27
Cville123 27 points ago +27 / -0

Look principles are important and if he does truly feel things need to be more civil that is fine BUT the fact he did not call on Pelosi, Maxine, Schumer et al to be impeached during antifa summer tells you he’s not legit.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Facts the Historians Leave out - a confederate primer - John S. Tilley

Slavery was not the cause of the civil war - Gene Kizer

The southern constitution - actually has a ban on what we would term big business crony capitalism and allowing non slave states

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is a great historical read - broader than just the civil war.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, that’s why it didn’t.

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

Actually a very interesting historical read if you want the historical perspective on what really happened. Former Secretary of State and senator who, like Lee, was opposed to secession but couldn’t see killing his own people.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is so not accurate. Read Lincoln’s own inaugural address. It required a constitutional amendment that would never pass with the South in the union and the proposals from Lincoln were to actually strengthen the constitutional protections. New states were allowed to vote on whether they wanted it.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

The North did not try to repeal slavery before the war. It would take a constitutional amendment which would’ve never passed. Eventually it went through after the war. The emancipation proclamation did not free any slaves as it applied only to those states territory under confederate control, union states and held territory were exempt.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Union had something like 40% tariffs and the new Southern government had 10%. Charleston would’ve become the new New York and wreck the Yankee economy. Lincoln felt he had no choice.

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

It was already protected by the Constitution according to Lincoln and the North did propose a further amendment (Corwin Amendment) and Lincoln supported it. A few Yankee states had already ratified.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

The interesting thing about it is Lincoln was offering to strengthen slavery even more under the Corwin Amendment which a few Yankee states even approved. “Slavery” seems to have been politically along the lines of “no taxation without representation” - even if the British had offered representation, we weren’t taking it according to Ben Franklin. An emotional issue to upset people. Slavery wasn’t under threat. Lincoln’s first inaugural speech is a great original source.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

And the Union admitted West Virginia, which seceded from Virginia, as a slave state until 1900.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sad but his view of ending slavery was a version of white supremacy - he thought it undermined white workers. That was a big part of the abolitionist movement. Along the northern Midwest and Pacific Northwest they even banned blacks from living so as not to compete for jobs.

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s a fascinating study, especially if you go to original sources. You need to take in context. These guys’ grandfathers started their own country so it wasn’t a stretch that the 1860’s South would want to do so. The regular guys came to the view that the Union was more of a drag on them economically than a benefit - taxes, centralized government in Yankee control. Big upside if on their own. Lincoln was inclined to let it go if you read his first inaugural (an eye opening read) but later concluded that it would decimate the Yankee economy revenue which needed the South in the supply chain. Even had a quote along the lines of “sure, leave them go but then where’s the revenue”. The Constitution strongly protected slavery so it was t going anywhere if the South stayed out.

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

Funny how the new approach is to say the rally attendees are always “baby boomers”. Nothing wrong with them but there’s a much younger element at the rallies.

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

Really good ... could have a career in it. Best country song I’ve heard in 20 years.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Needed to get out ahead of it with the state legislatures.

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here’s a litmus test: if a candidate directly or through a pac is taking us chamber of commerce money. Walk away. That cures about 90% of the phonies. They hide it through pacs sometimes but there it is.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +1 / -0

These people reporting have no clue what DJP is going to do. Especially when it’s “sources say”.

3
Cville123 3 points ago +3 / -0

Philadelphia Stars versus the Memphis Showboats

2
Cville123 2 points ago +2 / -0

Standing means you have a specific interest in the matter and not just the public at large. So that threw out 95% of the cases brought by voters. The ones brought by the President and state legislatures are still unknown. The courts tied themselves in knots to provide a rationale or just flat out said no standing. Some other cases they said were premature before the ejection, then too late after the election. In the end, the courts wanted the state legislatures to deal with by non certifying. Some tried to revoke their prior certifications, but Pence ignored their requests.

1
Cville123 1 point ago +2 / -1

Unfair to Paul, he’s about as principled as they come. The issue was the states certified.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›