We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, August 30. 2017
21st century Americans shouldn’t pick a side in the Civil War - Both Lincoln and the Confederacy were awful
Greenfield: The Left's Values Are Our State Church
How To "Solve" All Known Human Problems: Spend Some Of The Infinite Free Federal Money
Scandal Erupts over the Promotion of ‘Bourgeois’ Behavior
The not-so-latent totalitarian impulses of the Left creep me out
Jim Acosta Attacks POTUS Trump’s Uplifting Speech to Texans – Trump Supporters Respond
"For years, engineers have warned that Houston was a flood disaster in the making. Why didn't somebody do something?"
MONTAGE: MEDIA POLITICIZE HURRICANE HARVEY, BLAME GLOBAL WARMING, MOCK GOP
But even the climate experts disagree
Wealthy Danish (and Swedish) families often escape to the US - but it's difficult for Europeans to obtain US citizenship and Europeans do not want to be illegal
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
21st century Americans shouldn’t pick a side in the Civil War - Both Lincoln and the Confederacy were awful
The Union was the right side of the Civil War. Just as the South made clear they were fighting to preserve slavery and white supremacy, Lincoln made his reasons clear as well, saying
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Christopher B: "I would save the Union."
That's exactly right. Lincoln put saving the American Republic from dissolution before any other issue.
Of course, that's exactly what worried the South. They knew that the burgeoning northern population would eventually have sufficient political power so as to end slavery through constitutional means. Hence secession.
Lincoln knew this, too, and also knew that everyone's freedom was tied up together — in Union. Hence war.
You don't know anything about Am History.
Every state had the right to secede. They all joined the union willingly, and had the right to leave.
Ergo, Lincoln was a tyrant who cost the lives of 600K men.
The rest of your post is just more of your nonsense. You just never stop being wrong.
DrTorch: Every state had the right to secede. They all joined the union willingly, and had the right to leave.
Consider if the U.S. went to war, and one or several of the states decided to join with the enemy. That was certainly not the vision of the founders. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. A state can leave the Union by the same method they joined, with the consent of the other states.
The republicans made it absolutely clear for over 8 years that Obamacare was going to be thrown out...now that was the rhetoric but what was the reality?
indyjonesouthere: The republicans made it absolutely clear for over 8 years that Obamacare was going to be thrown out...now that was the rhetoric but what was the reality?
They aren't Lincoln, and it wasn't the Gettysburg Address. Surely, any reasonably astute observe knew they were pandering to their base.
They were exactly what Lincoln was...a damned politician that will say what is necessary to get elected and re-elected. Politicians have never changed. It is why I voted for Trump, to see if non-politicians can be trusted.
indyjonesouthere: They were exactly what Lincoln was...a damned politician
Lincoln was certainly a politician, but he also had some understanding of the human condition, believing that survival of republicanism depended on union, and that the time of emancipation was at hand.
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free"
Didn't realize that would post.
Also, there is nothing in the Gettysburg address that addresses slavery. The "great task remaining before us" is not abolition. It is "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.", i.e. that the Union will be preserved.
Not to say that resolving the issue of slavery was not an important outcome of the Civil War, or that it was not a important factor in why the war started, but just as a reminder that in no way was Lincoln's (or the North's) primary objective freeing the South's slaves.
Christopher B: Also, there is nothing in the Gettysburg address that addresses slavery.
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that *all men are created equal*."
Here is a good piece from Cornell and don't forget the articles in the side bar !
"21st century Americans shouldn’t pick a side in the Civil War - Both Lincoln and the Confederacy were awful"
Above and beyond all that, picking "sides" over a war that was fought a) 152 years ago and b) resulted in the comprehensive defeat of the Confederacy, seems a tad moot.
"NASA wants to prevent the Yellowstone super volcano from destroying the US"
Well, that is quite a pivot from their most recent priority:
"NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims.html
I don't know if I'd call that last mission a success.
Eh. It's been done.
We might get a new moon out of it, though.
(Google up the movie 'Crack In The World'. 1965.)
There is a movement to disparage Lincoln and justify/rewrite the decisions of the South in the civil war. This confusion is compounded by very real and known inconsistencies in what, exactly caused the war. The North, the "big business" and Northern politicians were indeed unfairly punishing the South long before April 12, 1961 and the assault on Fort Sumter. These legitimate grievances are what motivated the massive enlistment in the South by hundreds of thousands of Southerners who did not own slaves. Lincoln did not "cause" this it was done by congress by big business in the North and by the equivalent of Todays Chamber of Commerce. These were powerful special interest groups who were jealous of the growing wealth and power of the South and wanted to push them out of competition. When the war began and when those hundreds of thousands of men enlisted to fight it was not about or only about slavery.
As a side note, it is interesting that after the war ended the and the slaves were freed, that the North through congress continued to punish the South and in fact doubled down to grind them into the dust even to the detriment of the former slaves. The powerful Northern businessmen and politicians punished and looted the old South for decades after the war.
Preserve the Union?
I wonder how many people would support going to war to prevent California from succeeding.
[url] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-07-25/california-secession-campaign-can-start-gathering-signatures [-url]
A union preserved by force is an empire, not a voluntary union. See Soviet Union.
Let them go, but charge them to leave like the EU is trying to do with the UK. Keep ownership of the Federal lands (like Guantanamo) and sea access (San Diego and southernmost Cal actual citizens likely don't want to secede). Put tariffs on silicon valley enterprises, and limit visas for antifa and other communists (don't let them migrate and polute the rest of the country - build a wall!!).
DoD, DOE and other gov't labs, universities, and water, charge them for WATER!
Wouldn't be long before crushing debt would drive them back to US. Then make them a territory again, w/ a Fed appointed governor. Purge them of their nonsense.
I forgot to add a prohibition on hiring or entry of Berkeley graduates, Berkeley "so-called-police", and anyone named "Governor Moonbeam".
Benefits include "losing" large numbers of Dem congresscritters such an maxine waters, adam schiff, dianne feinstein, nancy pelosi, kamalla harris, ect. none of whom could get rich from us government connections.
And major, major tariffs on anything from hollywood and its "stars"
"I forgot to add a prohibition on hiring or entry of Berkeley graduates . . . .
Well, I guess it's "game over" for me. And my Dad and uncles, if they were still alive. They would call it "Cal" anyway. (Berkeley's a town, not a university, at least in the old days.)
Jim, its not your grandfather's berkeley anymore, back when the california school and university. system were functional. "Berkeley" is now a violent, destructive religion, not a city. By the process of secondary meaning, "Berkeley" symbolizes a cancerous parasite which threatens and poisons the civilization it infests.
I hope you don't make any donations to support your alma mater's nurturance of thugs and red-guard wannabes
Gitmo's in Cuba. How about Army forts, Navy and AF bases.
Sam, not just DoD installations, but all US Federal land and property (national parks, lakes, reservoirs, forests, buildings, and access to the Pacific (eg, San Diego and eastward) should be retained.
The Cal congressional delegation has a whopping 53 congresscritters, 39 of whom are democrats, including both senators. Losing them would help a lot in draining the swamp.
I discovered something fascinating today. As a condition of admission to the Union, Texas was given the right to divide itself up and create four new states (for a total of five).
Can you imagine if the Texas legislature passed legislation splitting Texas up in pieces, which would potentially give Texans and Republicans 8 more U.S. Senators?
California, their judges, legislature and NGO's have consistently done damage to the constitution and states rights. Under the constitution (not necessarily how the Supreme court and lower courts have interpreted it) the states have more than ample freedom and rights separate from the federal government. If we abide by the constitution there is no need to secede. It would set a bad precedent and lead to more secessions. And it would hurt all the states and citizens who remained. No, for better or worse we are in this together to the end. We won't allow California to cut of it's nose to spite the other 49 states.
GWTW, Much of california is sliding into decay and doesn't want to be part of a productive US, or the "old" constitutional values. Northern and central california could form a country with quebec, which really doesn't want to be part of a productive canada, and the remaining US could unite with western canada which has different values than the quebecois and many other canadians.
Britain is geographically as contiguous as Hawaii - they may be looking for a better alignment than with the centrally-dominant, unelected EU autocracy.
There are better alternatives to civil war. Countries aren't set in immutable stone.
There are certain geographical and political truths. If California was geographically located where Guam is then indeed it would be easy and not unreasonable to separate from the U.S. The U.S. government owns millions of acres in California I assume that California would have to cede that to the U.S. and legally allow public access. Many U.S. citizens live in California and own land and any secession would have to grant them their existing rights. I could go on but you see the complications. That is exactly why most secessions must be by force and involve a purge and perhaps lots of death. Two or two million Californians cannot simply "take" what belongs to the other millions of California OR to the hundred of millions of Americans. California does NOT belong to a handful of dissidents it belongs to millions who do not want to leave the union AND it belongs to the union. So absent the will and the means to fight and take California by force it is not going anywhere, it is staying in the union, period.
Both Houston & New Orleans should've used zoning laws to keep homes from being built in or near flood zones. Both places know that they get flooding. Both places rely on dams & levees to keep water from inundating their communities. The smart thing would be to reclaim these flood zones and create 'green areas' where excess water can be absorbed and, if flooded, very little gets damaged or destroyed.
After Katrina, I thought they should've not allowed rebuilding in certain areas. Many people left New Orleans at that time and didn't return. Would've been a perfect time to enact some zoning changes. Instead, they rebuilt and pretend like New Orleans must stay exactly the same.
"Infinite Free Federal Money" is neither infinite nor free. Except for those who cannot begin to understand economics.
Jim Acosta really has a hate on for Trump.
Why nobody did anything about Houston: No political will? Too many rich folks against it? Too many poor folks against it? Those three, and more?
Denmark gets smart: Will the EU make them reverse those decisions?