidity. Your method does not reach even the low level of pilpul.

More tomorrow, your arrogant idiot.