PDA

View Full Version : 2010 - The Second American Revolution



M&K's Retrievers
10-07-2009, 10:04 PM
I believe it's starting now...

Franco
10-07-2009, 10:38 PM
If the second American Revolution doesn't happen, the second Civil War certainly will!

It is only a matter of time before the out-of-control borrowing and printing of money catches up with us.

M&K's Retrievers
10-07-2009, 10:55 PM
If the second American Revolution doesn't happen, the second Civil War certainly will!

It is only a matter of time before the out-of-control borrowing and printing of money catches up with us.

I'm afraid you are correct.

JDogger
10-07-2009, 11:01 PM
I believe it's starting now...

Wanna be a little less cryptic, and maybe a little more specific? Just what do you see or portend? How would this make the world of 2009-2010 change and/or go away? How would an American revolution in the first part of the 21st century bring us back to what you imagine we once were? It might just throw us so firmly into the third, or even the fourth world, (where things are really bad) that we never recover, and we become the 'giant that was'.
Talk of revolution and secession do not benefit us.
2010 is coming, and if the pendulum does not swing back fully, it will eventually.
Many of us see ourselves as a country divided, but our common interests stll bind us together.
If the experiment fails, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

JD

M&K's Retrievers
10-07-2009, 11:07 PM
The revolution I was refering to was a house cleaning in Washington not guns, picks and shovels.

Buzz
10-07-2009, 11:08 PM
That does it for me. Now I know you guys are nut cases. Channeling Glen Beck again.:(

Franco, your signature line should read, to protect themselves from the nut cases.

JDogger
10-07-2009, 11:14 PM
The revolution I was refering to was a house cleaning in Washington not guns, picks and shovels.

Well, good then. You see what specificity will gain you.

I concur.

JD

Bruce MacPherson
10-08-2009, 02:09 AM
Wanna be a little less cryptic, and maybe a little more specific? Just what do you see or portend? How would this make the world of 2009-2010 change and/or go away? How would an American revolution in the first part of the 21st century bring us back to what you imagine we once were? It might just throw us so firmly into the third, or even the fourth world, (where things are really bad) that we never recover, and we become the 'giant that was'.
Talk of revolution and secession do not benefit us.
2010 is coming, and if the pendulum does not swing back fully, it will eventually.
Many of us see ourselves as a country divided, but our common interests stll bind us together.
If the experiment fails, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

JD

I assume you are referring to the American experiment? Do we blame ourselves or just those apparently unaware of it's intentional derailment by this merry band of Marxists?
Yes the pendulum will swing back but what damage done in the meantime?

luvalab
10-08-2009, 05:20 AM
Marxism? I think not.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9170b5f2-b10f-11de-b06b-00144feabdc0.html

The machine has NOT changed.

Bob Gutermuth
10-08-2009, 08:17 AM
We will soon have a nation modeled on the Weimar Republic. Everyone knows what followed that.

paul young
10-08-2009, 12:11 PM
some of you seem to be confused; is the present administration marxist/socialist or fascist?

these ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Bob, especially, seems enjoy drawing comparisons to nazi fascists, which i find troubling.

there's a lot of bitterness and loathing in so many of the posts on this forum, but when someone says one of them is aligning with the extreme right or left media, they always deny it.

most of the country is trying to work towards bettering our lot. a few want to lob rocks over the fence they themselves have made.

like it or not, the President was elected by popular and electoral vote. i believe he will try to do the best he can for our country. some here seem to think he is the architect of some diabolical plot to ruin our nation. at least that's what you infer.

we are all Americans and we're all human. we have much more in common than we have differences. i wish everyone here would acknowledge that and work towards a better future rather than sit on the sidelines and hope we fail.-Paul

dnf777
10-08-2009, 02:18 PM
some of you seem to be confused; is the present administration marxist/socialist or fascist?

these ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Bob, especially, seems enjoy drawing comparisons to nazi fascists, which i find troubling.

there's a lot of bitterness and loathing in so many of the posts on this forum, but when someone says one of them is aligning with the extreme right or left media, they always deny it.

most of the country is trying to work towards bettering our lot. a few want to lob rocks over the fence they themselves have made.

like it or not, the President was elected by popular and electoral vote. i believe he will try to do the best he can for our country. some here seem to think he is the architect of some diabolical plot to ruin our nation. at least that's what you infer.

we are all Americans and we're all human. we have much more in common than we have differences. i wish everyone here would acknowledge that and work towards a better future rather than sit on the sidelines and hope we fail.-Paul

Nice to hear voice of reason.

WaterDogRem
10-08-2009, 02:42 PM
Whose sitting on the sidelines?

YardleyLabs
10-08-2009, 02:51 PM
As HEW noted on another thread, those that use the term neo-con are normally using it as a general epithet for conservatives with little understanding of what the term actually means. The same is true for virtually every use of the terms socialist, Marxist, and fascist on this forum: all are used without regard for actual meaning as general epithets for anyone to the left of the right wing of the Republican Party.

luvalab
10-08-2009, 07:27 PM
some of you seem to be confused; is the present administration marxist/socialist or fascist?

these ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Bob, especially, seems enjoy drawing comparisons to nazi fascists, which i find troubling.

there's a lot of bitterness and loathing in so many of the posts on this forum, but when someone says one of them is aligning with the extreme right or left media, they always deny it.

most of the country is trying to work towards bettering our lot. a few want to lob rocks over the fence they themselves have made.

like it or not, the President was elected by popular and electoral vote. i believe he will try to do the best he can for our country. some here seem to think he is the architect of some diabolical plot to ruin our nation. at least that's what you infer.

we are all Americans and we're all human. we have much more in common than we have differences. i wish everyone here would acknowledge that and work towards a better future rather than sit on the sidelines and hope we fail.-Paul

I generally, actually, agree with what you say, though perhaps I am not quite as optimistic.

Case in point: I think a huge proportion of us have been pretty dumb as citizens the past decade or more, and I think that we ALL have to be a whole lot smarter if we're going to improve our collective lot and not tear each other apart over false issues.

I would like to see, as one of the first steps, a collective cry of outrage over poor media coverage of real issues, and a genuine respect and support for reporters who are actually attempting to uncover truths.

I don't know if the politicians are architects... or pawns... or something else, perhaps some of them even something good. Or maybe not.

Getting at the truth about the financial world and how it really works, and where and how and why it intersects with the political world--THAT is a topic worthy of some serious non-partisan investigation and reporting, IMO.

Uncle Bill
10-08-2009, 07:28 PM
As HEW noted on another thread, those that use the term neo-con are normally using it as a general epithet for conservatives with little understanding of what the term actually means. The same is true for virtually every use of the terms socialist, Marxist, and fascist on this forum: all are used without regard for actual meaning as general epithets for anyone to the left of the right wing of the Republican Party.


Ah yes...the OMNISCIENT Yardley has spoken. Only HE has the wisdom to be the erudite soul with the understanding of how stupid we conservatives are.

If you don't see how this administration is becoming a very real form of fascism, you are blinded by the light of your messiah.

But just for chuckles and grins, let's examine just what that "fascism" word means, so all of us idjits know what we are referring to.

Mr. Webster tells us: fascism (sometimes F) a system of government characterized by strict one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism etc.

Ummmmm, Ummmmm, Ummmmmm...pretty much the direction we seem to be headed.

As far as the usage of Marxist and socialist, one was developed by the other, although Marxism was more tied to communism, and thus considered more heinous than little ol' socialism...but then, that's usually in the eye of the beer holder, eh.

There actually are some conservatives that might cut you a little slack on here...you do bring some intelligence to your posts. Just stop attempting to be the big fish in the small pond, Yardley, and puhleeze try to hide your contemptuous arrogance.

What you and many on the left see as some flag waving redneck ignorance about certain facets of this government takeover of our freedoms, rest assured it is not stupidity...it is PASSION about what this nation stands for, and how we see these freedoms being legislated away.

UB

JDogger
10-08-2009, 07:36 PM
...you do bring some intelligence to your posts. Just stop attempting to be the big fish in the small pond, and puhleeze try to hide your contemptuous arrogance.
UB

Pot meet Kettle.

JD

YardleyLabs
10-08-2009, 07:39 PM
Ah yes...the OMNISCIENT Yardley has spoken. Only HE has the wisdom to be the erudite soul with the understanding of how stupid we conservatives are.

If you don't see how this administration is becoming a very real form of fascism, you are blinded by the light of your messiah.

But just for chuckles and grins, let's examine just what that "fascism" word means, so all of us idjits know what we are referring to.

Mr. Webster tells us: fascism (sometimes F) a system of government characterized by strict one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism etc.

Ummmmm, Ummmmm, Ummmmmm...pretty much the direction we seem to be headed.

As far as the usage of Marxist and socialist, one was developed by the other, although Marxism was more tied to communism, and thus considered more heinous than little ol' socialism...but then, that's usually in the eye of the beer holder, eh.

There actually are some conservatives that might cut you a little slack on here...you do bring some intelligence to your posts. Just stop attempting to be the big fish in the small pond, Yardley, and puhleeze try to hide your contemptuous arrogance.

What you and many on the left see as some flag waving redneck ignorance about certain facets of this government takeover of our freedoms, rest assured it is not stupidity...it is PASSION about what this nation stands for, and how we see these freedoms being legislated away.

UB
From Merriam Webster:

Facism:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism#) headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of armyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism#) fascism and brutality J. W. Aldridge>


I would say we were closer under the prior administration, but no American government has even come close. On those occasions when we have played at the fringes, the impetus has generally come from the right: e.g., Joe McCarthy and the House un-American Activities Committee during the 1950's.

dnf777
10-08-2009, 09:03 PM
What you and many on the left see as some flag waving redneck ignorance about certain facets of this government takeover of our freedoms, rest assured it is not stupidity...it is PASSION about what this nation stands for, and how we see these freedoms being legislated away.

UB

Just curious...does that apply to the rednecks waving the Confederate flag? You know, the part what our nation stands for?

Bruce MacPherson
10-08-2009, 09:48 PM
some of you seem to be confused; is the present administration marxist/socialist or fascist?

these ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Bob, especially, seems enjoy drawing comparisons to nazi fascists, which i find troubling.

there's a lot of bitterness and loathing in so many of the posts on this forum, but when someone says one of them is aligning with the extreme right or left media, they always deny it.

most of the country is trying to work towards bettering our lot. a few want to lob rocks over the fence they themselves have made.

like it or not, the President was elected by popular and electoral vote. i believe he will try to do the best he can for our country. some here seem to think he is the architect of some diabolical plot to ruin our nation. at least that's what you infer.

we are all Americans and we're all human. we have much more in common than we have differences. i wish everyone here would acknowledge that and work towards a better future rather than sit on the sidelines and hope we fail.-Paul

There is no question that this President wants to fundamentally change this country. He has said as much and his actions really do not leave much doubt. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it can be argued, that this is a good thing or a bad thing but it would be the highest form of naivety, in my opinion, to believe that this President has anything but contempt for those that don't share his view of the world.
Why on earth would I hope a President who's policies and views are almost diametrically opposed to what I believe in succeed?

M&K's Retrievers
10-08-2009, 10:49 PM
There is no question that this President wants to fundamentally change this country. He has said as much and his actions really do not leave much doubt. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it can be argued, that this is a good thing or a bad thing but it would be the highest form of naivety, in my opinion, to believe that this President has anything but contempt for those that don't share his view of the world.
Why on earth would I hope a President who's policies and views are almost diametrically opposed to what I believe in succeed?

And that is why we will see the Second American Revolution... hopefully on both sides of the asile.

YardleyLabs
10-09-2009, 08:38 AM
There is no question that this President wants to fundamentally change this country. He has said as much and his actions really do not leave much doubt. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it can be argued, that this is a good thing or a bad thing but it would be the highest form of naivety, in my opinion, to believe that this President has anything but contempt for those that don't share his view of the world.
Why on earth would I hope a President who's policies and views are almost diametrically opposed to what I believe in succeed?
Efforts to fundamentally change our country began in 1994 with a "Contract With America" that helped Republicans gain control of Congress. However, the contents of the Contract had nothing to do with the revolution beyond helping to gather votes. Nothing was ever done to implement it. Instead, what we saw was the remaking of the Republican Party into the "anti" party: anti-tax (not anti-deficit), anti-liberal, anti any social programs developed since the Depression and, above all else, anti-Clinton because he had successfully co-opted Republican commitments to fiscal conservatism.

The efforts succeeded in many ways. In large part this was because of scorched earth tactics that reflected an attitude that the country was only worth saving if it reflected the narrow minded image of an increasingly conservative leadership. In part, it also reflected the view of many good citizens that we were straying too far from some of our core values as a country. But the fundamental strategies followed by the Republican leadership were flawed and left our country economically and diplomatically worse off, a fact obvious to the majority of voters.

As a consequence, the pendulum began to swing back with the Democratic congressional victories in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008. Hopefully, the moderates of both parties will reject the partisan extremes of both. For now, however, the right wing of the GOP is trying to knock off moderate Republicans so that conservatives will be the only alternative offered to Obama in 2010. The reality is that victories by moderate Republicans would do more damage to conservative hopes than Democratic victories because that could swing the entire center of the Party toward the middle.

On the Democratic side, there are also some interesting developments. The more liberal end of the party is battling what they view as the turncoats in the Senate who are opposing a public option in the health bill. On this issue, as on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has been moving more and more to the center, dismaying the progressives who believed they owned his presidency. In his efforts on the economy, health care, and the wars, Obama has clearly decided to back burner a number of other priorities that are important to the left. Both the left and the Republican right are hoping to push the administration to confront these issues now: the left to take advantage of current voting strength and to flush out what they view as the "DINO's" (Democrats in name only), and conservatives in an effort to marginalize the administration as battles for the 2010 Congress heat up.

The next few months, as the administration deals with the economy, health care, and Afghanistan will be critical. To succeed, the administration needs to avoid being diverted from these core issues. It needs a quick victory on health care even if that requires a 50+1 vote in the Senate and a tight battle in the House confronting Obama against Pelosi. From a political perspective, anything Obama does on Afghanistan will result in major political problems since there are no good answers that are possible. As a consequence, he has to make a decision and campaign to sell it to the people.

On the economy, what Obama needs more than anything else is time. While doomsayers like Goose are crying that unemployment will mount to 20% or more, and liberal Dem's are hoping for another round of massive public spending plus tax cuts to make their election campaigns easier, more moderate voices are noticing that almost none of the capital spending portion of the stimulus bill has been implemented yet. Those funds will kick in on an accelerating basis over the next six months, helping the economy.

The greatest fear of Republicans is that by the time the campaign heats up unemployment is likely to be declining, consumer confidence increasing (probably not reflected in consumer income), and the DOW will probably be over 10,000. On one hand, Republicans will focus on the deficit. However, at the same time they will be proposing policies that would do nothing except increase the deficit even more. In the elections themselves, I expect that there will be small to moderate Democratic losses with continued Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Both sides will declare victory.;-)

When the dust settles, the country will not have been radically changed in any direction -- toward the right or toward the left.

Uncle Bill
10-09-2009, 03:31 PM
Efforts to fundamentally change our country began in 1994 with a "Contract With America" that helped Republicans gain control of Congress. However, the contents of the Contract had nothing to do with the revolution beyond helping to gather votes. Nothing was ever done to implement it. Instead, what we saw was the remaking of the Republican Party into the "anti" party: anti-tax (not anti-deficit), anti-liberal, anti any social programs developed since the Depression and, above all else, anti-Clinton because he had successfully co-opted Republican commitments to fiscal conservatism.

The efforts succeeded in many ways. In large part this was because of scorched earth tactics that reflected an attitude that the country was only worth saving if it reflected the narrow minded image of an increasingly conservative leadership. In part, it also reflected the view of many good citizens that we were straying too far from some of our core values as a country. But the fundamental strategies followed by the Republican leadership were flawed and left our country economically and diplomatically worse off, a fact obvious to the majority of voters.

As a consequence, the pendulum began to swing back with the Democratic congressional victories in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008. Hopefully, the moderates of both parties will reject the partisan extremes of both. For now, however, the right wing of the GOP is trying to knock off moderate Republicans so that conservatives will be the only alternative offered to Obama in 2010. The reality is that victories by moderate Republicans would do more damage to conservative hopes than Democratic victories because that could swing the entire center of the Party toward the middle.

On the Democratic side, there are also some interesting developments. The more liberal end of the party is battling what they view as the turncoats in the Senate who are opposing a public option in the health bill. On this issue, as on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has been moving more and more to the center, dismaying the progressives who believed they owned his presidency. In his efforts on the economy, health care, and the wars, Obama has clearly decided to back burner a number of other priorities that are important to the left. Both the left and the Republican right are hoping to push the administration to confront these issues now: the left to take advantage of current voting strength and to flush out what they view as the "DINO's" (Democrats in name only), and conservatives in an effort to marginalize the administration as battles for the 2010 Congress heat up.

The next few months, as the administration deals with the economy, health care, and Afghanistan will be critical. To succeed, the administration needs to avoid being diverted from these core issues. It needs a quick victory on health care even if that requires a 50+1 vote in the Senate and a tight battle in the House confronting Obama against Pelosi. From a political perspective, anything Obama does on Afghanistan will result in major political problems since there are no good answers that are possible. As a consequence, he has to make a decision and campaign to sell it to the people.

On the economy, what Obama needs more than anything else is time. While doomsayers like Goose are crying that unemployment will mount to 20% or more, and liberal Dem's are hoping for another round of massive public spending plus tax cuts to make their election campaigns easier, more moderate voices are noticing that almost none of the capital spending portion of the stimulus bill has been implemented yet. Those funds will kick in on an accelerating basis over the next six months, helping the economy.

The greatest fear of Republicans is that by the time the campaign heats up unemployment is likely to be declining, consumer confidence increasing (probably not reflected in consumer income), and the DOW will probably be over 10,000. On one hand, Republicans will focus on the deficit. However, at the same time they will be proposing policies that would do nothing except increase the deficit even more. In the elections themselves, I expect that there will be small to moderate Democratic losses with continued Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Both sides will declare victory.;-)

When the dust settles, the country will not have been radically changed in any direction -- toward the right or toward the left.


This is so typical of a MOR egghead. "I want everyone to love me, because I'm a moderate, and I'm open minded...far more than anyone else that is so opinionated and are so wrong minded...blah, blah, blah".

The Contract for America was an excellant program...but failed in the most important point: the inability to get term limits imposed on the nationally elected representatives and senators. Without that, the 'people' that the Constitution was written for, are NOT in power.

Concerning your inane observation of why the pendulum began swinging in the Democrat's favor because we all wanted less conservatism and felt the liberals had better ideas is preposterous. Most of us knew the consequences of an Obama regime...such as removal of right-to-work laws, paying for the Algore fiasco, and government takeover of healthcare, and we held our nose while we pulled the lever for a candidate that your ilk selected through the MSP. Conservatism had NO presidential candidate!

It's understandable how you can't see the erosion of this nation's freedoms, because you are in favor of that legislation. So you see why I'm not angry with the likes of the Obama thugs in power, that's what they do! I'm only angry with you and your hypocrite 'moderate' friends that think they can pick and choose which freedoms we should not be concerned about losing. It angers me to watch such a crowd of toady yahoos sucking up and falling on the sword for this batch of facists you have put in power.

As to that final statement about the dust settling and no 'radical' changes being made...ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Unfortunately, like all your sheeple buddies, I fear you are. But that comment does expose all your bloviating as being pure sophistry; your hubris in attempting to make everyone believe you are so moderate is phony. You indeed are a complete big-government socialist. Obama ubber alles! You must be proud!

UB

cotts135
10-10-2009, 07:02 AM
I generally, actually, agree with what you say, though perhaps I am not quite as optimistic.

Case in point: I think a huge proportion of us have been pretty dumb as citizens the past decade or more, and I think that we ALL have to be a whole lot smarter if we're going to improve our collective lot and not tear each other apart over false issues.

I would like to see, as one of the first steps, a collective cry of outrage over poor media coverage of real issues, and a genuine respect and support for reporters who are actually attempting to uncover truths.

I don't know if the politicians are architects... or pawns... or something else, perhaps some of them even something good. Or maybe not.

Getting at the truth about the financial world and how it really works, and where and how and why it intersects with the political world--THAT is a topic worthy of some serious non-partisan investigation and reporting, IMO.

Amen on all that. Instead of having a press that is a voice box for the government and whatever it says, it is time we recognize and reward the true journalists who go further and dig deeper into issues that concern all of us.

Pete
10-10-2009, 07:36 AM
I would say we were closer under the prior administration, but no American government has even come close. On those occasions when we have played at the fringes, the impetus has generally come from the right: e.g., Joe McCarthy and the House un-American Activities Committee during the 1950's

The way to devour an elephant without anyone noticing is a couple of bites per day

YardleyLabs
10-10-2009, 07:48 AM
...

Concerning your inane observation of why the pendulum began swinging in the Democrat's favor because we all wanted less conservatism and felt the liberals had better ideas is preposterous. Most of us knew the consequences of an Obama regime...such as removal of right-to-work laws, paying for the Algore fiasco, and government takeover of healthcare, and we held our nose while we pulled the lever for a candidate that your ilk selected through the MSP. Conservatism had NO presidential candidate!

I actually said that the pendulum began swinging back because of Bush's complete failure as a President. I don't think it mattered who ran as the Republican candidate in 2008, but I suspect that McCain did better, by far, than any other candidate that might have been named. Remember, McCain became the GOP candidate because none of the others could win votes from other Republicans.



It's understandable how you can't see the erosion of this nation's freedoms, because you are in favor of that legislation. So you see why I'm not angry with the likes of the Obama thugs in power, that's what they do! I'm only angry with you and your hypocrite 'moderate' friends that think they can pick and choose which freedoms we should not be concerned about losing. It angers me to watch such a crowd of toady yahoos sucking up and falling on the sword for this batch of facists you have put in power.

I assume by "erosion of ... freedoms" you are talking about the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act. Or maybe you are talking about warrantless eavesdropping on telephone conversations. Oh sorry, that was a different administration and they were allowed to pick and choose out freedoms. By "crowd of toady yahoos sucking up...", I assume you are talking about the large majority of voters who elected Obama as President. I guess they didn't fall on their swords fast enough for your tastes. And here we go with the term "fascist" again. A thread was started asking exactly what is meant by this. Maybe you should post a response there. As far as i can tell from the way you use the term, it means anyone who disagrees with you.




As to that final statement about the dust settling and no 'radical' changes being made...ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Unfortunately, like all your sheeple buddies, I fear you are. But that comment does expose all your bloviating as being pure sophistry; your hubris in attempting to make everyone believe you are so moderate is phony. You indeed are a complete big-government socialist. Obama ubber alles! You must be proud!

UB
Obviously, once again, the term radical is defined by perspective. I tend to measure it in contrast to where we are and where we have been, you seem to measure it relative to your own very radical beliefs. Relative to things this country has done and believed since 1930, little that Obama has proposed looks very radical. Even with respect to taxes, nothing he has proposed would leave taxes higher than they were following Reagan's tax cuts -- was Reagan a socialist? The plan proposed for health care is, in many ways, less radical than what was done with Medicare, which has proven to be one of the most popular of government programs. With respect to calling me, or anyone else, a socialist, I again suggest that you post your definitions on the thread started for that purpose.

As for the first sentence of your post, it is hard for me to feel insulted by being called a middle of the road egghead. I could care less what you think of me. And yes, I do think I am more moderate and open minded than you.

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 10:56 PM
I actually said that the pendulum began swinging back because of Bush's complete failure as a President. I don't think it mattered who ran as the Republican candidate in 2008, but I suspect that McCain did better, by far, than any other candidate that might have been named. Remember, McCain became the GOP candidate because none of the others could win votes from other Republicans.


I assume by "erosion of ... freedoms" you are talking about the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act. Or maybe you are talking about warrantless eavesdropping on telephone conversations. Oh sorry, that was a different administration and they were allowed to pick and choose out freedoms. By "crowd of toady yahoos sucking up...", I assume you are talking about the large majority of voters who elected Obama as President. I guess they didn't fall on their swords fast enough for your tastes. And here we go with the term "fascist" again. A thread was started asking exactly what is meant by this. Maybe you should post a response there. As far as i can tell from the way you use the term, it means anyone who disagrees with you.



Obviously, once again, the term radical is defined by perspective. I tend to measure it in contrast to where we are and where we have been, you seem to measure it relative to your own very radical beliefs. Relative to things this country has done and believed since 1930, little that Obama has proposed looks very radical. Even with respect to taxes, nothing he has proposed would leave taxes higher than they were following Reagan's tax cuts -- was Reagan a socialist? The plan proposed for health care is, in many ways, less radical than what was done with Medicare, which has proven to be one of the most popular of government programs. With respect to calling me, or anyone else, a socialist, I again suggest that you post your definitions on the thread started for that purpose.

As for the first sentence of your post, it is hard for me to feel insulted by being called a middle of the road egghead. I could care less what you think of me. And yes, I do think I am more moderate and open minded than you.

Were you at Woodstock? :rolleyes:

TXduckdog
10-23-2009, 10:41 PM
some of you seem to be confused; is the present administration marxist/socialist or fascist?

these ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Yup.....it's a socialism/fascist combo.

Bob, especially, seems enjoy drawing comparisons to nazi fascists, which i find troubling.

there's a lot of bitterness and loathing in so many of the posts on this forum, but when someone says one of them is aligning with the extreme right or left media, they always deny it.

Don't think there is a whole lot of denying anything as far as left or right is concerned.

most of the country is trying to work towards bettering our lot. a few want to lob rocks over the fence they themselves have made.

Bettering our country.....you actually think thats the motivation of this congress/admin? What flavor is your kool-aid>

like it or not, the President was elected by popular and electoral vote. i believe he will try to do the best he can for our country. some here seem to think he is the architect of some diabolical plot to ruin our nation. at least that's what you infer.

Yup, thats what we see happening.....the Congres is run amok and this guy is in way over his head.

we are all Americans and we're all human. we have much more in common than we have differences. i wish everyone here would acknowledge that and work towards a better future rather than sit on the sidelines and hope we fail.-Paul

How sweet of you Paul....sit on the sidelines with the biggest government takeover is in progress? Supposed the folks back in 1775 did the same thing? Hope we fail? Not on your life...thats what all the hell raising is all about.

paul young
10-24-2009, 08:31 PM
glad you think i'm sweet Tex.....

sorry, but i don't think the government is out to get me. or you.

my comment had to do with the many millions of Americans who get up each day, love their families, go to work and pay their taxes, obseving the law of the land.

take care of yourself overseas and come back home in one piece. thanks for your service!-Paul

Roger Perry
10-26-2009, 08:18 AM
[quote=Uncle Bill;510035]If you don't see how this administration is becoming a very real form of fascism, you are blinded by the light of your messiah.

But just for chuckles and grins, let's examine just what that "fascism" word means, so all of us idjits know what we are referring to.

Mr. Webster tells us: fascism (sometimes F) a system of government characterized by strict one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism etc.





You just discribed Dumbya to a tee.

M&K's Retrievers
11-03-2009, 10:20 PM
Looks like the 2010 Second American Revolution started early.

Buzz
11-04-2009, 01:02 AM
Worked out pretty well in NY.
A round of applause goes to the tea baggers who ruined what could have been a pretty good night for Republicans and helped Democrats pick up a seat that they haven't held since the civil war. Special thanks go to Sara Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, and Club for Growth. Thanks for giving us something to laugh about on an otherwise tough night.

Goose
11-04-2009, 08:15 AM
Conquest of political power by jack booted democrats hit a speed bump.

We live in Cuba now.

M&K's Retrievers
11-04-2009, 08:28 AM
Worked out pretty well in NY.
A round of applause goes to the tea baggers who ruined what could have been a pretty good night for Republicans and helped Democrats pick up a seat that they haven't held since the civil war. Special thanks go to Sara Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, and Club for Growth. Thanks for giving us something to laugh about on an otherwise tough night.

Looking for a pony in a room full of horse shat regards

Gerry Clinchy
11-04-2009, 09:06 AM
Worked out pretty well in NY.
A round of applause goes to the tea baggers who ruined what could have been a pretty good night for Republicans and helped Democrats pick up a seat that they haven't held since the civil war. Special thanks go to Sara Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, and Club for Growth. Thanks for giving us something to laugh about on an otherwise tough night.

Actually ... when you look at the fact that the margin was not large; that the Republican former-candidate threw support to the Dem in the 11th hour; 6% of the voters still voted for the R who had dropped out (?), and Hoffman was running as an Independent ... it was not exactly and unbridled victory. If it was that easy to convince the former R candidate that a D was better to support than an independent, it probably doesn't matter whether a D holds the seat or if she had won it.

Interesting also, that the only reason this seat was available was because because O took the previously elected rep into his cabinet.

Watching some of the early returns from NJ, Christie was really hammering Corzine in quite a few counties. That was almost a surprise considering that the race had been said to close to call. The overall state votes were close when I happened to be watching, so not sure of the end result %-age wise.

Julie R.
11-04-2009, 09:10 AM
Just curious...does that apply to the rednecks waving the Confederate flag? You know, the part what our nation stands for?

But, I'm sure you're OK with waving and proudly displaying the flags of Mexico, Kenya, Libya, Iran and/or any other country past or present? Well here's a news flash for you Dave: NOT everyone that owns a CSA flag is a redneck. While I don't publicly fly the flag, I am proud to be a Southerner and direct descendent of Robert E. Lee. If immigrants both legal and illegal can come over here and proudly wave their flags and not be judged, somehow I find it offensive that someone like you would judge me on my heritage. Remember racism was and is just as prevalent in the North as it was in the South. The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, it was about economics.

ducknwork
11-04-2009, 09:29 AM
6% of the voters still voted for the R who had dropped out (?)

How can this be? Shouldn't there be a re-vote? You can't vote for someone who isn't running, can you? Time for an appeal!

Hanging chad regards,

Gerry Clinchy
11-04-2009, 10:50 AM
How can this be? Shouldn't there be a re-vote? You can't vote for someone who isn't running, can you? Time for an appeal!

Hanging chad regards,

I suspect that those 6% might have been at least partially those who voted a "straight ticket" ... either forgetting or not knowing the R candidate had withdrawn, since that all happened very close to the end of the campaign.

If even 3% had taken note, the results would have been even, as the vote was 46/49 for the final results. That really isn't so bad for a candidate who went up against the two-party system.

WaterDogRem
11-04-2009, 10:57 AM
I suspect that those 6% might have been at least partially those who voted a "straight ticket" ... either forgetting or not knowing the R candidate had withdrawn, since that all happened very close to the end of the campaign.

If even 3% had taken note, the results would have been even, as the vote was 46/49 for the final results. That really isn't so bad for a candidate who went up against the two-party system.

If straight ticket voting was the reason for the 6% R, that's very sad. Anyone who votes a straight party ticket, cares about their party more than this country.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-04-2009, 11:07 AM
But, I'm sure you're OK with waving and proudly displaying the flags of Mexico, Kenya, Libya, Iran and/or any other country past or present? Well here's a news flash for you Dave: NOT everyone that owns a CSA flag is a redneck. While I don't publicly fly the flag, I am proud to be a Southerner and direct descendent of Robert E. Lee. If immigrants both legal and illegal can come over here and proudly wave their flags and not be judged, somehow I find it offensive that someone like you would judge me on my heritage. Remember racism was and is just as prevalent in the North as it was in the South. The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, it was about economics.

Kudos to you.....

NCA

Gerry Clinchy
11-04-2009, 11:30 AM
If straight ticket voting was the reason for the 6% R, that's very sad. Anyone who votes a straight party ticket, cares about their party more than this country.


Yes, I agree that straight ticket voting is just "showing up".

I might suspect that is part of the reason that some of these idiots end up in Congress :D

ducknwork
11-04-2009, 11:54 AM
Yes, I agree that straight ticket voting is just "showing up".

I might suspect that is part of the reason that some of these idiots end up in Congress :D

Absolutely. Straight ticket voting is irresponsible and borderline ignorant. If you do your research and everyone you like just happens to be an R or a D, so be it. But to vote just because of that R or D is BS.

aandw
11-04-2009, 02:07 PM
Buzz,
what i heard on this race was the ind. came into the race about 3 weeks before election day and was out spent about 3 to 1 by the dems. not bad considering the rep. got 6% and wasn't even running.
the tea baggers and others you mentioned should be applauded for their effort. i think it should scare the republican party, they are losing because they aren't conservative. they are going to lose more if they don't change. most americans are conservative and not party affiliated. you might have well elected the dem. to that seat compared to the rep. candidate.

YardleyLabs
11-04-2009, 03:49 PM
In the 23rd, the only reason the Dem won was because the Republicans who dominate the area decided to piss on each other rather than win. If there is any national significance, it is strictly for Republicans as the conservative wing tries to "purify" itself ideologically by chasing out moderates.

Every indication is that Republicans will win big in mid-term elections in 2010. The most likely challenge that could change victory to defeat comes from those in the party who would rather lose than be in the same party with what they like to call RINO's when they are being polite. I cannot imagine any scenario where the Democrat who won will hold the job for more than a year unless the Republicans decide once again to see just how far to the right of their supporters the can go without losing.

Franco
11-04-2009, 05:23 PM
But, I'm sure you're OK with waving and proudly displaying the flags of Mexico, Kenya, Libya, Iran and/or any other country past or present? Well here's a news flash for you Dave: NOT everyone that owns a CSA flag is a redneck. While I don't publicly fly the flag, I am proud to be a Southerner and direct descendent of Robert E. Lee. If immigrants both legal and illegal can come over here and proudly wave their flags and not be judged, somehow I find it offensive that someone like you would judge me on my heritage. Remember racism was and is just as prevalent in the North as it was in the South. The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, it was about economics.

Well said Julie!

I'll add that the war was originally about States Rights. The CSA could have never raised the amount of troops it did had it been about slavery because less than 1% on the CSA owned slaves. The South fought to protect its rights and freedoms. Not for the plantation owners as today's Liberals would have us beleive.

We need to keep our history factual and not let the New Socialist revise it!

paul young
11-04-2009, 05:32 PM
how many blacks fought FOR the confederacy?-Paul

Hew
11-04-2009, 05:46 PM
how many blacks fought FOR the confederacy?-Paul
You might be surprised (I was). Nearly half as many blacks (many freemen, to boot) fought for the CSA as for the Union.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-04-2009, 07:09 PM
You might be surprised (I was). Nearly half as many blacks (many freemen, to boot) fought for the CSA as for the Union.

kudos to you too......

NCA

dnf777
11-04-2009, 07:56 PM
But, I'm sure you're OK with waving and proudly displaying the flags of Mexico, Kenya, Libya, Iran and/or any other country past or present? Well here's a news flash for you Dave: NOT everyone that owns a CSA flag is a redneck. While I don't publicly fly the flag, I am proud to be a Southerner and direct descendent of Robert E. Lee. If immigrants both legal and illegal can come over here and proudly wave their flags and not be judged, somehow I find it offensive that someone like you would judge me on my heritage. Remember racism was and is just as prevalent in the North as it was in the South. The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, it was about economics.

The proud southern heritage is that of the United States. A few hundred thousand men died to preserve the union, and keep the flag of the United States the flag we still fly today. No, of course not all who display the confederate flag are racist, but MANY are, so you can quit being offended...I am not judging you on your heritage.

As for the causes of the Civil War (I will refrain from calling it the "war of southern rebellion" if you don't call it the "war of northern aggression") to quote Abraham Lincoln:

The institution of slavery "created a powerful interest in the states where it existed. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the objective for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war...Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Maybe since he was President of the United States, his view was biased you say? Here is a quote from Alexander Stephens, vice president of the CSA:

that slavery was the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution of Southern independence

And that the confederacy in contrast, is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundation are laid, its cornerstone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This Mighty Scourge, Perspective on the Civil War, McPhereson 2007 p. 3

To say the war was about economics, not slavery is like saying our dogs are about fetching, not retrieving. The entire economy of the south relied on slavery, and they faced economic collapse if slavery was abolished! The two issues were so closely intertwined, they were inseparable.

Blackstone
11-05-2009, 01:06 AM
Although there were blacks in the Confederate Army almost from the beginning, originally, most did not fight. The Confederacy began by forcing slaves into service as servants. They later began using slaves and free blacks as laborers chaplains, cooks, teamsters, blacksmiths, etc. It was not until 1865 that the Confederacy authorized the enlistment of Black soldiers. Although some black soldiers enlisted to fight for the south out of some warped sense of loyalty (some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, I guess), most enlisted for more practical reasons. They were offered pay equal to white enlisted men, they were promised their freedom, and they were promised bounty land in exchange for their service.

Unfortunately for the south, the north had been enlisting blacks since 1862, which gave them an advantage in troop strength. However, blacks in the union army were put in segregated units and were paid less than white soldiers until 1864, when their pay was equalized and made retroactive. In an effort to dissuade blacks from joining the Union Army, the Confederate Congress threatened to enslave or kill any black soldiers captured. There are some recorded incidents where they did exactly that.

paul young
11-05-2009, 07:30 AM
it is also very interesting to read what Robert E. Lee had to say about slavery, enlisting blacks, and the reason the war came to be fought.

i admire him very much. he was definitely a man who had strong convictions and was torn between his duty as a soldier and his duty as a Virginian.

you are right to be proud to be related to him, Julie. not that you needed me to tell you so.-Paul

Blackstone
11-05-2009, 12:57 PM
The proud southern heritage is that of the United States. A few hundred thousand men died to preserve the union, and keep the flag of the United States the flag we still fly today. No, of course not all who display the confederate flag are racist, but MANY are, so you can quit being offended...I am not judging you on your heritage.

As for the causes of the Civil War (I will refrain from calling it the "war of southern rebellion" if you don't call it the "war of northern aggression") to quote Abraham Lincoln:

The institution of slavery "created a powerful interest in the states where it existed. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the objective for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war...Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Maybe since he was President of the United States, his view was biased you say? Here is a quote from Alexander Stephens, vice president of the CSA:

that slavery was the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution of Southern independence

And that the confederacy in contrast, is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundation are laid, its cornerstone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This Mighty Scourge, Perspective on the Civil War, McPhereson 2007 p. 3

To say the war was about economics, not slavery is like saying our dogs are about fetching, not retrieving. The entire economy of the south relied on slavery, and they faced economic collapse if slavery was abolished! The two issues were so closely intertwined, they were inseparable.

While not all those that display the confederate flag are racist, it is a symbol of a society and way of life that embraced the horrors and brutality of slavery, racism & hatred. That symbol is probably as offensive to blacks as the Nazi flag is to Jews. I’m sure most Germans are proud of their heritage, but most do not openly display the Nazi flag.

The causes of the Civil War were more related to a series of events and issues rather than just one. However, I would have to agree with Julie that economic issues and states rights played the greatest roll leading to the south’s decision to secede from the Union, and the start of the war. Without a doubt slavery was tied directly to the economic prosperity of the south. However, slavery could not have been the main cause of the war for a couple of reasons:

1) The U.S. Government did not intend to end slavery in southern states. They only sought to prevent the expansion of slavery into other states, existing states and newly established states. The south felt this would halt their ability to expand and stregthen their economic interests. They also feared prohibiting the expansion of slavery, and the growing abolistionist movement in the north, would eventually bring about the end to slavery, which would destroy them economically.

2) With the level of racism that existed in the north at the time, it is not reasonable for think that whites would have been willing to lay their lives and, the lives of their sons, on the line to liberate blacks. They fought to preserve the Union.

3) The Civil War started in April of 1861. Lincoln did not free slaves by issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation until Feb. 1863. If slavery had been the issue, why wasn’t the order to free slaves not issued from the beginning?

To further illustrate this, you have to read the entire quote from Abraham Lincoln’s response to the editorial written by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition:

“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 everywhere could be free.”

Therefore, the freeing of slaves was more of a by-product of the war, not the cause of the war. As usual, the victors write history their way, and it sounds more noble to have fought a war for the human rights and liberties of others, but it’s not true.

paul young
11-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Robert E. Lee disagreed as to the cause for the war. here is a quote:

"so far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, i am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. i believe it will be greatly for the interest of the south. so fully am i satisfied of this that i would cheerfully have lost all that i have lost by the war, and have suffered all that i have suffered to have this object obtained."-Paul

Julie R.
11-05-2009, 04:05 PM
No, of course not all who display the confederate flag are racist, but MANY are, so you can quit being offended...

As for the causes of the Civil War (I will refrain from calling it the "war of southern rebellion" if you don't call it the "war of northern aggression") to quote Abraham Lincoln:

The institution of slavery "created a powerful interest in the states where it existed. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the objective for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war...Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Maybe since he was President of the United States, his view was biased you say?

First of all, you don't get to decide what offends me, thank you very much.

And second, I'd say Lincoln's views were quite biased; but the history books have been scrubbed clean and re-written I guess because his bias would be found so offensive by today's PC society. I'm too lazy to look them up there are plenty of examples. This one's an excerpt from one of my father's textbooks, from a history class he took either at U.Va. or the Naval Academy:

"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 -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from 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, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press)



... To say the war was about economics, not slavery is like saying our dogs are about fetching, not retrieving. The entire economy of the south relied on slavery, and they faced economic collapse if slavery was abolished! The two issues were so closely intertwined, they were inseparable.

Just like you don't get to decide what offends me, you need to study your history a bit better. The war was, indeed about economics, and states' rights. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even abolish slavery in one Confederate and four Union states: Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and West Virginia.

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION:
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, 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...
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

Blackstone
11-05-2009, 04:49 PM
it is also very interesting to read what Robert E. Lee had to say about slavery, enlisting blacks, and the reason the war came to be fought.

i admire him very much. he was definitely a man who had strong convictions and was torn between his duty as a soldier and his duty as a Virginian.

you are right to be proud to be related to him, Julie. not that you needed me to tell you so.-Paul

I guess whether Lee should be admired or reviled depends on your point of view.

From all accounts I have read about Lee, he believed slavery was a moral and political evil. However, he though it was a greater evil to whites than it was to blacks (I would have loved to have heard his logic on that one). He felt blacks were better off being slaves than they were being free in Africa. Like many southern Christians of the time, he justified slavery as necessary for the betterment of blacks, and existed because God willed it. They believed slavery would end when God thought it was time (another act of evil committed in the name of God). Here is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to his wife in 1856:

“ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”

Despite Lee’s belief that slavery was evil, he seemed to have little aversion to profiting from it. When Lee’s father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis died in 1857, Lee, as one of the executors of the Custis estate, determined slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington, VA's financial status. Custis’ will provided for the slaves to be emancipated "in such a manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper," providing a maximum of five years for the legal and logistical details of manumission. Lee was in need of money to pay his father-in-law's debts and repair the properties, so even though the will was probated 2 months later, he kept the slaves in bondage for another 5 years, making money by working them on the plantation, and hiring them out to neighboring plantations and to eastern Virginia plantations.

The slaves on the Custis plantation had been led to believe by Custis that they would be freed upon his death. When they realized Lee had no plans of emancipating them in the immediate future, some rebelled, and were jailed. Three others (family members) attempted to run away to the north. Unfortunately, they were recaptured before they could reach the PN border. They were forceably returned to Arlington and “taught a lesson.” Following is the testimony given by one of the slaves:

“My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years...we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget...we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty...[Mr. Gwin] had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to ““lay it on well,”” an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done...After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week...what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements.”
—Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 467-468

Lee finally filed the deed of manumission freeing the slaves in December 1862, five years, two months after Custis’ death.

As far as Lee’s opinion of blacks in the Confederate Army, there was evidence that Lee was for the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate Army near the end of the war. The south had suffered losses in troop numbers they could not replace. Lee agreed they would be hard pressed to win in Virgina by the spring of of 1865 unless they enlisted blacks.

dnf777
11-05-2009, 09:26 PM
First of all, you don't get to decide what offends me, thank you very much.

And second, I'd say Lincoln's views were quite biased; but the history books have been scrubbed clean and re-written I guess because his bias would be found so offensive by today's PC society. I'm too lazy to look them up there are plenty of examples. This one's an excerpt from one of my father's textbooks, from a history class he took either at U.Va. or the Naval Academy:

"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 -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from 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, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press)



Just like you don't get to decide what offends me, you need to study your history a bit better. The war was, indeed about economics, and states' rights. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even abolish slavery in one Confederate and four Union states: Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and West Virginia.

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION:
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, 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...
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

As well, you need to study history also. The reason Lincoln could NOT free slaves in the northern states, was he used a war powers act, claiming that the economic and manpower use of slaves against the united states was illegal. Since the northern states were not warring against the US, it did not apply.

Again, to say the war was about economics and state's rights but not slavery makes no sense whatsoever, since the largest looming issue of states rights, and the largest economic force in the south was.....come on, you know....SLAVERY. Plus, I quoted the vice president of the confederate states coming right out and saying so. If you're too lazy by your own admission to cite examples...oh well.

Interestingly, most accounts of the "lost cause" of the south were agreed upon for years after the war, until we decided to 'sanitize' the south's support of slavery. It was not valourous anymore to use slavery as a raison-d'etre in the modern era, so we invented all these other reasons with little or no backing in the written records.

If you're interested in Lincoln's philosophy and actions regarding slavery in a concise, historically and factually accurate read, Abraham Lincoln by James M. McPhereson, Oxford 2009 is an excellent review.