PDA

View Full Version : Lincoln’s Endorsement of Colonization



Mister D
08-14-2012, 01:02 PM
Tomorrow marks the anniversary of Lincoln's address to black freed men regarding their hoped for removal from the United States.

---

Snip

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.

Snip

The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me--- the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.

The question is if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.
The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia---not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days'--- run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel---it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land---thus being suited to your physical condition.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/lincoln.htm

MMC
08-14-2012, 02:18 PM
It's funny.....the other day I was off into a convo at work with this one guy and he was going on about how the Kennedy's had a plan on the same type of idea.

Mister D
08-14-2012, 02:22 PM
It's funny.....the other day I was off into a convo at work with this one guy and he was going on about how the Kennedy's had a plan on the same type of idea.

That I've never heard of.

MMC
08-14-2012, 02:33 PM
That I've never heard of.

Yeah I didnt say much I just let him go on about it. He was Right about one thing tho. Teddy Kennedy never held a real job in his entire life. Nothing but a politican.

So ya was into History today?

Mister D
08-14-2012, 02:36 PM
Yeah I didnt say much I just let him go on about it. He was Right about one thing tho. Teddy Kennedy never held a real job in his entire life. Nothing but a politican.

So ya was into History today?

I happened to see this and thought I would post it. Interesting and all but forgotten aspect, at least in the popular imagination, of Lincoln's racial views.

MMC
08-14-2012, 02:42 PM
Well many forget there were quite a few slave holders in the North. Course with the younger generations they may have forgot that part.

Mister D
08-14-2012, 02:44 PM
Well many forget there were quite a few slave holders in the North. Course with the younger generations they may have forgot that part.


Not by the 1860s. Slavery was abolished in New Jersey, for example, in 1804.

Peter1469
08-14-2012, 04:33 PM
It wasn't a colony Lincoln was looking for..., it was a place to drop the blacks off and take off.

Ivan88
09-09-2012, 11:51 AM
When Lincoln's Communist revolution had conquered the Southerners, everyone had the opportunity to become wage slaves.

They told us we were "free". Free to obey and pay.

Wage slaves could be easily dismissed and replaced anytime they got sick or injured. The wage slave, working 16 hours a day, and being in debt to company stores, had few options, and even less when fired.

Black neighborhoods became the new colonies.

Peter1469
09-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Lincoln's war against the South was not a "Communist revolution."

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 07:35 PM
It wasn't a colony Lincoln was looking for..., it was a place to drop the blacks off and take off.

Like a permanent segregation.

Peter1469
09-09-2012, 08:25 PM
Like a permanent segregation.

More like cutting ties. Give them a place for a new start.

Akula
09-09-2012, 11:23 PM
Well many forget there were quite a few slave holders in the North. Course with the younger generations they may have forgot that part.

Yes..many also overlook the fact that many free negroes bought, sold and kept slaves in america.

Akula
09-09-2012, 11:29 PM
Lincoln's war against the South was not a "Communist revolution."

Exactly.
It was a war of northern aggression against the south who were exercising their right to withdraw from the union on the exact same principals that the colonies stated in the Declaration of Independence to withdraw from british rule.

In fact in lincolns inaugural address he said he agreed with the premise;

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it.

Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

..but let's revise history and make the War of Northern Aggression all about..oh..let's say "slavery"..yeah..that'll work..

roadmaster
09-10-2012, 12:22 AM
Yes..many also overlook the fact that many free negroes bought, sold and kept slaves in america.

Even a lot of slave owners in Louisiana were black.

Akula
09-10-2012, 12:28 AM
Even a lot of slave owners in Louisiana were black.

Absolutely. They don't teach that in public schools.
There's a lot of "inconvenient" facts they seem to leave out in the government indoctrination centers called "public school".

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 03:58 AM
Exactly.
It was a war of northern aggression against the south who were exercising their right to withdraw from the union on the exact same principals that the colonies stated in the Declaration of Independence to withdraw from british rule.

In fact in lincolns inaugural address he said he agreed with the premise;


..but let's revise history and make the War of Northern Aggression all about..oh..let's say "slavery"..yeah..that'll work..

The South wanted to break away because of the slavery question- and only because of the slavery question. Read the Congressional record from 1830 to 1860.

Akula
09-10-2012, 07:08 AM
The cause of the War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery.
Lincoln couldn't have cared less about negroes.

Ivan88
09-10-2012, 11:14 AM
If we ignore the facts that the South was set up to be busted big time, we can limit ourselves to the pressures exerted by Northern politicians that drove the Southerners away.

The Northern commercial big shots, got taxes passed that gave them an unfair advantage over the Southern states.

And, the Southern states figured that they were in a voluntary mutual benefit society, and the benefits had turned into liabilities, so they decided to leave.

Lincoln was advised by Karl Marx to turn this dispute among brothers into a full fledged Communist revolution, which he did.
Throughout the war Horace Greely published Marx's advice in Greeley's newspaper, the New York Tribune.

All attempts by the South to bridge the problems created by their withdrawal, were refused by Lincoln who was plotting to create a pretext for a war.

His first attempt was to stage a sort of invasion of Florida that would be dressed up like a Confederate attack. The Admiral in charge of the invasion ship refused at the last moment to carry out the false flag stunt.

So, Lincoln played the Fort Sumpter trick. Probably even bribed someone to fire the first shot. No one was killed in the Fort Sumpter event. But it was all Lincoln needed to start his war.

Lincoln put many Communists into important government positions. These were Communists who had escaped the failed 1849 Communist revolutions in Europe, especially Germany.

He imposed the income tax, one of the Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Anyone who openly opposed his war was arrested and lost their property health and sometimes their lives, another Plank of the Communist Manifesto.

Since Lincoln, we have adopted all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto as local and national policy.

The Russians are dumping Communism as fast as they can, while we are embracing it more than ever.

BTW, Lincoln did not abolish slavery. He just changed slave owners. It got changed to wage slavery. And, according to the 13th Amendment, slavery is still legal as a punishment for crime.

That is why there are so many people in prison, and why the fines are so high. Go to jail, you're a slave of the system. Pay the fine, and you are still a slave, but less so.

Akula
09-10-2012, 05:15 PM
If we ignore the facts that the South was set up to be busted big time, we can limit ourselves to the pressures exerted by Northern politicians that drove the Southerners away.

The Northern commercial big shots, got taxes passed that gave them an unfair advantage over the Southern states.

And, the Southern states figured that they were in a voluntary mutual benefit society, and the benefits had turned into liabilities, so they decided to leave.

Lincoln was advised by Karl Marx to turn this dispute among brothers into a full fledged Communist revolution, which he did.
Throughout the war Horace Greely published Marx's advice in Greeley's newspaper, the New York Tribune.

All attempts by the South to bridge the problems created by their withdrawal, were refused by Lincoln who was plotting to create a pretext for a war.

His first attempt was to stage a sort of invasion of Florida that would be dressed up like a Confederate attack. The Admiral in charge of the invasion ship refused at the last moment to carry out the false flag stunt.

So, Lincoln played the Fort Sumpter trick. Probably even bribed someone to fire the first shot. No one was killed in the Fort Sumpter event. But it was all Lincoln needed to start his war.

Lincoln put many Communists into important government positions. These were Communists who had escaped the failed 1849 Communist revolutions in Europe, especially Germany.

He imposed the income tax, one of the Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Anyone who openly opposed his war was arrested and lost their property health and sometimes their lives, another Plank of the Communist Manifesto.

Since Lincoln, we have adopted all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto as local and national policy.

The Russians are dumping Communism as fast as they can, while we are embracing it more than ever.

BTW, Lincoln did not abolish slavery. He just changed slave owners. It got changed to wage slavery. And, according to the 13th Amendment, slavery is still legal as a punishment for crime.

That is why there are so many people in prison, and why the fines are so high. Go to jail, you're a slave of the system. Pay the fine, and you are still a slave, but less so.


April 15 1861 Lincoln issued an order for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the south..after originally saying that he endorsed secession regarding texas seceding from mexico. and also in his inaugural address as I mentioned earlier.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

but lincoln still needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade the south and wage war on his fellow americans.
Some in the north were not against the secession of the south.."Let our erring sisters depart in peace"
Fort sumter was where he provoked the attack that gave him the excuse he needed.
Fort sumter could not continue to exist in the harbor of Charleston..a foreign fort on southern soil. It had to be surrendered like the other federal forts on southern land or in southern waters.
In exchange the south offered to pay not ONLY for the properties, but also to pay the south's portion of the federal debt of the United States.(!)

Lincoln didn't want to hear any of that. He wanted a war.
He refused to meet with southern representatives sent to discuss the crisis despite the intervention of 2 associate justices of The Supreme Court on the south's behalf.

He decided he would not let the south secede..despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence which the u.s. used to secede from britain, and which he naturally supported.

So now fort sumter which was built to protect americans from foreign attack was now to be used AGAINST americans exercising their legal rights to be free from federal authority.

Fort Pickens in Pensacola and Fort sumter were the only 2 forts in the confederacy that hadn't peacefully surrendered to the CSA.

Had fort sumter surrendered the war probably would have been avoided but lincoln knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor, the seat of secession, would be an intolerable provocation, irritant and threat.

Lincoln had vowed to collect "duties and imposts" or tariffs in the south.

Tariffs amounted to 95% of the federal revenue and the Morrill Tariff signed in 1861 by Pres. Buchanan had MORE THAN DOUBLED TARIFF DUTIES on the south.
The south opposed the tariff..the north, naturally supported it and now that south carolina had left the union lincoln decided to ENFORCE the tariff..a further provocation.

Ratcheting up the tension, on april 6 1861 lincoln announced he was sending men and supplies to fort sumter..which by now wasn't part of the united states any more.

The south knew that if they wanted to take possession of the fort with no bloodshed, they couldn't wait until it was reinforced.
On 12 april 1861 Gen P.G.T. Beauregard opened gentlemanly negotiations with the fort commander, Maj. Robt. Anderson. When negotiations broke down Beauregard ordered his artillerymen to fire on the fort for effect. 2 days later we took the fort..NO ONE WAS KILLED

The south won the stand off against a foreign occupied fort in its territory but now lincoln had the excuse he needed..To "put down the rebel insurrection"..which HE HAD PROVOKED.

In is inaugural address lincoln had said;

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

but purposely seeking to wage war on his fellow americans isn't actually a reflection of "the better angels of our nature".

Lincoln thought the mexican-american war was wrong even though it gained the u.s. california, utah, nevada, arizona, parts of colorado wyoming and new mexico, but thought it was just fine to wage total war against his fellow americans who were exercising a legal right.

If the south seceded today, how many of you think it would be ok to send tanks across the potomac, blockade southern ports and carpet bomb american cities?
Killing civilians, destroying and burning their property, killing or stealing their livestock, wrecking their infrastructure and waging a war of scorched earth..against fellow americans?
I'm sure some of you keyboard jockeys and the more immature among you will claim it's just a fine idea...but seriously...What goes around most assuredly comes around..think of YOUR home and city destroyed, your possessions stolen and your friends and family dead...

Robert E. Lee, a great patriot and a West Point graduate was offered command of the Union Army and declined. A man who had honorably served the flag of the U.S. his entire adult life;

On April 20th, 1861 Lee wrote two very important letters.
One was addressed to the Secretary of War tendering his resignation from the United States Army; the other to his mentor, General Winfield Scott, explaining his decision.
Lee’s resignation had come after much deliberation.
Tensions between the north and south had been high for many months when in January, 1861 Lee wrote to his wife from Texas that “As far as I can judge from the papers we are between anarchy and Civil War. May God avert us from both.”

In a letter to his son Jan 23 1861 he wrote;

....I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress . It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.

. . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.

Akula
09-10-2012, 05:16 PM
Part II


The South seceded basically over Free Trade. The North couldn't compete with the cheaper and better European goods coming into Southern ports. So they imposed the Morrill tariffs in 1860. The poor Whites of the South couldn't afford Northern goods or to pay the tariffs, so they ignored them. The Federal government controlled by the North sent troops and tariff collectors to Southern ports. This was intolerable to the economic well being of the South, so they seceded from the Federal Union and ordered the evacuation of all Federal officers and troops from the Confederacy.
Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter not to comply and sent ships to resupply them. The South bombarded them into surrendering before supplies could arrive. No lives were lost.

The jewish bankers and manufacturers of the North went into a tizzy and ordered Lincoln to force the South back into the Union.
After 2 years of war, the South was winning, even though they were greatly outmanned.
Morale was low and desertions were high in the North. There were anti-draft riots. Nobody wanted to fight for the bankers.

That's when Lincoln changed his strategy and said the war was to free the poor oppressed slaves of the South and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. European support for the South wavered after that because they were anti-slavery. The South suddenly became the bad guys. Lincoln used his new, high moral ground as an excuse to commit immoral atrocities against Southern cities and citizens.
We all know how this story ended, but very few know how it started or the conditions after the war that brought about the birth of the Klan to defend the White citizens of the South from rampaging, revenge seeking negroes.

Akula
09-10-2012, 05:17 PM
But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Shoot the Goose
09-10-2012, 05:47 PM
The South wanted to break away because of the slavery question- and only because of the slavery question. Read the Congressional record from 1830 to 1860.

Going to disagree mightily. "Slavery" was the issue that could inflame passion, but the base reason was always money. Is was the monied folks who always pushed to politicians to push for secession.

Its real simple. Tariffs were the number one source of revenue. The south was the overwhelming importer and exporter of the Union. At times it provided 80% of the revenue for the Federal Government. Tariffs also protected northern manufacturing, such that the higher the tariffs, the better for the North, and the worse for the South as Tariffs went up.

The Panic of '57, which was actually caused by a reduction in Tariffs under Buchanan, due to surplusses, killed the North. Pennsylvania and NJ the most. The caused the emerging Republican Party to foment for a re-increase in Tariffs. In fact, in the mid-terms of 1858. PA had the biggest single-election shift by a state, from one Party to the other, going from big Dem to big GOP, in the history of the Republic. It was why the GOP emerged from nothing a few years prior, to being a serious national party. Wasn't slavery that did it. It was money and tariffs. Again, slavery was how you got folks worked up.

The Republicans became the party of raising tariffs again. The South said "hell no". As we see, Lincoln had no plan to abolish Slavery. Slavery was the easy way to get folks riled, for sure, and the entry of new western states that were not going to allow slavery meant that the Senate was going to tilt non-slave, but the pain was in the money, cotton, and what import-export meant to the south.

Of note: Look at the progress of electoral maps in the 4-5 elections leading up to 1860. Then follow the tariffs. Tariffs shaped that map, such that the party line was drawn between the manufacturing north.

Its always the money. Always.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 05:48 PM
Fort Monroe was also in southern territory..., it never fell.

Shoot the Goose
09-10-2012, 05:53 PM
Akula,
I put up my post without having read yours first. You are spot on.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 05:59 PM
Going to disagree mightily. "Slavery" was the issue that could inflame passion, but the base reason was always money. Is was the monied folks who always pushed to politicians to push for secession.

Its real simple. Tariffs were the number one source of revenue. The south was the overwhelming importer and exporter of the Union. At times it provided 80% of the revenue for the Federal Government. Tariffs also protected northern manufacturing, such that the higher the tariffs, the better for the North, and the worse for the South as Tariffs went up.

The Panic of '57, which was actually caused by a reduction in Tariffs under Buchanan, due to surplusses, killed the North. Pennsylvania and NJ the most. The caused the emerging Republican Party to foment for a re-increase in Tariffs. In fact, in the mid-terms of 1858. PA had the biggest single-election shift by a state, from one Party to the other, going from big Dem to big GOP, in the history of the Republic. It was why the GOP emerged from nothing a few years prior, to being a serious national party. Wasn't slavery that did it. It was money and tariffs. Again, slavery was how you got folks worked up.

The Republicans became the party of raising tariffs again. The South said "hell no". As we see, Lincoln had no plan to abolish Slavery. Slavery was the easy way to get folks riled, for sure, and the entry of new western states that were not going to allow slavery meant that the Senate was going to tilt non-slave, but the pain was in the money, cotton, and what import-export meant to the south.

Of note: Look at the progress of electoral maps in the 4-5 elections leading up to 1860. Then follow the tariffs. Tariffs shaped that map, such that the party line was drawn between the manufacturing north.

Its always the money. Always.


Interesting read. Thanks.

Perhaps the slavery issue was much like religion as in "religious wars"- religious rhetoric used to fire up the base but not really the reason the leaders wanted war. Had the south moved passed a slave-based economy, those tariffs may not have hurt them so much.

Shoot the Goose
09-10-2012, 06:22 PM
Interesting read. Thanks.

Perhaps the slavery issue was much like religion as in "religious wars"- religious rhetoric used to fire up the base but not really the reason the leaders wanted war. Had the south moved passed a slave-based economy, those tariffs may not have hurt them so much.

I have a little more time to add-in. Democrat Buchanan was the first, and still only, President from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania and NJ were the two big "northern" states that had remained heavy Democrat. But with the lowering of tariffs, PA and NJ got pounded with British and European imports. Further, much the the bread-basket inner states saw huge drops in food exports due to the end of the Crimean War. Where our manufacturing had been protected by high tariffs prior, we had also exported major food to Europe because the Crimean War wrecked much of Europe's breadbasket. The end of that war reduced American food exports, crushing midwest farmers. The lowering of tariffs destroyed northern manufacturing, which combined with the drop of foodstuff exports, caused the economic panic of '57.

Meanwhile, the South was in great shape.

As I noted, it was Buchanan's own state, Pennsylvania, that now turned against him huge in 1858 (as did several others, but PA was key) The 1858 midterms cemented the newfound Republican Party in control above the Mason Dixon, and splintered the Democrat Party, such that the GOP could anticipate carrying the 1860 Presidential election without a single Southern State. Which is exactly what happened.

Shoot the Goose
09-10-2012, 06:43 PM
Interesting read. Thanks.

Perhaps the slavery issue was much like religion as in "religious wars"- religious rhetoric used to fire up the base but not really the reason the leaders wanted war. Had the south moved passed a slave-based economy, those tariffs may not have hurt them so much.

Pete. Trust, as Akula noted. It is tough to get much except "slavery" as being the cause. Here is a link to PA politics.

http://explorepahistory.com/story.php?storyId=1-9-9&chapter=1

What is of note is that while they acknowledge that the GOP took 20 of 25 of the PA seats in Congress in 1858. This is compared to such as in the 1850 election, where there were 15 Dems and 9 Whigs from PA. In between was a mess as Whigs disappeared, but you can see the drift.

However, the link above, from PA itself, only sites "slavery", saying nothing of the Panic of '57 which decimated Pennsylvania. We are supposed to believe that "Slavery" was what mattered in PA, in 1857, and not the fact that 20% of them had become unemployed in one year.

Its nuts.

Akula
09-10-2012, 07:57 PM
Akula,
I put up my post without having read yours first. You are spot on.

I have to admit that much of the research was compiled by others and I've merely used their work to further the truth. I directly copied an entire page from one of the newer members here that he used when we (he and I ) were in a similar debate recently in another forum. (See post #22) Unfortunately I can't recall what his name is in this forum...If he spoke up and claimed it I wouldn't deny him credit.

What is the saying? I stand on the shoulders of giants.

One of my sources is "A Politically Incorrect guide to the "Civil War" and that is where I got the material I used in posts #20 and #21.
How I HATE that term "Civil War" that historians have decided to use.

"War of Northern Aggression" is more favored particularly in the South among those who know the real truth.

Several other sources were used but they are credited and can be researched by anyone who might be interested.

Shoot the Goose
09-10-2012, 08:38 PM
I have to admit that much of the research was compiled by others and I've merely used their work to further the truth. I directly copied an entire page from one of the newer members here that he used when we (he and I ) were in a similar debate recently in another forum. (See post #22) Unfortunately I can't recall what his name is in this forum...If he spoke up and claimed it I wouldn't deny him credit.

What is the saying? I stand on the shoulders of giants.

One of my sources is "A Politically Incorrect guide to the "Civil War" and that is where I got the material I used in posts #20 and #21.
How I HATE that term "Civil War" that historians have decided to use.

"War of Northern Aggression" is more favored particularly in the South among those who know the real truth.

Several other sources were used but they are credited and can be researched by anyone who might be interested.

Even reading Wikipedia about the Panic of '57, its so full of shit. It mentions a lot about the failure of railroads, but only mentions once that grain prices had fallen by about 2/3rds, which was what caused the drop in all things RR. Nowhere does it mention that grain prices, and western real estate, collapsed because of a severe drop in grain exports to Europe.

It hardly mentions the Tariff reductions of 1857, and how it crushed northern manufacturing as the price of European imports dropped, as it lowered the protectionist veil. I swear, it actually cites the Dred Scott Decision as a cause of the Panic.


The final event that led to the cause of the Panic of 1857 was the Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) in March 1857. After Scott attempted to sue for his freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Dred Scott was not a citizen because he was an African American and therefore did not have the right to sue in court. The ruling also made theMissouri Compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise) unconstitutional and it was clear that the decision would have a lasting impact.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857#cite_note-Justice_of_Shattered_Dreams-4) Soon after the Dred Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott) ruling, “the political struggle between ‘free soil’ and slavery in the territories” began.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857#cite_note-PanicPage816-9) The western territories were now opened to the option of slavery and it was quickly evident that this would have drastic financial and political effects. “Kansas land warrants and western railroad securities’ prices declined slightly just after the Dred Scott decision in early March.”[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857#cite_note-Justice_of_Shattered_Dreams-4) This fluctuation in railroad securities proved “that political news about future territories called the tune in the land and railroad securities markets”.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857#cite_note-Justice_of_Shattered_Dreams-4) Shortly after the Dred Scott ruling, the Panic of 1857 began to escalate to its peak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857

Anyone with a clue about that era knows that while the Dred Scott decision stoked the Slavery issue, it had virtually no economic impact, and had zilch to do with the Panic. This is such revisonist bullshit. The Fugitive Slave Law had already been embraced by Northern "abolitionist" politicians such as the noble Daniel Webster himself, of Massachusetts, as part of the Compromise of 1850.

This is such a crock of shit.

Akula
09-10-2012, 08:45 PM
. Had the south moved passed a slave-based economy, those tariffs may not have hurt them so much.

Slavery would have ended shortly anyway.
The dawn of the industrial revolution was at hand.
Eli Whitney's cotton gin was just the beginning to be followed by production concentrated in large, intricately organized factories, growth of a nationwide transportation network based on the railroad, along with a communications network based on the telegraph and telephone.

Andrew Carnegie--The Scottish immigrant who built the steel industry with a mill that integrated all stages of refinement processes.

John D. Rockefeller and the development of the oil industry starting with the first oil derrick drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859.

Labor unions, assembly lines, all sorts of mechanical wonders were appearing almost daily..

Cyrus McCormick invented the mechanical reaper which made the harvesting of grain more efficient and faster. This helped farmers have more time to devote to other chores.

Elias Howe and Isaac Singer both were involved in the invention of the sewing machine, which revolutionized the garment industry

George Eastman invented the Kodak camera. This inexpensive box camera allowed individual to take black and white pictures to preserve their memories and historical events.

Charles Goodyear invented vulcanized rubber. This technique allowed rubber to have many more uses due to its ability to stand up to bad weather. Interestingly, many believe the technique was found by mistake. Rubber became important in industry as it could withstand large amounts of pressure.

Nikola Tesla invented many important items including fluorescent lighting and the alternating current (AC) electrical power system. He also is credited with inventing the radio. The Tesla Coil is used in many items today including the modern radio and television. (He did a lot of things that Edison actually got credit for/stole from him)

Etc...etc..etc..
The point is there was no more need for 50 farm animals when one machine could do the work of 100 farm animals in a fraction of the time.

Slavery would have become unnecessary and they would have been freed peacefully because they were rendered useless as laborers.

...but no...lincoln HAD to have his war.

Akula
09-10-2012, 08:50 PM
Even reading Wikipedia about the Panic of '57, its so full of shit. It mentions a lot about the failure of railroads, but only mentions once that grain prices had fallen by about 2/3rds, which was what caused the drop in all things RR. Nowhere does it mention that grain prices, and western real estate, collapsed because of a severe drop in grain exports to Europe.

It hardly mentions the Tariff reductions of 1857, and how it crushed northern manufacturing as the price of European imports dropped, as it lowered the protectionist veil. I swear, it actually cites the Dred Scott Decision as a cause of the Panic.



Anyone with a clue about that era knows that while the Dred Scott decision stoked the Slavery issue, it had virtually no economic impact, and had zilch to do with the Panic. This is such revisonist bullshit. The Fugitive Slave Law had already been embraced by Northern "abolitionist" politicians such as the noble Daniel Webster himself, of Massachusetts, as part of the Compromise of 1850.

This is such a crock of shit.

I think we all agree that wikipedia has an agenda..and accuracy isn't necessarily part of it.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 09:36 PM
Slavery would have ended shortly anyway.
The dawn of the industrial revolution was at hand.
Eli Whitney's cotton gin was just the beginning to be followed by production concentrated in large, intricately organized factories, growth of a nationwide transportation network based on the railroad, along with a communications network based on the telegraph and telephone.

Andrew Carnegie--The Scottish immigrant who built the steel industry with a mill that integrated all stages of refinement processes.

John D. Rockefeller and the development of the oil industry starting with the first oil derrick drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859.

Labor unions, assembly lines, all sorts of mechanical wonders were appearing almost daily..

Cyrus McCormick invented the mechanical reaper which made the harvesting of grain more efficient and faster. This helped farmers have more time to devote to other chores.

Elias Howe and Isaac Singer both were involved in the invention of the sewing machine, which revolutionized the garment industry

George Eastman invented the Kodak camera. This inexpensive box camera allowed individual to take black and white pictures to preserve their memories and historical events.

Charles Goodyear invented vulcanized rubber. This technique allowed rubber to have many more uses due to its ability to stand up to bad weather. Interestingly, many believe the technique was found by mistake. Rubber became important in industry as it could withstand large amounts of pressure.

Nikola Tesla invented many important items including fluorescent lighting and the alternating current (AC) electrical power system. He also is credited with inventing the radio. The Tesla Coil is used in many items today including the modern radio and television. (He did a lot of things that Edison actually got credit for/stole from him)

Etc...etc..etc..
The point is there was no more need for 50 farm animals when one machine could do the work of 100 farm animals in a fraction of the time.

Slavery would have become unnecessary and they would have been freed peacefully because they were rendered useless as laborers.

...but no...lincoln HAD to have his war.

I agree that slavery was on the way out. But the South hadn't caught on, and fought a war over it. Tragic, indeed.

Deadwood
09-10-2012, 09:42 PM
I agree that slavery was on the way out. But the South hadn't caught on, and fought a war over it. Tragic, indeed.

Sorry, but I have to side with Akula. Slavery was not the cause of the war, but the excuse.

roadmaster
09-10-2012, 09:43 PM
I agree that slavery was on the way out. But the South hadn't caught on, and fought a war over it. Tragic, indeed.

Most of them thought they were fighting for states rights not slavery. We had many black men fight for the south.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 09:48 PM
Sorry, but I have to side with Akula. Slavery was not the cause of the war, but the excuse.

Well after reading the Congressional record of the decades before the war (during law school), we will have to agree to disagree.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 09:49 PM
Most of them thought they were fighting for states rights not slavery. We had many black men fight for the south.

States rights in the early 1800s was a euphemism for the South telling the North to shut up about slavery. Nothing more.

roadmaster
09-10-2012, 10:15 PM
States rights in the early 1800s was a euphemism for the South telling the North to shut up about slavery. Nothing more.

Nope they were putting tariffs taxes on our goods.

GCF
09-11-2012, 12:04 AM
Plus you have the foriegn politics of slavery, England and France both abolished slavery years before. Basically kept all foriegn aid/trade with England an France to a hault with the South.


States rights in the early 1800s was a euphemism for the South telling the North to shut up about slavery. Nothing more.

People actually believe slavery was the cause of the Civil War? In this day an age, WOW!

Akula
09-11-2012, 04:28 AM
I agree that slavery was on the way out. But the South hadn't caught on, and fought a war over it. Tragic, indeed.

No. That's incorrect.

You just read the history, using quotes from the time by the people involved.
The War of Northern Aggression was NOT about slavery and lincoln could NOT have cared less about them.
You can SAY that all you want but educated people know better.

Shoot the Goose
09-11-2012, 04:29 AM
Plus you have the foriegn politics of slavery, England and France both abolished slavery years before. Basically kept all foriegn aid/trade with England an France to a hault with the South.


What ?

The South did a robust business of import/export with Europe, and especially Britain.

Akula
09-11-2012, 04:36 AM
Well after reading the Congressional record of the decades before the war (during law school), we will have to agree to disagree.

Well, counselor, you need to ask for a refund on your tuition.
You just read historical, factual accounts by the people involved, the president, the Commanding General of the Southern Army, newspaper and magazine articles from prominent writers of the day and other distinguished observers...yet you cling to "slavery was the cause of the War of Northern Aggression" nonsense.

What's your agenda here, really?

Akula
09-11-2012, 04:41 AM
States rights in the early 1800s was a euphemism for the South telling the North to shut up about slavery. Nothing more.

Wrong.
You ignore proven history and keep chanting a lie...but it doesn't make it so.
We have provided facts..you have nothing but "nuh uh" and "did not" and your position has basically become "I once read something somewhere a long time ago that said it was about slavery, so no matter what facts I'm presented now I won't acknowledge the truth because I've ventured so far out on this limb that I can't get back now and I'm not bout to admit in public that I could be wrong".....

Not looking real sharp here, counselor.

Akula
09-11-2012, 05:20 AM
Well after reading the Congressional record of the decades before the war (during law school), we will have to agree to disagree.


Here, "counselor" you can see how much lincoln cared about slaves.


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to Horace Greeley
August 22, 1862

"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knave to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Fragments: Notes for Speeches
Sept. 1859 (Vol. III)

"But what shall we do with the Negroes after they are free? I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Letter to General Benjamin F. Butler
March 1865 (Vol. VII)

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, (applause from audience) 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. I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, 4th Debate with Stephan A. Douglas in Illinois
Sept. 1858 (Vol. III)

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Speech at Sringfield, Illinois
June 1857 (Vol. II)

"In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)

"I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should at least be separated."
-- Abraham Lincoln
-From, Address on Colonization to a Deputation of
Africans in Washington D.C.
August 1862 (Vol. V)

During the Civil War, Lincoln also organized the Bureau of Emigration within the Department of Interior. The sum was $600,000, a huge amount at the time and considering the tremendous war efforts. This Bureau was appropriated with the recolonization and emigration of the African slaves. Two attempts to do this were made with the actual establishment of a colony at Isle-a-Vache, in Haiti, consisting of 453 slaves transported from Virginia. Later, another attempt failed to colonize them in Colombia, South America.


from lincolns inaugural address;

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 04:31 PM
No. That's incorrect.

You just read the history, using quotes from the time by the people involved.
The War of Northern Aggression was NOT about slavery and lincoln could NOT have cared less about them.
You can SAY that all you want but educated people know better.

As I said, read the congressional record from the 1820s until the war.

Akula
09-11-2012, 05:06 PM
As I said, read the congressional record from the 1820s until the war.

Bro..we don't care about the congressional record from the 1820 until whenever...politicians will say anything, in case you haven't noticed.

We've just supplied you with the actual words of the people involved AT THE TIME including the president and many major credible writers, periodicals and actual participants..Not some politicians far away at some distant time spouting meaningless platitudes. I understand it's disappointing to find out one has been lied to..especially in "law school"...but the facts are there in front of you.
If you choose to continue to disregard them, ok..that's up to you.

But to continue to chant "nuh uh" or "did not" doesn't change them.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 05:34 PM
Well, counselor, you need to ask for a refund on your tuition.
You just read historical, factual accounts by the people involved, the president, the Commanding General of the Southern Army, newspaper and magazine articles from prominent writers of the day and other distinguished observers...yet you cling to "slavery was the cause of the War of Northern Aggression" nonsense.

What's your agenda here, really?

I don't have one. You sure seem too.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 05:36 PM
Bro..we don't care about the congressional record from the 1820 until whenever...politicians will say anything, in case you haven't noticed.

We've just supplied you with the actual words of the people involved AT THE TIME including the president and many major credible writers, periodicals and actual participants..Not some politicians far away at some distant time spouting meaningless platitudes. I understand it's disappointing to find out one has been lied to..especially in "law school"...but the facts are there in front of you.
If you choose to continue to disregard them, ok..that's up to you.

But to continue to chant "nuh uh" or "did not" doesn't change them.

The congressional record documents everything said in Congress during sessions. If you read it you would see what representatives and senators thought was important and the reasons that they were pushing certain legislative agendas.

Or don't read it (you likely don't have easy access to it anyway.)

Goldie Locks
09-11-2012, 05:43 PM
Well, counselor, you need to ask for a refund on your tuition.
You just read historical, factual accounts by the people involved, the president, the Commanding General of the Southern Army, newspaper and magazine articles from prominent writers of the day and other distinguished observers...yet you cling to "slavery was the cause of the War of Northern Aggression" nonsense.

What's your agenda here, really?

It's the product of liberal brainwashing from Universities. I swear now days you can't believe anything in school textbooks.

Goldie Locks
09-11-2012, 05:46 PM
As I said, read the congressional record from the 1820s until the war.

Do you have a link??? If you posted it I might have missed it.

Akula
09-11-2012, 05:52 PM
The congressional record documents everything said in Congress during sessions. If you read it you would see what representatives and senators thought was important and the reasons that they were pushing certain legislative agendas.

Or don't read it (you likely don't have easy access to it anyway.)

Why not?

Only lawyers can see it? ;)

If you have a specific link, I'd like to see it. Point out the parts that are relevant so I don't have to slog through a bunch of tedious doubletalk..They ARE politicians, you know.

Let me ask you this... If as you claim, the War of Northern Aggression was fought entirely over slavery..(and I can't believe anyone would seriously put forth that premise in the face of all the counter evidence we've provided here)...but if that's your premise, Why did lincoln wait until 1863 to "emancipate" them?
Why didn't he do it before the war started?..or the day AFTER the war started?
..and FWIW he could issue whatever "proclamations" he wanted..they weren't binding to anyone and had no effect in the Confederacy.
He wasn't the president of the CSA.
He was president of a foreign country to us.



Lincolns own words at the time have less meaning to you than what congress said in 1820?
How can you explain these various comments and quotes?
Are all these people and various participants liars? These are all notable sources. The times were different then.Honesty mattered. Are these people all dishonorable, then?


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.


"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 06:19 PM
Do you have a link??? If you posted it I might have missed it.

Yes, the library stacks at Tulane Law School. If they still exist. I think they wanted to go to all electronic. But I don't think that they will let you in without a school ID. Do you have an account with LEXIS/NEXIS- you can find it there I would think.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 06:26 PM
If as you claim, the War of Northern Aggression was fought entirely over slavery

If I gave the impression that slavery was the 100% cause then I overstated my case. What I mean is that it permeated any issue that related to states rights or implicated advantages of the north over the south or vice versa. In any given piece of legislation, the Southern legislators would operate under the belief that the North's position was to make the North stronger so it could stop slavery from spreading into the new territories. The opposite was true of the North. Only a fringe advocated ending slavery in the current slave states- that was never going to happen via legislation. The issue was what happens as more states are created. The South feared that if new states were slave free it would lose all power in Congress.

This caused succession. Succession caused war.

Akula
09-11-2012, 06:34 PM
Yes, the library stacks at Tulane Law School. If they still exist. I think they wanted to go to all electronic. But I don't think that they will let you in without a school ID. Do you have an account with LEXIS/NEXIS- you can find it there I would think.

No. I wish I did. I could use that occasionally.. I get on campus often but I'm working and don't have time to go to the library..I don't even know where it is.
I work in McAllister Auditorium occasionally.

I forgot you went to Tulane.. maybe you ARE ok. ;)

Did you hear about the Tulane player that broke his neck in the game Saturday? Terrible bad luck.
He's stable now after surgery but they haven't said how badly he's hurt.

Akula
09-11-2012, 06:38 PM
If I gave the impression that slavery was the 100% cause then I overstated my case. What I mean is that it permeated any issue that related to states rights or implicated advantages of the north over the south or vice versa. In any given piece of legislation, the Southern legislators would operate under the belief that the North's position was to make the North stronger so it could stop slavery from spreading into the new territories. The opposite was true of the North. Only a fringe advocated ending slavery in the current slave states- that was never going to happen via legislation. The issue was what happens as more states are created. The South feared that if new states were slave free it would lose all power in Congress.

This caused succession. Succession caused war.

The Morrill act had more immediate and direct influence on causing secession and starting the War of Northern Aggression than slavery.

We're just going to disagree on this, I can see.

Akula
09-11-2012, 06:42 PM
I don't have one. You sure seem too.

I do.
Truth.
It's in short supply.
More is needed.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 06:54 PM
No. I wish I did. I could use that occasionally.. I get on campus often but I'm working and don't have time to go to the library..I don't even know where it is.
I work in McAllister Auditorium occasionally.

I forgot you went to Tulane.. maybe you ARE ok. ;)

Did you hear about the Tulane player that broke his neck in the game Saturday? Terrible bad luck.
He's stable now after surgery but they haven't said how badly he's hurt.

I had not heard. That sucks.

Anyway to read that much info from the Congressional record would cost an insane amount of money. I was fascinated reading it in paper. Some funny stuff. A couple of fist fights on the floor of the House were the highlights.

Akula
09-11-2012, 07:04 PM
I had not heard. That sucks.

Anyway to read that much info from the Congressional record would cost an insane amount of money. I was fascinated reading it in paper. Some funny stuff. A couple of fist fights on the floor of the House were the highlights.

WAAAYY off topic;

What were some of the New Orleans bands you liked when you were here?
Do you ever go see any of them when they are up your way? You may have been at some shows I worked.
Tulane grads are VERY loyal to New Orleans bands.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 07:09 PM
WAAAYY off topic;

What were some of the New Orleans bands you liked when you were here?
Do you ever go see any of them when they are up your way? You may have been at some shows I worked.
Tulane grads are VERY loyal to New Orleans bands.

I saw several. Cowboy Mouth was my favorite. Issac's Guns was pretty cool and I got to hang with the girls at their favorite lesbian club- The Ruby Fruit Jungle. I was a lesbian-dispute judge. :smiley: I have some of their songs per-mastered.

Akula
09-11-2012, 07:22 PM
I saw several. Cowboy Mouth was my favorite. Issac's Guns was pretty cool and I got to hang with the girls at their favorite lesbian club- The Ruby Fruit Jungle. I was a lesbian-dispute judge. :smiley: I have some of their songs per-mastered.

Radiators?
subdudes?
funky Meters?
Theresa Andersson?
George Porter jr and Runnin' Pardners?
Deacon John (not Dr. John)
Gatemouth Brown?
Snooks Eaglin?

Ever see any of them?

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 07:23 PM
I saw lots of bands. The two I mentioned occupied the vast majority of my free time.

Akula
09-11-2012, 07:27 PM
I saw lots of bands. The two I mentioned occupied the vast majority of my free time.

Got it.
I was just mentioning some of the ones I know many Tulane students and alumni like.
All good.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 08:23 PM
Got it.
I was just mentioning some of the ones I know many Tulane students and alumni like.
All good.

I left in Jan 1999 so I am sure the bands have turned over.

GCF
09-11-2012, 08:30 PM
What you say?


What ?

The South did a robust business of import/export with Europe, and especially Britain.

Sure they did, till the war started an the blockaides went up, export of cotton dropped 95% overnight. As the blockade went on, the South use routes via Carribeans to trade an one Nation after another started to view the South as the aggressors. Maybe not Britian an any thoughts of disting the Norther Blockade as the war moved on was not to be. As the Emacipation won over hearts of the British an no way could the British Government take the side of the South. It is as I said, the Slavery Issue was alot about keeping trade an aid from France an Britian out of the South or if nothing else a nice little side benefit to the Northern Aggressors freaking barbarians! LOL

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 08:35 PM
What you say?



Sure they did, till the war started an the blockaides went up, export of cotton dropped 95% overnight. As the blockade went on, the South use routes via Carribeans to trade an one Nation after another started to view the South as the aggressors. Maybe not Britian an any thoughts of disting the Norther Blockade as the war moved on was not to be. As the Emacipation won over hearts of the British an no way could the British Government take the side of the South. It is as I said, the Slavery Issue was alot about keeping trade an aid from France an Britian out of the South or if nothing else a nice little side benefit to the Northern Aggressors freaking barbarians! LOL

The Civil War put Egyptian cotton on the map!

GCF
09-11-2012, 08:49 PM
The Civil War put Egyptian cotton on the map!

Hey look, first thing we agree on! Damn who would of thunk it!

Ivan88
09-12-2012, 11:51 AM
Well after reading the Congressional record of the decades before the war (during law school), we will have to agree to disagree.

Congressmen can put whatever they want into the Congressional Record. And during the years before Lincoln and Marx took over, there was agitation about slavery, just as there is agitation in 20th century Congresses prepping them to follow yet another rabbit trail to more trouble.

Some people made slavery an issue. And like wars today, there are people who profit from wars and agitate the goyim to go to those wars. It was the same then.

They manipulated both the North and the South into a war. They controlled both the North and the Southern leadership.

If the Southerners were not being manipulated, they would have done things differently. They probably would have avoided a war. And if Lincoln had attacked anyway, the South would have siezed DC along with Lincoln and his Communist cohorts, instead of waging an insane war of attrition and mass slaughter of its own men.

Peter1469
09-12-2012, 04:29 PM
Lincoln, and communism... insane.

Ivan88
09-13-2012, 02:33 AM
Lincoln, and communism... insane.

Another non-value comment from some military guru.

Peter1469
09-13-2012, 10:31 AM
Another non-value comment from some military guru.

I guess I didn't intend to add value to a comparison that I find to be insane. I was just point that out.

Mister D
09-13-2012, 10:34 AM
I'm not sure if Lincoln would even have been familiar with the term.

GCF
09-13-2012, 11:44 AM
I'm not sure if Lincoln would even have been familiar with the term.Yea but a rose is a rose regardless of what you call it, I guess that is the point?

Mister D
09-13-2012, 11:47 AM
Yea but a rose is a rose regardless of what you call it, I guess that is the point?

I can see "centralizing authoritarian" or something like that but communist seems a little (a lot, actually) far fetched. Mind you, this is no apology for Lincoln. I just don't see the communist connection.

GCF
09-13-2012, 12:50 PM
I can see "centralizing authoritarian" or something like that but communist seems a little (a lot, actually) far fetched. Mind you, this is no apology for Lincoln. I just don't see the communist connection.

LOL, yea you have an excellent point, I don't disagree at all. Calling Lincoln a communist is at best a comical tort. Yet that is the level of some people, throw them a bone an they stay happy!

Akula
09-14-2012, 04:59 AM
Congressmen can put whatever they want into the Congressional Record.

Proven many times when they stand up in an empty session and chatter on endlessly...knowing it's all going on the "record".


Some people made slavery an issue. And like wars today, there are people who profit from wars and agitate the goyim to go to those wars. It was the same then.



Well, the south seceded because of oppressive tariffs. It's just that simple.
Lincoln's OWN WORDS in his inaugural address and elsewhere prove that he didn't like it but wasn't opposed enough to go to war....The jewish bankers in the north were the ones who jerked lincoln back into line.
That's why 2 years into the war he got the idea to "emancipate" the slaves. It was a typical cynical political move to give the appearance of taking the moral "high ground".

The north was losing the war, there were draft riots in the north...Nobody wanted to fight for jewish bankers..but..throw in the slavery issue and suddenly the north had a "cause".

The whole "war was fought for slavery" is not true but it's convenient nonsense for the masses.

Same thing for nuking japan at the end of WWII..
It's claimed that it saved thousands and thousands of u.s. lives by preventing an invasion of japan.

Pure B.S, that one is.

There was no need to invade japan.

Trinnity
09-14-2012, 05:20 AM
It's claimed that it saved thousands and thousands of u.s. lives by preventing an invasion of japan.

Pure B.S, that one is.

There was no need to invade japan.I disagree. I challenge you to back that up.

Akula
09-14-2012, 05:35 AM
I disagree. I challenge you to back that up.

We had defeated their ENTIRE army.
We had defeated their ENTIRE navy.
We had defeated their ENTIRE air force.
We had rolled them back from all sources of oil and metals that they previously conquered and exploited to wage war.
They live on an island.
They have no natural resources of their own.
All we had to do was blockade them for a few months and they would surrender..or starve..They would have surrendered, I'm sure, eventually.
There was NO NEED to invade.

We nuked 2 cities full of civilians to show off for russia..as an implied threat to them.


EDIT;
I wandered off topic but slavery and nuking civilians are the two worst things this country has ever done.

Imagine if we'd never imported any negroes?
Think about that for a minute...

Ivan88
09-14-2012, 09:58 AM
We had defeated their ENTIRE army.
We had defeated their ENTIRE navy.
We had defeated their ENTIRE air force.
We had rolled them back from all sources of oil and metals that they previously conquered and exploited to wage war.
They live on an island.
They have no natural resources of their own.
All we had to do was blockade them for a few months and they would surrender..or starve..They would have surrendered, I'm sure, eventually.
There was NO NEED to invade.

We nuked 2 cities full of civilians to show off for russia..as an implied threat to them.

EDIT;


You forgot to add to the situation the fact that 19th & 20 Century actions of the US & Britain inspired Japan to military conquest, and that the US pressured Japan to attack the US. It was all a set up.

When Japan asked to end the war, the US refused numerous times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJZ6nwxD38
Hiroshima, biggest Christian city in East Asia

Peter1469
09-14-2012, 06:04 PM
The only surrender term that the Japs wanted was that we would not harm their emperor. We nuked two cities, the Japs surrendered unconditionally, and we didn't harm their emperor....

The nukes were political messages, not military ones.

GCF
09-15-2012, 02:02 AM
The only surrender term that the Japs wanted was that we would not harm their emperor. We nuked two cities, the Japs surrendered unconditionally, and we didn't harm their emperor....

The nukes were political messages, not military ones.

BS, there is no evidence to support the idea that Japan was willing to surrender. As far as an Army, Japan had significant forces to hold their land, any attempt to occupy Japan would of been a battle block by block. If you calculate the life lost on both sides of a Japanese Invasion, the cost in lives would of been great. Would it of been as deadly as the two bombs? I suppose it would of been if not greater, yet we already firebomb cities in Japan that were made of wood, needless to say Japanese were still holding on. No way was Japan at that time ready to surrender and there is no evidence that I know of suggesting they were.

Now before we pass judgement upon the people that came up with this idea of Atomic Bombs, we have to keep it context of the times. America was not in a forgiving mood nor were the people we liberated or allies (including China) that was going to be content with the idea of a long drawnout process of starving Japan by boycott. One would have to be totally ignorant of the emotional drive against Japan at this time. The havoc an tyranny Japan performed during these years to all the people of the Pacific Nations were horrendous or do we need to go back an view battles like the "Rape of Nankin" (might have the city wrong, probably do! or the spelling).

Akula
09-15-2012, 05:57 AM
BS, there is no evidence to support the idea that Japan was willing to surrender. As far as an Army, Japan had significant forces to hold their land, any attempt to occupy Japan would of been a battle block by block. If you calculate the life lost on both sides of a Japanese Invasion, the cost in lives would of been great. Would it of been as deadly as the two bombs? I suppose it would of been if not greater, yet we already firebomb cities in Japan that were made of wood, needless to say Japanese were still holding on. No way was Japan at that time ready to surrender and there is no evidence that I know of suggesting they were.

Now before we pass judgement upon the people that came up with this idea of Atomic Bombs, we have to keep it context of the times. America was not in a forgiving mood nor were the people we liberated or allies (including China) that was going to be content with the idea of a long drawnout process of starving Japan by boycott. One would have to be totally ignorant of the emotional drive against Japan at this time. The havoc an tyranny Japan performed during these years to all the people of the Pacific Nations were horrendous or do we need to go back an view battles like the "Rape of Nankin" (might have the city wrong, probably do! or the spelling).

They live on an island. They had no army.They had no navy.They had no air force.
They had no access to the resources necessary to wage war.

I never suggested a"boycott".

My premise is that if we blockaded the ports, continued to strategically bomb any industry and any food production sources and warehouses, they would have surrendered.
If the rest of the world or the other nations japan conquered didn't "like it", tough.
They should be glad we liberated them and STFU. They don't get to set u.s. policy.

No matter how you work around it, nuking 2 cities full of civilians isn't cool.


Or if it is ok to nuke civilians, then we CERTAINLY have NO BUSINESS telling other nations whether THEY can have nukes or not...

Peter1469
09-15-2012, 07:21 AM
BS, there is no evidence to support the idea that Japan was willing to surrender. As far as an Army, Japan had significant forces to hold their land, any attempt to occupy Japan would of been a battle block by block. If you calculate the life lost on both sides of a Japanese Invasion, the cost in lives would of been great. Would it of been as deadly as the two bombs? I suppose it would of been if not greater, yet we already firebomb cities in Japan that were made of wood, needless to say Japanese were still holding on. No way was Japan at that time ready to surrender and there is no evidence that I know of suggesting they were.

Now before we pass judgement upon the people that came up with this idea of Atomic Bombs, we have to keep it context of the times. America was not in a forgiving mood nor were the people we liberated or allies (including China) that was going to be content with the idea of a long drawnout process of starving Japan by boycott. One would have to be totally ignorant of the emotional drive against Japan at this time. The havoc an tyranny Japan performed during these years to all the people of the Pacific Nations were horrendous or do we need to go back an view battles like the "Rape of Nankin" (might have the city wrong, probably do! or the spelling).

Japan was seeking peace months before the end of the war. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Akula
09-15-2012, 07:34 AM
Japan was seeking peace months before the end of the war. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Great article. Thanks for the link.

The truth is large.

Peter1469
09-15-2012, 08:00 AM
We used the nukes for 1 reason. To be first.

Akula
09-15-2012, 08:06 AM
We used the nukes for 1 reason. To be first.

...as a "warning" to communist russia.

Peter1469
09-15-2012, 08:15 AM
...as a "warning" to communist russia.

Yes, and to everyone else.

GCF
09-16-2012, 08:35 PM
Japan was seeking peace months before the end of the war. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Just another article from people that would like to acredit motivations to those that actually lived an perform actions very few will ever do or even be able to do. I have seen such foolishness before in my life an I'm sure I'll see it again. While I'm sure the actual facts may be correct but such weight is given to factors that had little do to with the actual decisions that had to be made. I'm not at all impressed with the article, just another heap of shit of shit people that are attempting to villify those that actually had to fight the war an make the decisions. Yet you all seem so proud of yourselves, guess if that is how you get your jollies off more power to ya.

Peter1469
09-17-2012, 01:02 PM
Just another article from people that would like to acredit motivations to those that actually lived an perform actions very few will ever do or even be able to do. I have seen such foolishness before in my life an I'm sure I'll see it again. While I'm sure the actual facts may be correct but such weight is given to factors that had little do to with the actual decisions that had to be made. I'm not at all impressed with the article, just another heap of shit of shit people that are attempting to villify those that actually had to fight the war an make the decisions. Yet you all seem so proud of yourselves, guess if that is how you get your jollies off more power to ya.

?

Get a grip.

I don't care whether you are impressed with the article or not.

Mister D
09-17-2012, 03:42 PM
Just another article from people that would like to acredit motivations to those that actually lived an perform actions very few will ever do or even be able to do. I have seen such foolishness before in my life an I'm sure I'll see it again. While I'm sure the actual facts may be correct but such weight is given to factors that had little do to with the actual decisions that had to be made. I'm not at all impressed with the article, just another heap of shit of shit people that are attempting to villify those that actually had to fight the war an make the decisions. Yet you all seem so proud of yourselves, guess if that is how you get your jollies off more power to ya.

I actually disagree with Peter but he is no way motivated by any sort of anti-American or anti-liberal (classical) animus. He's just coming from a real politick perspective.

RollingWave
09-18-2012, 02:53 AM
Japan thought peace, but not unconditional surrender. which were different things.

The Japanese army was mostly getting bulldozed by the Russians in Manchuria before the bomb, for most of the war it was the Chinese that was doing most of the fighting against the IPA . as most of them were predictablly stationed in China. but the war in China was a ugly slugfest for the greater of the 8 years there. with the Japanese struggling up the Yangtsi river while skrimishes ran wild all around the vast interiors of China.

The Japanese army was never really on par with it's Navy or Airforce in terms of advancement, where as the IJN was legitimately the second most powerful navy at the time and gave the US navy a pretty serious run for their money. (to this date it was still the only navy to have sank a US air craft carrier in a strait fight) the Japanese army was pretty much outdated, its' tank made the Sherman look awesome in comparison. (which is saying something given the Shermans' less than steller reputation in the European theater.). and they struggled against Chinese army at times which was often armed with nothing more than WW1 style rifles. and was generally poorly cordinated and still rife with internal faction struggle.

Even the chinese generals generally had pretty low regards of the IJA's tactical and strategic approach. noting that the vast majority of their officers "were like wild boars; they only knew how to keep charging on and on until they either push through or die" . there were the few odd good tacticians here and there but it was relatively rare. most of the time they got circles ran around them by armies with much more inferior equipments. Tomoyuki Yamashita was basically the only IJA general who really had his head screwed on strait during most of the war, and for that he was largely exiled during much of the war. after his rather stunning victory in Indo China. only to be recalled to manage the largely hopeless defense of the Phillipines (which he manage to hold out until after Japan surrendered with 1/5 of his army still largely intact. a rather remarkable feat) it should be mused that his eventual (rather crude) trial and execution has a lot of reprecussion even today. as the court thre had largely end up with the conclusion that "he was not guilty himself but must die for the crime of men under him" can be spinned in many ways that may be dubious. (for example, most of the international charges against the USA leaders for war crime in recent essentially cite this trial)

So when the Soviets attacked them at the very end of the war it was basically a one sided slaughter, given that Manchuria's terrain was very suitable for major tank wars, while the Japanese had only rather crappy light "medium" tanks.

Still, in terms of an island invasion of Japan. if Okinawa was any guide, it would have been very ugly regardless of the limited amount of force the Japanese still had at home. documentaries reveal that there were very realistic plans and trainings on going for all sorts of crazy things including massive civilian kamakazi bombs (aka suicide bombers in mass. and mostly women and children ) . how much US lives it would have cost would be unknown, but considering that over 30% of the civilians on Okinawa perished in the fighting, if even anything close to that happened on the main islands of Japan the deathtoll would be mind boggling. (at that point Japan had a total population of 71million, even assuming that a large amount of them were already fighting aboard or died in bombings there were still probably over 50 million folks left on the main islands. even a casaulty rate of 10% overall on the civilians would have resulted in 5 million casualty. which would roughly triple Japan's entire casualty in the war (which was over 8 years.)

Akula
09-18-2012, 05:58 AM
.........Still, in terms of an island invasion of Japan. if Okinawa was any guide, it would have been very ugly regardless of the limited amount of force the Japanese still had at home. documentaries reveal that there were very realistic plans and trainings on going for all sorts of crazy things including massive civilian kamakazi bombs (aka suicide bombers in mass. and mostly women and children ) . how much US lives it would have cost would be unknown, but considering that over 30% of the civilians on Okinawa perished in the fighting, if even anything close to that happened on the main islands of Japan the deathtoll would be mind boggling. (at that point Japan had a total population of 71million, even assuming that a large amount of them were already fighting aboard or died in bombings there were still probably over 50 million folks left on the main islands. even a casaulty rate of 10% overall on the civilians would have resulted in 5 million casualty. which would roughly triple Japan's entire casualty in the war (which was over 8 years.)

Which is why I said there was never any need to invade...or to nuke two cities full of civilians.

Like I said before.

They had no army, they had no navy, they had no air force, they had no natural resources to continue a war, they live on an island.
All we needed to do was blockade them, continue to strategically bomb any targets that needed it and starve them out.

Mister D
09-18-2012, 08:37 AM
Which is why I said there was never any need to invade...or to nuke two cities full of civilians.

Like I said before.

They had no army, they had no navy, they had no air force, they had no natural resources to continue a war, they live on an island.
All we needed to do was blockade them, continue to strategically bomb any targets that needed it and starve them out.

Which would have resulted in many more civilian deaths than the atomic bombs. Starvation, disease, and conventional bombing would have and did in fact take a far heavier toll.

RollingWave
09-18-2012, 09:06 AM
Which is why I said there was never any need to invade...or to nuke two cities full of civilians.

Like I said before.

They had no army, they had no navy, they had no air force, they had no natural resources to continue a war, they live on an island.
All we needed to do was blockade them, continue to strategically bomb any targets that needed it and starve them out.

That is not true, the Japanese still had armies running all over China and around Asia, that they didn't have as much of it in Japan.

Mister D
09-18-2012, 09:10 AM
That is not true, the Japanese still had armies running all over China and around Asia, that they didn't have as much of it in Japan.

Right. The majority of Japanese troops were in China throughout the entire war.

Akula
09-19-2012, 01:31 AM
Which would have resulted in many more civilian deaths than the atomic bombs. Starvation, disease, and conventional bombing would have and did in fact take a far heavier toll.

Speculation.

Akula
09-19-2012, 01:35 AM
Right. The majority of Japanese troops were in China throughout the entire war.


They had no natural resources and no access to any to support a war effort.
Another description of an "army" without supplies/reinforcements is hungry, unarmed civilians.

We didn't nuke two cities in japan to "help" china. You can't possibly believe that.

juliusaugustus
09-19-2012, 01:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1oA47Ti0Iadvance the Flag of Dixie. Hurrah! Hurrah! For Dixie's land we will take our stand to live and die dixie. My favorite lyric is send them back your fierce defiance, stamp upon the cursed alliance

Carygrant
09-19-2012, 05:25 AM
[QUOTE=juliusaugustus;134298 advance the Flag of Dixie. Hurrah! Hurrah! For Dixie's land we will take our stand to live and die dixie. My favorite lyric is send them back your fierce defiance, stamp upon the cursed alliance[/QUOTE]


Just like a Muslim Jihad .
You Terrorists taught them well .

Mister D
09-19-2012, 08:18 AM
Just like a Muslim Jihad .
You Terrorists taught them well .

Your thoughts are becoming as clumsy as your prose. I guess that's appropriate though, bitch tits.

Carygrant
09-19-2012, 01:56 PM
Is that Silly Billy from Shoreditch?
How dare you abuse animals in such perverted ways . Stop trying to contact me , you beast .

Mister D
09-19-2012, 02:28 PM
Is that Silly Billy from Shoreditch?
How dare you abuse animals in such perverted ways . Stop trying to contact me , you beast .

What? :laugh:

RollingWave
09-19-2012, 10:02 PM
They had no natural resources and no access to any to support a war effort.
Another description of an "army" without supplies/reinforcements is hungry, unarmed civilians.

We didn't nuke two cities in japan to "help" china. You can't possibly believe that.

There is a pretty long way between blockaded and "unarmed" . Japan wouldn't be able to do shite against a blockade that is true, but the assumption that they would just all die out there because of it is ridicuals. Japan produces more than enough food to feed itself if hey ration the food adequetly. which everyone in WW2 was doing anyway. meanwhile, the production of rifles and other basic weapon require only miniscule resource that they could easily acquired by (and were to some extend) melting other stuff. it would be laughable to think that if the allies landed they would be facing nothing but bamboo spears.

Sure, the US didn't nuke Japan to help China, but the thing is that the US is also costing a ton of money to maintain a blockade, and had land forces still engagned in the Phillipines and elsewhere, and is also involved in the supplying of China a the least through the Burma - India route. and the truth is, without an invasion or something like the bomb. the whole shite could have dragged on for many more years. the idea that Japan would surrender simply because they may not have a full belly is ridiculas. meanwhile, the abosalute % of civilians being killed in Japan at that point wasn't actually that high. despite being the loser and in the war the longest and operating in the widest range outside of the USA. Japan in the end lost less % of their population than pretty much all eastern Europe states / China and the Phillipines, their colony in Korea suffered roughly as much casaulty as they did.

Also, cold war calculation was already beginning at the end of WW2, with the USSR steamrolling down Manchuria, if the US didn't end the war soon their post war position would be significantly weakened. for example, the original ally agreement on Japan was actually to divide it like they did with Germany occupation, which included Russia holding Hokkaido and China holding Shikoku. now imagine if that became the reality, and while on it's way rolling through China Stalin had already helped Mao into power (he eventually did soon after the war anyway.) and how that would effect say.. the Korean war?

Deadwood
09-19-2012, 10:21 PM
They live on an island. They had no army.They had no navy.They had no air force.
They had no access to the resources necessary to wage war.

I never suggested a"boycott".

My premise is that if we blockaded the ports, continued to strategically bomb any industry and any food production sources and warehouses, they would have surrendered.
If the rest of the world or the other nations japan conquered didn't "like it", tough.
They should be glad we liberated them and STFU. They don't get to set u.s. policy.

No matter how you work around it, nuking 2 cities full of civilians isn't cool.


Or if it is ok to nuke civilians, then we CERTAINLY have NO BUSINESS telling other nations whether THEY can have nukes or not...



I have to weigh in here with personal experience. One of my best friends and mentor is named Akazuki. He was nine years old when McArthur's troops rolled through his home in the outskirts of Tokyo. He tells me that they had been prepared for slaughter, that Americans had horns and ate children.

They were starving. He remembers vividly trying to catch rats and digging in garbage for food for his sister and mother.

They were completely defeated, the troops who were around were as starving as they.

They were astonished to the point of tears when the US troops dropped the tailgates of their trucks and started distributing bags of rice. He recalls vividly they had the Stars and Stripes on them and he was later to know the words "Product of USA."

From his stories, told over many years of hiking the mountains of British Columbia, harvesting Bonzai - the hobby he taught me -- I came to wonder about the "official" version of events. Today, I believe Harry Truman used the atomic bomb for his own political ends.

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 01:21 AM
That is not true, the Japanese still had armies running all over China and around Asia, that they didn't have as much of it in Japan.


Wondered why they have so many good Marathon runners .

Carygrant
09-20-2012, 01:24 AM
What? :laugh:


Splendid . That size of Post looks great coming from you .
You are onto a winner . Never change .

juliusaugustus
09-23-2012, 02:29 AM
Just like a Muslim Jihad .
You Terrorists taught them well .
What does the song have to with terrorism?

Ivan88
09-23-2012, 11:23 PM
First, the Japanese did not want a war with the US. But Roosevelt gave them and ultimatum: leave China or be attacked by the USA. He even rounded up all the obsolete battleships and put them in Pearl Harbor as a show.

So, the Japanese figured, they could stop Roosevelt long enough by eliminating the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Little did they know that Roosevelt was very eager for them to attack. He even had Mac Arthur park his planes close together. The next day after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese went to attack MacArthur's place. He kept the planes on the ground until the Japanese began their attack, and most of his planes were destroyed.

Pearl Harbor was a set up.

2nd. When our nice Talmud reading vice president took over, he kept the war going for months after the Japanese asked to end the war, so he could set up Korea and Manchuria to be taken by the Soviets, and drop nuclear bombs on the 2 main Christian cities of East Asia.

Akula
09-23-2012, 11:34 PM
First, the Japanese did not want a war with the US. But Roosevelt gave them and ultimatum: leave China or be attacked by the USA. He even rounded up all the obsolete battleships and put them in Pearl Harbor as a show.
Link?
Source?


So, the Japanese figured, they could stop Roosevelt long enough by eliminating the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Little did they know that Roosevelt was very eager for them to attack. He even had Mac Arthur park his planes close together. The next day after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese went to attack MacArthur's place. He kept the planes on the ground until the Japanese began their attack, and most of his planes were destroyed.

Pearl Harbor was a set up.

2nd. When our nice Talmud reading vice president took over, he kept the war going for months after the Japanese asked to end the war, so he could set up Korea and Manchuria to be taken by the Soviets, and drop nuclear bombs on the 2 main Christian cities of East Asia.

Link?
Source?

Peter1469
09-24-2012, 08:17 AM
FDR did provoke Japan, but it was via an oil boycott. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm

Akula
09-24-2012, 08:52 AM
FDR did provoke Japan, but it was via an oil boycott. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm

Precisely.