Friday morning links

A new report exposes that the FBI altered the autopsy report on George Floyd so that it would implicate Derek Chauvin. So is it any surprise that a FBI informer in Prison was assigned to kill Chauvin? Tying up loose ends maybe. If Chauvin dies in prison this issue becomes moot and the FBI is off the hook. How deep does the corruption go in our government?

#1 OneGuy on 2023-12-29 09:45 (Reply)

Haley was technically correct, but it's politics

QUOTE:

Q: What was the cause of the United States Civil War?

H: I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do.

Slavery. The South seceded over slavery. Everything else was secondary to that.

#2 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 10:07 (Reply)

Some might argue that the "larger" cause was the ever-increasing economic dominance of the industrial North over the agrarian South, with the South's viability depending on slavery. But the folks in South Carolina spilled the beans on themselves with their Declaration of Succession. Yup, it was slavery.

President Lincoln was an abolitionist who struggled with squaring the circle on slavery all his career, but his focus was on saving the Union:

QUOTE:

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.

A former governor of South Carolina shouldn't get the two motivations mixed up.

#2.1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2023-12-29 10:28 (Reply)

Mike Anderson: Some might argue that the "larger" cause was the ever-increasing economic dominance of the industrial North over the agrarian South

And did!

Well-written comment. We would extend it somewhat. The North and West were burgeoning, in population and economic power. Eventually, if the South remained in the Union, slavery would be ended through political means. The South drew a line at the election of Lincoln, even though Lincoln probably wouldn't have moved towards abolition: The time wasn't yet ripe. But Lincoln knew that preserving the Union would lead to the end of slavery. And the South knew it, too!

Lincoln intended that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth," government on which the freedom of all people, White and Black depended.

#2.2 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 10:45 (Reply)

Slavery was most certainly part of the reason the Southern Democrats seceded. But the North was using all means necessary to stop the competition the South posed to their own businesses and profits. Many of the things the North did to the South were illegal and if their had been fair courts available the North would have lost in court. 98% of Southerners did not own slaves but they had been personally and economically affected by the unfair actions and legislation imposed by wealthy people in the North. To those people, that 98%, the secession was NOT about slavery but about their rights as Americans.

The rich Democrats in the South were wrong to hold slaves and to support the continuation of slavery, we can all agree about that. But to say that slavery was the only issue is not just naive but dishonest.

#3 OneGuy on 2023-12-29 10:17 (Reply)

OneGuy: 98% of Southerners did not own slaves

About 1/3 of free families in the Confederacy owned slaves.

OneGuy: To those people, that 98%, the secession was NOT about slavery but about their rights as Americans.

We know why they seceded. They wrote it down and voted on it. It was to protect their explicitly racist chattel slavery institution.

QUOTE:

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy: Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

Georgia: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Texas {in a truly perverse rewriting of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 10:26 (Reply)

Yes! Some of the rich Southern Democrats did indeed say that their reasons for secession was slavery. A very tiny minority of Southerners could afford to own a slave. A slave cost more to buy than the entire yearly income of 98% of Southerners. It is simply a lie to claim that a large percentage of Southerners owned slaves. It is a lie that is necessary to hide all of the reasons that the South choose to leave the union. The federal government at that time was dominated by rich influencers (does that sound familiar?) who were using the bureaucracy and courts to economically punish the South. Most Southerners were barely scraping by and the North imposed laws that made their lives worse and those laws and issues had nothing at all to do with slavery. Quite simply if the country had ONLY the issue of slavery to deal with most Southerners would not have cared. But the North instead using the classic left wing tactic basically called all Southerners DEPLORABLE and tried to use the laws and bureaucracy to hold them down and cause them harm (again does that sound familiar?).

#3.1.1 OneGuy on 2023-12-29 10:49 (Reply)

OneGuy: A very tiny minority of Southerners could afford to own a slave.

You could buy a slave on payments. Putting the slave to work could pay for itself over time.

OneGuy: It is simply a lie to claim that a large percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

The Census showed that 30.8% of free families in the Confederacy owned slaves.

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 11:00 (Reply)

So you imply, with that statement that 30.8% of the population owned slaves. A careful reader might ask: Did every person in that 30% slice own a slave? Every single member of those families, owned slaves?

Without trying very hard, I can think of 50 family members right this minute. If one member of family, maybe even a more distant relative than I immediately considered, owned a slave, would I and my immediate family be so grouped?

That's a remarkably misleading statement, to imply those kinds of numbers. So misleading, I would considering it abutting a "Lie" And to back this up, you link a picture without an attribution. But then, you are on the cutting edge of misleading and duplicitous arguments.

#3.1.1.1.1 Aggie on 2023-12-29 11:25 (Reply)

"So misleading, I would considering it abutting a "Lie"

I have pointed this out in so many instances that I am surprised anyone still argues in good faith with the Zachriel-ChatGPT Borg collective.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 eeyore on 2023-12-29 12:30 (Reply)

Aggie: Did every person in that 30% slice own a slave?

In census records, family refers to a household family.

A farmer who, with his wife and three daughters, buys a slave to expand his crop to a new field to increase their income, would count as a family with a slave.
A young Scarlett O'Hara was dressed by slaves, fed by slaves, her home built by slaves, her life sustained by slaves. She was not a slaveholder of record, but was certainly a member of a family that owned slaves.
A middle-class couple with children living in Charleston who buy a slave to help with the cooking and cleaning would be a family with a slave.

About 1/3 of free families in the Confederacy owned slaves. The data comes from the U.S. census of 1860.

#3.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 11:35 (Reply)

The 1860 census instructions equates the abode and family: "every person whose usual place of abode on the 1st day of June, 1860, was in this family".

#3.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 11:53 (Reply)

What was the cost of a slave in 1860?
What was the typical income of a poor to middle class Southerner in 1860?

I think an honest answer to these two questions would show that a slave actually cost 2-3 times a the yearly income of a poor to middle class Southerner at that time. It simply makes no sense to try to claim that these people would choose to go without eating for three years so they could buy a slave so she could help he daughters dress or help the wife cook. You have to ignore a lot of truth to even begin to believe what you are claiming.

But all of this begs the question. Almost all of the Southerners who went to war against the North did not own a slave and could never own a slave. THEY didn't go to war for slavery. THEY went to war for what they considered the North infringing on their constitutional rights. The Southerners were proud people, as they should be scraping a living out of the land. They resented a handful of rich Northerners and politicians insulting them and crushing them and they believed they had the right to secede. They did not think they were declaring war they thought that they were reclaiming their freedom and "divorcing" themselves from the North.

#3.1.1.1.2.2 OneGuy on 2023-12-29 12:29 (Reply)

OneGuy: What was the cost of a slave in 1860?

Slaves topped out at about $1000-$2000. Median salary income was about $500 per year, though land ownership was widespread.

Why would they go without eating? They could mortgage their land, or they could mortgage the slave, and make payments. Save up a down payment. And for someone just getting started in building wealth, they could buy a used slave for about $500. For a farmer, which was 80% of the economy of the South, that could easily pay for itself.

OneGuy: Almost all of the Southerners who went to war against the North did not own a slave and could never own a slave.

Constantly repeating a statement doesn't make it true. Half the free families in Mississippi owned slaves, a third overall in the Confederacy. And many other people aspired to owning slaves. See the U.S. Census for 1860.

OneGuy: THEY went to war for what they considered the North infringing on their constitutional rights.

The Constitutional right they went to war over was the "right" to own slaves. We know, because they said so. White supremacy and slavery were the very "corner-stone" of the Confederacy.

#3.1.1.1.2.3 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 13:20 (Reply)

Your answer about the cost of a slave is about right. However you are way out of the ballpark on yearly income. Poor and middle class Southerners in 1860 were indigent scraping a living off the land and their yearly income was closer to $50 a year. Many saw far less actual cash and traded their meager goods for necessities. They simply did not own nor could they buy slaves.

#3.1.1.1.2.3.1 OneGuy on 2023-12-29 19:59 (Reply)

OneGuy: Poor and middle class Southerners in 1860 were indigent scraping a living off the land and their yearly income was closer to $50 a year.

And yet, a third of free families in the Confederacy owned slaves, half in Mississippi.

In any case, even unskilled farmhands in Mississippi made $200 per year (including board), so a father and two sons could make $600 per year for the household, not including the female members of the household Mortgages on slaves were often for several years, so payment on a used slave would be affordable for a working family. Indeed, the slave could be lent out for work and earn enough for the slave owner to make the payment and a handy profit. (A great deal if you can force people to work for free. Not so great for the slave, though.) If the slave owner owned or rented land, the profits could be even greater.

#3.1.1.1.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 21:17 (Reply)

You lie by omission. It is doubtful at best and an outright lie that "third of free families in the Confederacy owned slaves". So what is it you are hiding? Wait! "free families"? WTF! It is likely that far less than 10% of families in the South, including Mississippi, owned slaves. Almost all the slaves were owned by a handful of rich plantation owners. Almost all the Southerners in 1860 lived lives barely better than slaves. It was a hardscrabble living and they didn't earn $200 a year in cash. They "may" have earned the equivalent of $200 a year but none of it in cash. This isn't secret or unknown history. You know it is true as does everyone else who studied American history. Why are you lying about something this unimportant???

#3.1.1.1.2.3.2.1 OneGuy on 2023-12-30 17:20 (Reply)

OneGuy: It is doubtful at best and an outright lie that "third of free families in the Confederacy owned slaves".

Turns out the United States counted all the people, free and slave, in every state in 1860, just like they do every ten years. And the data from that census is available on the internet, which you were provided. We also provided you the 1860 census instructions for how they conducted the census, including how they counted families. We provided you an actual mortgage document that shows how a mortgage on several slaves was amortized over a number of years with a payment which was about 13% of the principal. We then provided a document showing the average cash wage for Mississippi farmhands including board was $200 per year.

Your argument in the face of this documentary evidence is “Is not!”

#3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-12-30 20:21 (Reply)

I don't know if every southern state held a popular vote on secession, but in those that did, there was overwhelming support to secede with some counties voting 100%.

One could see why the plantation owners wanted secession, but they were a tiny minority. It is difficult to believe that slavery was the issue that influenced the rest of the vote.

#3.2 feeblemind on 2023-12-29 10:36 (Reply)

feeblemind: I don't know if every southern state held a popular vote on secession

In most cases, elected representatives wrote down their reasons; white supremacy and chattel slavery; then voted on it.

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 10:50 (Reply)

link please.

#3.2.1.1 feeblemind on 2023-12-29 12:03 (Reply)

It will take some time to find the right prompt.

#3.2.1.1.1 eeyore on 2023-12-29 12:37 (Reply)

See 3.1 above. If you want the original documents, you can start with this perversion of the U.S. Declaration of Independence by Texas: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

#3.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 13:25 (Reply)

And how is that any different than what Lincoln is known to have said?
If anyone cares to check, they would find that a depression quite similar to the 'great depression' was ending at the time that the war between the states began. Northerners in some New England states were threatening succession if added taxes were added to liquor. In the end, the northerners taxed southern cotton to a degree that 80% of all collected taxes came from the south. It should be no surprise that taxes became the boiling point between north and south.

#3.2.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-12-29 13:54 (Reply)

I have no idea what brought that Marxist bot to this forum. I'm guessing that like all monsters it needs to feed on negativity. It will never meet you half way on an issue. It NEEDS to be right. It can't live with itself otherwise.

#3.2.1.1.2.1.1 Lord Heathen on 2023-12-29 22:08 (Reply)

Lord Heathen: It will never meet you half way on an issue.

We’re more than happy to meet on common ground—and often seek to do so, including by pointing to commonalities of general agreement, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence. But facts are facts.

The original post brought up the causes of the U.S. Civil War. Pointing to the Articles of Secession voted on by the states is a strong argument that slavery was the fundamental issue.

Slavery was a divisive issue at the founding. The country became increasingly consumed by the issue in the lead up to the Civil War. And it was the election of a Republican, a party founded to oppose slavery, that sparked the conflict. Then, incidentally, racial oppression consumed the country for a century or more after that.

#3.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-12-29 22:22 (Reply)

We’re more than happy to meet on common ground

This is so laughably un-self aware.

#3.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 eeyore on 2023-12-31 14:08 (Reply)

Maybe Barack Obama promised Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows that she could have his baby if she took Trump off the ballot.

#4 RebeccaH on 2023-12-29 10:23 (Reply)

I didn't know a child could be conceived without a male being involved.

#4.1 James on 2023-12-29 21:03 (Reply)

Most European countries have been telling their citizens to stock up on food and necessities in preparation for or in the event of nuclear war. This has been going on for a few years now. It is usually low key and probably about half of the countries simply refer to "war" and not "nuclear war". This kind of talk from governments was almost unheard of 3-4 years ago. Something has them worried. This isn't simply about Ukraine.

Meanwhile China has just passed a law making it illegal to take pictures of their military or troop movements. Experts believe this is an indicator of a possible invasion of Tiawan.

#5 Anon on 2023-12-29 10:37 (Reply)

It is interesting the number of people that are upset about slavery that occurred over 150 years ago but could give a hoot about slavery that is occurring now. I smell a money grab.

#6 Don on 2023-12-29 10:42 (Reply)

Marxist Americans are the only group stuck on slavery as a means to minimize the importance of the founding fathers. Ms Warren is one of those Americans who find it necessary to remove as much early history of the US as possible in order to rewrite history as it suits them. The fake Indian who used her fake race bio to get where she is prefers American history begin with Woodrow Wilson. Not a word from her or any of her co- academics on the current Islamic or Chinese slave issues or on the historical slavery of the Dahomey state.

#6.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-12-29 14:13 (Reply)

re A Reckoning for a Wrecked America

I see Costco and Wal-Mart are now selling gold in 1 oz. bars.

Wal-Mart's is sold online and when they get a shipment in, it is sold out in hours.

Clearly, the little people are worried at what the Left is doing to the country.

One wonders how surprised the Libs will be when they flip the light switch and nothing happens and visit a grocery store with bare shelves?

The $64 question is, how long have we got?

I don't know, but I don't think the end comes in 2024. My dart board guess is that we have some good years left. 10-20 perhaps?

#7 feeblemind on 2023-12-29 10:49 (Reply)

We do not have 20 years left and likely not 10 years. There is a good posting today over at Survival blog by Brandon Smith. Well worth a read if you want to see the only two available roads to poverty.
If you actually measure the value of the stock market in ounces of gold, you will find the stock market topped out in 1999. If you measure it in FRN's you will find out it topped out about two years ago. The problem with measuring the markets using dollars is that there is no longer a definition of what an FRN is. So it is quite subject to the feds inflationary policies and keeps loosing value.

#7.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-12-29 14:23 (Reply)

Mayor Eric Adams: Illegal Immigration Spurring ‘Erosion of Quality of Life’ in New York City

Apparent Mayor Adams and his cronies think "erosion" doesn't occur in the states along the southern border. What a clueless dork.

#8 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2023-12-29 11:28 (Reply)

The Civil War was caused by Republicans wanting the Democrats to free their slaves.

#9 John Fisher on 2023-12-29 12:27 (Reply)

Vagrant of Rhodes observes the obvious and inescapable consequences of intentionally choosing to believe lies over the historical and observable truth.

Today at https://voxday.net

#10 indyjonesouthere on 2023-12-29 15:00 (Reply)

It's pretty clear who they are and what they are.

https://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/10-4.png

#11 Zachinoff on 2023-12-29 15:43 (Reply)

Regarding slave ownership, I watched a genealogy show on PBS a couple of years back (not the one hosted by Dr Gates) in which an African American family in (I think it was) South Carolina asked if family lore claiming they were free blacks as far back as the early 19th century in the state was true.

The researcher was able to confirm that their ancestors were actually already freemen at the time of the American Revolution.

But she also showed them something else: pre-Civil War census records that listed the age and sex of every slave owned by their ancestors. They were pretty speechless, as I recall.

The researcher simply noted that, as freemen, it was perfectly legal for them to own chattel of any variety - including slaves.

#12 JJM on 2023-12-29 18:27 (Reply)

There are many costs to this unchecked and unvetted illegal immigration. Many of them are rapists, murders and criminals. The number of deaths of Americans will double with this latest influx of illegals. Rapes and other crimes will increase too. But there is another penalty regular Americans must endure and that is more disease and the deaths and suffering that will come with that. This is no surprise. The Democrat engineers of this latest massive invasion knew this would happen but they don't care about the deplorables. Your children will be exposed to disease we have eradicated and diseases you never heard of and they will bring them home to mom and dad and grandparents. The MSM will go out their way to not report this and when they must they will downplay it. But make no mistake, thousands of Americans will die from diseases brought here intentionally. Thank a Democrat when you see one.

#13 Anon on 2023-12-29 19:50 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, December 29. 2023

Friday morning links