The GREATEST President(s) the 18th & 19th Centuries [Archive]

Jake Featherston

06-13-2006, 05:21 PM

Lincoln was not some wildly pro-black individual anyway

Lincoln described himself, many times, as a "White Supremacist." He would be considered a White Nationalist by today's standards. He didn't become a full-blown abolitionist until 1862 (after more than a year of full-blown, ferocious warfare amongst the several states, including a very nasty guerilla conflict in Kansas and western Missouri that had been ongoing since 1854), and he always supported the policy of eventual repatriation to Africa and Latin America of all Blacks resident in America. To that end, he was an early and lifelong member of the Colonization Society (founded by the Speaker of the U.S. House, Rep. Henry Clay), which was dedicated to furthering the work of President James Monroe i.e., the repatriation to West Africa of tens of thousands of Black freedmen, including the establishment of Rep. of Liberia (along with its capital city, Monrovia) to serve as the basis for a physical homeland to which the rest of the Blacks in America could be humanely deported. Lincoln spoke at meetings on behalf of the Colonization Society in the capacity as a de facto spokesman for it, and recruited many of his friends and colleagues to its ranks.

Additionally, the Lincoln Administration established a Black resettlement colony during the midst of the War of Northern Aggression, and thus repatriated an admittedly modest 2,000-3,000 Black freedmen. I believe his Administration is the only one to share that honor with that of the great James Monroe. He never supported, and frequently spoke out against, such things as the following: Blacks getting to vote, own property, serve on juries, testify in court against a White adult, resettle in a northern state or in the western territories, and perhaps most importantly, to intermarry with Whites. He specifically described Blacks as "inferior" to Whites.

BUT, he did unleash a very cruel, unjust, unConstitutional, and tyrannical war against the entirely legitimate and legally-created nation of the Confederate States of America, thus being responsible for more shedding of American blood (military and/or civilian), and the unleashing of more misery within the borders of the American nation, than any other human in history thus far, and all in the service of the imperialist desire to suppress a very authentic, legitimate and rational Southern nationalism. When asked, shortly before his inauguration, if he would permit Southern secession, he responded "Wherever would we get our revenues?" Virtually all Federal tax revenues at that time came from the tariff, and over 3/4ths of the tariff revenues came from the states of the newly established CSA. In short, he unleashed Hell on American soil in order to keep the Federal government's hands firmly upon the pocketbooks of a people who genuinely and quite reasonably wanted nothing to do with the USA any longer. Despite all the many good things I noted above in regard to Mr. Lincoln, he can never be forgiven for unleashing such a wicked calamity among the people of both the CSA and the USA, White and Black alike (the Cherokee and numerous other Indian tribes fought bravely and enthusiastically on behalf of the CSA, and other tribes led rebellions as far away as Minnesota and the Dakota Territory, the timing of which were determined by the perception of Federal weakness/distraction due to its war upon the CSA; more Indians were killed by the Federal government during the Lincoln Administration, 1861-1865, than the combined total of all previous U.S. Presidential administrations, from George Washington through James Buchanan, 1789-1861).

The above listed crimes and misdeeds are sufficient to blacken his name for all time, but let us not forget his imprisonment of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Hon. Roger Taney, due to Chief Justice Taney's insistence on following the Constitutional requirement that the President can not suspend the writ of habeas corpus without a vote in support of doing so within each House of Congress. Nor should we forget his banishment of U.S. Rep. Charles Vallandingham (D-Ohio), merely for exercising his First Amendment right to verbally oppose Lincoln's war against the CSA (while speaking at the podium of the U.S. House of Representatives, no less). Not only is banishment explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, through his act of banishing Rep. Vallandingham to the CSA, Lincoln tacitly, however inadvertently, acknowledged the foreign/sovereign status of the CSA, and thus the criminal nature of his military enterprise against it. Lincoln had several thousand pro-CSA newspaper editors, writers, and publishers, as well as various and sundry pro-CSA and/or antiwar activists imprisoned for the duration (which is what caused the conflict with Chief Justice Taney, and Taney's thus being thrown into the cell next to that of the other prisoners), and he even went so far as to place ex-President Franklin Pierce (D-New Hampshire) under house arrest, and thus effectively in the custody of the U.S. Army (who's soldiers were designated to impose President Pierce's genteel imprisonment), which is arguably one of the single most disgraceful acts ever undertaken by any U.S. President. The very idea of placing a patriotic ex-President under arrest, merely on the basis of his having made some small number of antiwar and pro-secession remarks (including one letter to the editor, published in a local, New Hampshire newspaper) is so disgusting that I prefer not to dwell on such a sordid and distasteful episode in our history.

HOWEVER, had Lincoln not been assassinated in 1865 by that well-meaning idiot, John Wilkes Booth, I suspect that many things would have turned out very differently, and that the Reconstruction would have been a much more brief and much less harsh affair, and that to a substantial degree (albeit not enough to ever erase the bloody stain from his name) he would have gone on to effect some partial, yet numerically meaningful repatriation of Blacks (he intended northern Brazil to be their primary postwar destination), and the contempt for him on the part of myself and other Lincoln critics would burn much less brightly, and rightly so. He deserved a bullet in the head, but we'd been a lot better off had he not gotten what he deserved, alas.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 12:53 AM

This country wouldn't have progressed much if we went the way of the Holy Roman Empire. Slavery would have led to more of them being imported and a bad economic system too...

Yep. It had already turned the 'white ruling class' of the South into a bunch of gibbering, weak, dissipated, drunken inbred morons way before Lincoln came along.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 12:58 AM

John Adams is the only one who could be considered 'great', and I despise the 'Federalists'.

Actually Samuel Adams should be an 'unofficial' choice; he was never elected 'President', but he most certainly played that role during the Revolution.

Jefferson was a disaster as a President. I consider his writings to be great, and as a political philosopher he probably ranks with Franklin as among America's best, but as an individual and actual office holding politician he pretty much sucked.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 03:12 AM

How was Jefferson a bad president, Louisana purchase, Barbary pirates etc... he accomplished a lot.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 03:42 AM

That topic deserves it's own thread. The Louisianna Purchase was a opportunistic, one time event. The U.S. was constantly making purchases from foreign powers and Indian tribes throughout it's history, as the opportunity presented itself. This nothing out of the ordinary.

The 'Barbary pirates' were kind of a joke. Jefferson wasn't the only one for going after them. They were a thorn in the side of our own pirate fleets and blockade runners into Europe, piracy and privateering was a major source of income for the U.S. from it's inception, and a major focus of speculative investment for the well heeled in New England and New York at the time. No news there. This was the era of the Napoleonic Wars, and everybody else was busy at the time. There was nothing uniquely 'Jeffersonian' about any of this. I seriously doubt it was even his own idea. In fact, given the chaos and factionalism under his Presidency, and his inability to create a consensus at home about anything, it most likely was the Adams family that made it all happen.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 05:15 AM

Adams wanted to pay them off... Jefferson took a harder line when he was Adams Secretary of War.

Jake Featherston

06-14-2006, 05:38 AM

Adams wanted to pay them off... Jefferson took a harder line when he was Adams Secretary of War.

Thomas Jefferson served as our first Secretary of State for approximately the first six years of the Washington administration (from 1789 until around 1794 or '95). He then served as the second Vice-President, under John Adams, from 1797-1801, before becoming our third President (1801-1809). He never served as Secretary of War at any time, nor did he ever hold any other Federal office after the founding of the present Constitutional regime in 1789. He did hold various posts previously, such as Minister to France, as well as Military Governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary war, and possibly some others, definitely under the Continental Congress (of which he was a member for some period) and perhaps also under the Articles of Confederation regime (I'm not sure). Additionally, he served as an elected member of colonial Virginia's legislative House of Burghesses. He never held any cabinet post other than that of Washington's first Secretary of State.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 05:50 AM

Apparently he was ambassador to France at the time( my mistake) I thought he had been secretary of war.

Spitfire

06-14-2006, 06:21 AM

Andrew Jackson. Not only was he the best prez, he was also the best looking prez. Small wonder they put his mug on the most common bill denomination, the twenty.

Handsome guy, nice fella, great tipper. That's our Andy.

Jake Featherston

06-14-2006, 07:07 AM

Apparently he was ambassador to France at the time( my mistake) I thought he had been secretary of war.

I hate to be a stickler (well, not really) but the Barbary Pirates War, waged against the Kingdom of Morocco, and the Sultanates of Tripoli, Algiers, Oran, Tunis, and that other now-Libyan city with a name something like "Benghazi," is not a war where the actual year it began is 100% clear (much like the Vietnam War). Some say it began in 1801, which was the year Jefferson became President. I prefer to say it began during the Adams administration in 1798. All agree that James Madison, who succeeded Jefferson in 1809, presided over the victory in that war which became cemented into reality during the following year of 1810.

In any event, Jefferson served as Minister to France (they didn't yet formally refer to it as "Ambassador") prior to the implementation of the Constitution, at the start of the Washington administration in 1789 (thus leaving that office more than a decade before the Barbary Pirates War began). The only offices he held during the period of 1798-1809 were the Vice-Presidency during the single 4-year term of John Adams (which began in 1797), and his 8 years in the Presidency, starting in 1801. By 1810, he'd been retired to Monticello for a year.

This story feels incompletre if I don't mention how Adams and Jefferson both died on our nation's 50th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence i.e., they both passed on July 4, 1826. Jefferson died a few hours before Adams, his lifelong rival, but word of this fact had not yet reached Adams, who's final words were a frustrated "Jefferson yet lives!"

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 12:46 PM

Jefferson also was responsible for the Compromise that let Hamilton set up the Bank Of The United States and the deal that allowed the first great swindle of American taxpayers over the states' Revolutionary War debts, all over his personal vanity in having the capital city in his own state and not New York City.

His ally, Aaron Burr, got Jefferson elected through the invention of 'bindle voting' in New York. Burr also went on to swindle the American public and New York state.

A lot of this chicanery was the prelude to the banking crisises later on that made Andrew Jackson and his even more damaging Luddite economic policies look good. This in turn led to the Greenbacks of Lincoln and even greater swindles along the same lines during the Civil War and in 1870. And, in turn these swindles led to a series of Depressions for the rest of the century, and the U.S.'s continuing dependence on foreign capital. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve Act in 1914, followed by WW I, that the U.S. finally freed itself from foreign financial dependence.

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 12:56 PM

This country wouldn't have progressed much if we went the way of the Holy Roman Empire. Slavery would have led to more of them being imported and a bad economic system too...

False.

The importation of slaves had long been outlawed.

Lincoln was no more than a despotic dictator, his mind poisoned by the German socialists with whom he surrounded himself. His administration was the beginning of a long decline bringing us to our current miserable situation.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 01:04 PM

False.

The importation of slaves had long been outlawed.

Only so Virginia and the Carolinas could sell their slaves at much higher prices. Slaves still came in through smuggling, and the plantation owners still bought them.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 04:07 PM

False.

The importation of slaves had long been outlawed.

Lincoln was no more than a despotic dictator, his mind poisoned by the German socialists with whom he surrounded himself. His administration was the beginning of a long decline bringing us to our current miserable situation.

Must disagree Jackson, slaves were still smuggled in all the time( though the penalty was death) and the socialists got their foothold with Woodrow Wilson( with income tax, direct election of senators, and women's suffrage).

WFHermans

06-14-2006, 04:24 PM

According to the Wikipedophila: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States)

The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, prevented Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808. On January 1 that year, Congress acted to ban further imports. Any new slaves would have to be descendants of ones that were currently in the US.

I don't understand why the slaveholding states agreed to this, assuming the Kikopedia isn't lying. I don't believe they did it to increase the prices of the slaves that were there already.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 04:41 PM

According to the Wikipedophila

LOL where do you get this stuff...

Billy Score

06-14-2006, 05:07 PM

I used to obsess over Chester Arthur as a kid so i voted for him. A snappy dresser and a guy who alienated both parties, still ok i guess.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 05:46 PM

I don't understand why the slaveholding states agreed to this, assuming the Kikopedia isn't lying. I don't believe they did it to increase the prices of the slaves that were there already.

Why not? It became a major source of revenue for the old south states. Their land was already worn out by tobacco farming; they had an excess of slaves, and most of the cotton expansion was in other states of the South. Virginia and Carolina had a lot of political clout. They bred them there.

WFHermans

06-14-2006, 06:07 PM

A year earlier Britain had outlawed slavetrade so it's very likely that was the cause it was then also outlawed by the USA. I recall reading that in the 1850s Southern politicians sought to re-allow foreign slavetrade.

Also, note the Wikipedophilia article on the Constition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), that says nothing about any change of it to outlaw slavetrade, nor about any provision in the early Constitution to allow it (but I may have missed it, reading a Wikipedophilia article always makes me nauseous).

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 10:10 PM

Only so Virginia and the Carolinas could sell their slaves at much higher prices.

In your interpretation, that is.

In reality, however, it was understood that the continued importation of slaves placed unnecessary burdens on the population and created an untenable economic system which needed to be phased out.

Slaves still came in through smuggling, and the plantation owners still bought them.

Yes, it is true that the New England colonies continued to rake in massive amounts of cash through their illegal trade in human beings.

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 10:13 PM

The 1790s presented the best chance to end slavery that America ever had. And I agree with Gary B. Nash that historians have been too lenient in letting the Revolutionary leadership, especially that from the North, off the hook for not pushing on and ending it. It is said that they were too busy doing other things, or the unity of the nation was too precarious to risk. I say they knew they were building a nation, unifying different regions, and they deliberately let a cancer be built into it, which they all, at one time or another, said would someday tear the nation apart.

The will to end slavery on a national level was there, among the Virginian leaders. Several of them outlined plans for it in national publications. Slave power was politically the weakest it had been or would be again until 1865. And the resources were in hand to compensate the owners for the loss of their property, in the shape of the western lands that were the nation's treasure. A slightly higher price for the land, which was all but given away, could have provided ample money for compensated emancipation.

Virginia was the key state for this. Half the African-Americans in the colonies lived in Virginia and Maryland in 1776. And both places expressed strong sentiments for abolition during and after the Revolution. Indeed, it predated the Revolution. Virginia's colonial legislature petitioned the crown in 1772 to raise the import duties on slaves to slow the flow of them into the colony, saying the trade benefited a few in Britain but risked terrible consequences.

The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very existence of your majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your majesty's subjects of Great Britain may reap emoluments from this sort of traffic, but when we conside that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects. Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your majesty to remove all those restraints on your majesty's governors of this colony, which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.[3]

And the Virginia constitution, after the rebellion began in 1776, listed causes for separation from Great Britain in its first clause. Among them was "the inhumane use of the royal negative" in refusing permission to pass laws excluding slave imports. In part this attitude was a consequence of the "natural rights" philosophy of the Revolution. Religion also played a role, via the rapid spread of Methodism in the 1780s. Methodism, in its early days under Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke, was almost as intollerant of slavery as the Society of Friends was becoming. Black soldiers had fought for freedom in large numbers in the Revolution. All in all, this was the least racist generation in American history. The anti-slavery attitude in the Chesapeake colonies was at its peak. The long list of leaders who supported abolishing slavery is stellar: Thomas Jefferson, George Wythe, Edmund Pendleton, George Mason, James Madison, Patrick Henry, St. George Tucker in Virginia; Luther Martin and Gustavus Scott in Maryland; Caesar Rodney in Delaware.

A Virginia convention in 1774 had banned the slave trade in the colony, asserting that the delegates wished "to see an entire stop put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade." Virginia was the inspiration for the Continental Congress in its foreswearing of the slave trade later that year. Virginia's state constitution in 1776 had banned further slave importation. Lafayette in 1782 had reported that Virginians "grieved at having slaves, and are constantly talking about abolishing slavery and of seeking other means of exploiting their lands." Residents of several Virginia counties petitioned the legislature for abolition in 1787.

http://www.slavenorth.com/chance.htm

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 10:16 PM

Must disagree Jackson, slaves were still smuggled in all the time( though the penalty was death)

Yes, the shipping companies of New England continued to illegally smuggle slaves into the Southern colonies.

and the socialists got their foothold with Woodrow Wilson( with income tax, direct election of senators, and women's suffrage).

Incorrect. The socialists got their foothold when the 48ers backed Lincoln.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 10:26 PM

Yes, the shipping companies of New England continued to illegally smuggle slaves into the Southern colonies.

I'm not interested in placing blame but just like with drugs the demand was there and someone filled it. Nothing would have stopped it except the extinction of "the institution" itself. West Virginia strongly backed the Union in the Civil War hence its existence seperate from Virginia.

Incorrect. The socialists got their foothold when the 48ers backed Lincoln.

I guess if you consider Henry Clay's American System and the Homestead act socialism( if it is it is at least not socialism in favor of willfully unproductive people, quite the opposite)...

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 10:44 PM

[i]
I'm not interested in placing blame but just like with drugs the demand was there and someone filled it. Nothing would have stopped it except the extinction of "the institution" itself.

And in the Upper South, that was in the offing. Until...

West Virginia strongly backed the Union in the Civil War hence its existence seperate from Virginia.

The separation of the western Virginia counties was a long time in the making and had more to do with underrepresentation in the Virginia legislature than with the preservation of the Union. Don't forget that up until Lincoln's revolution, the states were largely independent entities. Few in western Virginia foresaw the effects that his consolidation of power in the hands of the federal government would have on the rights of states to govern themselves. If they had, perhaps the secession would have gone differently.

I guess if you consider Henry Clay's American System and the Homestead act socialism( if it is it is at least not socialism in favor of willfully unproductive people, quite the opposite)...

No, I'm talking about the fact that it was largely German immigrants subscribing to socialist ideals that got Lincoln elected in the first place and to the fact that his government and military machine were rife with socialists who had been involved in the failed '48 revolution in Germany, including general-grade officers in the Union army, such as Sigel and Willich.

The yankee poet (and outspoken hater of the South) Ralph Waldo Emerson on Lincoln's war:
"This revolution has a feature new to history, that of socialism."

WFHermans

06-14-2006, 10:54 PM

The long list of leaders who supported abolishing slavery is stellar: Thomas Jefferson LOL!

Lincoln got the least popular vote percentage of any elected president if I'm not mistaken. "German socialists" (nazis?:D) had nothing to do with it, the fact that the Democrats were split in three did.

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 11:03 PM

LOL!

Lincoln got the least popular vote percentage of any elected president if I'm not mistaken. "German socialists" (nazis?:D) had nothing to do with it, the fact that the Democrats were split in three did.

The socialist revolutionaries who attempted to remake Germany in 1848/49 migrated in numbers, alongside masses of other German immigrants, to the United States after the suppression of their movement. The majority of them settled in the Upper Midwest, and were among the most ardent supporters of Lincoln and the Republican Party.

Some of Lincoln's most outspoken supporters were known 48ers, and many historians have stated in no uncertain terms that the German vote, shaped by agitation on the part of former 48ers like Schurz, was the deciding factor in Lincoln's election.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 11:10 PM

A year earlier Britain had outlawed slavetrade so it's very likely that was the cause it was then also outlawed by the USA. I recall reading that in the 1850s Southern politicians sought to re-allow foreign slavetrade.

They didn't have to import slaves from Africa. South America, notably the Caribbean, had plenty for sale, and of course the main slave markets were Virginia and N.Carolina, who had plenty, and in fact bred them commercially. They wouldn't outlaw slavery; it was too lucrative. after the ban on imports, the price went up almost triple; they had a 'captive market', both figuratively and literally, which of course is why they wanted to ban imports. the idea the planter class had pangs of guilt over slavery is nonsense; they just found a way to generate income and unload their surplus on other states.

Also, note the Wikipedophilia article on the Constition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), that says nothing about any change of it to outlaw slavetrade, nor about any provision in the early Constitution to allow it (but I may have missed it, reading a Wikipedophilia article always makes me nauseous).

they didn't outlaw the slave trade, they just didn't want foreign competition. They only wanted to end competition from British slavers. Check out this site:

http://research.history.org/Historical_Research/Research_Themes/ThemeEnslave/SlaveTrade.cfm

And, here's a database:

http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/slavedata/index.html

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 11:15 PM

The long list of stellar hypocrites who were full of shit over slavery is headed by Thomas Jefferson. He never missed a chance to sell them at a profit, nor did he ever hesitate to put them up for sale whenever he was low on cash.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 11:15 PM

As a descendent of the Krauts I have to take objection... primarily Kraut states have always been a bulwark of conservativtism it was the Irish Polaks etc( basically the catholics except for the Finns who were also Socialists...) who always voted leftist. What the Krauts were were militant abolishinists they were not socialists.

Germany had been fucked up by the Peace of Westphalia so a nationalist revolution should be given a pass...

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 11:18 PM

They wouldn't outlaw slavery; it was too lucrative. after the ban on imports, the price went up almost triple; they had a 'captive market', both figuratively and literally, which of course is why they wanted to ban imports. the idea the planter class had pangs of guilt over slavery is nonsense; they just found a way to generate income and unload their surplus on other states.

Thus spake Oberon (despite what the actual stated reasons were).

they didn't outlaw the slave trade, they just didn't want foreign competition. They only wanted to end competition from British slavers. Check out this site:

http://research.history.org/Historical_Research/Research_Themes/ThemeEnslave/SlaveTrade.cfm

Ok, checked it out. Is there something there that's supposed to support your thesis, or are you just hoping we get so bogged down in the charts that we overlook the fact that that site deals with the distribution of African ethnic groups in Virginia and not with the causes for the banning of importation?

And, here's a database:

http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/slavedata/index.html

Nice database. Is there supposed to be something there that supports your thesis, or are you just offering another distraction?

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 11:23 PM

As a descendent of the Krauts I have to take objection... primarily Kraut states have always been a bulwark of conservativtism it was the Irish Polaks etc( basically the catholics except for the Finns who were also Socialists...) who always voted leftist. What the Krauts were were militant abolishinists they were not socialists.

Weikel, just because you wish it weren't so doesn't make history go away.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 11:25 PM

Thus spake Oberon (despite what the actual stated reasons were).

Who believes their stated reasons were their actual reasons? Grandiose bullshit was the accepted florid style of the day. What they wrote for pulbic consumption isn't what they practiced themselves, and Jefferson is a shining example of that.

Ok, checked it out. Is there something there that's supposed to support your thesis, or are you just hoping we get so bogged down in the charts that we overlook the fact that that site deals with the distribution of African ethnic groups in Virginia and not with the causes for the banning of importation?

Actually, it's has a list of shipping by nationality of the ships and the origins of their cargo, something with a direct relevance.

Nice database. Is there supposed to be something there that supports your thesis, or are you just offering another distraction?

See answer to this above.

I didn't direct your attention to it, I directed it to Hermans, who's a lot sharper than you; I already knew you wouldn't get it. You never even heard of the Erie Canal, or that New York and the Midwest were growing food by the time the Civil War came along.

Kodos

06-14-2006, 11:26 PM

Weikel, just because you wish it weren't so doesn't make history go away.

Lets take an example.

Ohio is like nearly all Krauts from that era... when was it ever a left wing state?

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 11:32 PM

Who believes their stated reasons were their actual reasons? Grandiose bullshit was the accepted florid style of the day. What they wrote for pulbic consumption isn't what they practiced themselves, and Jefferson is a shining example of that.

I am far more inclined to believe the reasons stated by a variety of contemporary sources than I am the interpretation of some creepy guy who lives in an attic and makes grand pronouncements about the 'real' meaning of history on the Internet.

Actually, it's has a list of shipping by nationality of the ships and the origins of their cargo, something with a direct relevance.

Yes, but it does nothing to support your thesis that the banning of the importation of slaves was engineered to drive up domestic profits. It shows the the ports of origins of the ships and the origins of the cargo in order to study the disbursement of various African ethnic groups in Virginia.

I didn't direct your attention to it, I directed it to Hermans, who's a lot sharper than you; I already knew you wouldn't get it. You never even heard of the Erie Canal, or that New York and the Midwest were growing food by the time the Civil War came along.

You may be able to bullshit that weirdo, but don't think I won't call you on it.

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 11:35 PM

Lets take an example.

Ohio is like nearly all Krauts from that era... when was it ever a left wing state?

Weikel, at the time there were a large number of communist communities set up throughout the North and the Midwest, many of them founded by German immigrants. Take famed 48er and Lincoln supporter Wilhelm Weitling's commune in Iowa as an example.

Willich, who served as a general in the Union army, was a member of the Communist League. Sigel, another Union general, was forced to resign his commission in Germany because of his left-wing politics. Boernstein, Lincoln's ambassador to Bremen, regularly corresponded with Karl Marx. Need I go on?

Jake Featherston

06-14-2006, 11:41 PM

Only so Virginia and the Carolinas could sell their slaves at much higher prices. Slaves still came in through smuggling, and the plantation owners still bought them.

The Constitution of the USA clearly states that the international slave trade must and will be forever banned 20 years after the Constitution itself were to be ratified. It was ratified in 1788, thus the international slave trade into American ports was legally abolished in 1808 (and by the actual text of the Constitution itself, no less). Illicit contraband will always have market forces calling out for its delivery, but the total number of slaves illegally smuggled onto our shores after 1808 was not very high. This is particularly true in light of the presence of the British Anti-Slavery Squadron, which made open war upon American, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, or any other nationality of sea going vessel, so long as it were being used to transport slaves. The British Anti-Slavery Squadron patrolled all the oceans of the world in search slavers to suppress, starting in 1809. The USA soon contributed a flotilla of naval vessels to work with the British Anti-Slavery Squadron, and thus substantially beefed up interdiction efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and all points along the essentially now-defunct "triangle trade" slaver route (essentially it ran from Charleston, S.C., to San Juan, P.R., and out to anachic shores of western Africa, from approximately present-day Lagos to Dakar).

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 11:45 PM

I am far more inclined to believe the reasons stated by a variety of contemporary sources than I am the interpretation of some creepy guy who lives in an attic and makes grand pronouncements about the 'real' meaning of history on the Internet.

You're far more inclined to believe bullshit spread by politicians than any reality, I agree.

Yes, but it does nothing to support your thesis that the banning of the importation of slaves was engineered to drive up domestic profits.

Of course it does, and a definitive study of Fogel's research on the subject shows exactly what happened to the slave market, i.e. he followed the money. Only people who believe in the Tooth Fairy think politicians in the 'good ole days' were any different than they are now.

It shows the the ports of origins of the ships and the origins of the cargo in order to study the disbursement of various African ethnic groups in Virginia.

To you that's all it says, which is why I didn't bother wasting my time directing it to an uneducated fantabulist.

You may be able to bullshit that weirdo, but don't think I won't call you on it.

Go ahead; I'm alway's up for a good laugh at your shallow nonsense. Let us know when you call me on it.

Will Scarlet

06-14-2006, 11:53 PM

You're far more inclined to believe bullshit spread by politicians than any reality, I agree.

Hardly, though the average politician's pronouncements are rarely any farther from the truth than your own.

Of course it does,

No, it doesn't. It is an unrelated data set to which you pointed in order to make it appear as though you are in possession of some evidence to support your thesis. In reality, though, you have yet to provide it.

Saying, "Look! Here's a database!" proves nothing. Why don't you offer us some interpretation of the way in which the data set supports your contention that the banning of the importation of slaves was done in order to drive up domestic profits?

What? You mean you can't?

and a definitive study of Fogel's research on the subject shows exactly what happened to the slave market, i.e. he followed the money.

Ok, so point us to Fogel's research, then, not to some unrelated data set which only tells us what we already knew -- that much of the early slave trade was conducted by British ships.

While you're at it, show us where Fogel states that the reason for the banning of the importation of slaves was to drive up profits from domestic slave production.

Only people who believe in the Tooth Fairy think politicians in the 'good ole days' were any different than they are now.

And only idiots with their heads up their asses take what you say at face value.

To you that's all it says, which is why I didn't bother wasting my time directing it to an uneducated fantabulist.

...says the bullshit artist who just announced that he was directing it to WFHermans of all people. :rofl:

Go ahead; I'm alway's up for a good laugh at your shallow nonsense. Let us know when you call me on it.

You mean in this post or the last several?

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 11:55 PM

The Constitution of the USA clearly states that the international slave trade must and will be forever banned 20 years after the Constitution itself were to be ratified.

Note the word 'international'? That's not quite the same thing as banning the slave trade entirely. In fact, it soared after 1793. The cotton gin came along and increased demand, and slave prices.

Illicit contraband will always have market forces calling out for its delivery, but the total number of slaves illegally smuggled onto our shores after 1808 was not very high. This is particularly true in light of the presence of the British Anti-Slavery Squadron, which made open war upon American, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, or any other nationality of sea going vessel, so long as it were being used to transport slaves. The British Anti-Slavery Squadron patrolled all the oceans of the world in search slavers to suppress, starting in 1809. The USA soon contributed a flotilla of naval vessels to work with the British Anti-Slavery Squadron, and thus substantially beefed up interdiction efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and all points along the essentially now-defunct "triangle trade" slaver route (essentially it ran from Charleston, S.C., to San Juan, P.R., and out to anachic shores of western Africa, from approximately present-day Lagos to Dakar).

I'm well aware of Britain's efforts off Africa. I'm also aware of bribery, and Britain's using their ban as pretext for piracy and seizing ships at will, whether slavers or not..

It still didn't prevent some 15,000 slaves a year being smuggled in throughout the years after 1807. It's certainly a drop from some 30,000+ a year, but course it paid far better as well. I have to dig them up, but I have slave price data, and the economic boom in slaves was a big boost to Virginia and N. Carolina's economies as well. Smugglers ran out of Cuba and the Caribbean. Not many of the smuggled slaves came directly from Africa to the U.S.

A. Radek

06-14-2006, 11:59 PM

Blah blah blah nyah nyah nyah ... the usual idiocy when he has nothing ...

.[quote]..says the bullshit artist who just announced that he was directing it to WFHermans of all people. :rofl:

I said he was sharper than you by far. Thre was really no need for you keep proving it. One post of yours is way more than enough.

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 12:03 AM

Blah blah blah nyah nyah nyah ... the usual idiocy when he has nothing ...

.

I said he was sharper than you by far. Thre was really no need for you keep proving it. One post of yours is way more than enough.

So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that the banning of the importation of slaves was done in order to drive up profits from domestic production and that in your tiny little mind one effect of said banning somehow became conflated with its cause.

This all so typical of you.

Jake Featherston

06-15-2006, 12:06 AM

Lincoln got the least popular vote percentage of any elected president if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, he got 39% of the vote in 1860, the lowest winning percentage of all time. Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton are approximately tied for second place with 43% each in 1912 and 1992 respectively.

"German socialists" (nazis?:D) had nothing to do with it, the fact that the Democrats were split in three did.

Actually, there were two Democrats on the ballot, the Northern, less conservative Democrat, who was considered the "official" candidate i.e., Stephen A. Douglas, U.S. Senator from Illinois. He'd been expected to win, but instead carried only two small states, yet came in a strong second place nearly everywhere, so in a way he almost did win, yet still got utterly creamed. A close 2nd place in the popular vote, yet a distant 4th in the Electoral College. What can I say? The "Little Giant" (he was very short) had some rotten luck that year, albeit not nearly so rotten as that of the rest of the country, for if any one of the three other major candidates (there were four major candidates total, including Lincoln) had won, the War of Northern Aggression would have been delayed for at least four more years, and perhaps avoided altogether.

The Southern, more conservative, supposedly unofficial Democratic candidate, John C. Breckenridge, U.S. Senator from Alabama, came in 3rd place in the popular vote, but carried essentially all the Southern states, and thus came in second place in the Electoral College.

John A. Bell, who I seem to recall was a Federal judge, decided the country needed a compromise candidate in order to preserve the Union (he was right, of course, and I like to think I would have had the foresight to have voted for Mr. Bell), so he formed the Constitutional Union Party for the purpose of getting himself elected, with his sole goal that of keeping the northern & southern factions happy enough so that they would neither secede nor attack each other, laregely by emphasizing the maintenance of the system, which was about to die, alas, of states being almost wholly sovereign, de facto indepdenent entities. If I recall correctly, Bell also carried only two states, but those were Tennessee and Kentucky, which gave him easily twice as many Electoral votes as the hapless Douglas (who'd carried Vermont, and I believe the other may have been Iowa), yet Mr. Bell sadly came in 4th in the popular vote.

A. Radek

06-15-2006, 12:14 AM

So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that the banning of the importation of slaves was done in order to drive up profits from domestic production and that in your tiny little mind one effect of said banning somehow became conflated with its cause.

No, I'm saying you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, never did, and I was never talking to you in the first place. I've already handed you your ass three or four times on this issue. You're boring and uninformed on the subject. There's no reason for me to spend any time doing it yet again.

This all so typical of you.

What's typical is your insipid ' I Touched You Last!' spam.

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 12:19 AM

No, I'm saying you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, never did, and I was never talking to you in the first place. I've already handed you your ass three or four times on this issue. You're boring and uninformed on the subject. There's no reason for me to spend any time doing it yet again.

So in other words, you can't produce the evidence to support your claims when requested to do so. In a vain attempt to excuse yourself from this, you tell the person who makes the request to butt out of the conversation because you weren't talking to them in the first place, nevermind that you opened your idiot mouth in a public venue to begin with.

This is becoming a well-established pattern with you.

What's typical is your insipid ' I Touched You Last!' spam.

Are you familiar with the phrase "Look who's talking"?

A. Radek

06-15-2006, 12:39 AM

So in other words, you can't produce the evidence to support your claims when requested to do so. In a vain attempt to excuse yourself from this, you tell the person who makes the request to butt out of the conversation because you weren't talking to them in the first place, nevermind that you opened your idiot mouth in a public venue to begin with.

This is becoming a well-established pattern with you.

:nopity: :nopity:

Your well established pattern is to periodically run around the net deleting all your posts, then a month or so later start your same idiotic cut-and-paste bullshit all over again. This is why you have nobody to play with any more.

Now, run along and spam the Irish forum with your insane version of 'Irish History' nonsense yet again; you're overdue for your usual thorough spanking from Shane and the others down there, anyway.

If anybody serious has an inquiry on the issue, I'm always happy to oblige.

Are you familiar with the phrase "Look who's talking"?

Yes. Are you?

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 12:47 AM

Your well established pattern is to periodically run around the net deleting all your posts, then a month or so later start your same idiotic cut-and-paste bullshit all over again. This is why you have nobody to play with any more.

Cut and paste? Hardly. I offer a synthesis of the evidence, couched in my own terms. I'm also willing to provide sources for said evidence upon request.

You, on the other hand, proclaim your opinion as fact and then refuse to provide any evidence to back it up.

Now, run along and spam the Irish forum with your insane version of 'Irish History' nonsense yet again; you're overdue for your usual thorough spanking from Shane and the others down there, anyway.

If anybody serious has an inquiry on the issue, I'm always happy to oblige.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence to support your claim that the cause of the banning of the importation of slaves was to drive up profits from domestic production.

Yes. Are you?

It would appear that, in light of your words, the irony of your own actions escapes you.

A. Radek

06-15-2006, 12:52 AM

Virtually all Federal tax revenues at that time came from the tariff, and over 3/4ths of the tariff revenues came from the states of the newly established CSA.

The cotton South made a deliberate economic decision early on to invest in an export driven slave economy, so in a major way it was their own greed they hung themselves with, and what ultimately cost them the war. Even with the high tariffs the cotton states had the highest per capita income in the U.S. for the 60+ years leading up to the Civil war.

A. Radek

06-15-2006, 12:58 AM

Cut and paste? Hardly. I offer a synthesis of the evidence, couched in my own terms. I'm also willing to provide sources for said evidence upon request.

LOL you just cut and pasted some letter. Big Deal.

You, on the other hand, proclaim your opinion as fact and then refuse to provide any evidence to back it up.

No, I simply ignored your stupid jumping up and down like a demented epilectic dwarf.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence to support your claim that the cause of the banning of the importation of slaves was to drive up profits from domestic production.

so, in other words, you don't know squat, and have no idea how to refute anything I said, so you just nip at my heels like the angry little puppy you is.

It would appear that, in light of your words, the irony of your own actions escapes you.

The only thing that appears to you is the label on that cheap beer you swill.

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 11:17 AM

Thank you for providing further proof that you lack any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the importation of slaves was banned in order to drive up profits from domestic slave production.

IlluSionS667

06-15-2006, 11:51 AM

Lincoln... and Kennedy in second place.

Both were loyal only to their people. Both dared to stood up against their banker masters. Both got killed for it.

Oh, by the way... you guys are aware of the Judaic role in the black slave trade (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8143), right?

And another thing.... the civil war wasn't about slaver. It was merely about the concept of union vs confederation. The abolition of slavery was little more than a punishment of the South, to create chaos. They didn't really care about the slaves in the North. They just wanted the South on their knees.

Lincoln DID respect the South. He also pissed off the bankers when he came up with his "green bags". Eventually, this got him killed. Lone gunman my ass......

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 12:18 PM

Lincoln DID respect the South.

:duh: :crazy: :indifferent: :sick:

IlluSionS667

06-15-2006, 12:29 PM

Lincoln DID respect the South.
:duh: :crazy: :indifferent: :sick:

I actually based this on GW Griffin's "Birth of a Nation (http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html)", a pro-South and pro-KKK film made around 1915. Therefor, I'm pretty sure of the accuracy of that claim.

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 12:36 PM

I actually based this on GW Griffin's "Birth of a Nation (http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html)", a pro-South and pro-KKK film made around 1915. Therefor, I'm pretty sure of the accuracy of that claim.

I think you mean D.W. Griffith, and my recollection of the film doesn't involve any insinuation that Lincoln truly "respected the South", though admitedly it has been a long time since I've seen it.

In any event, a man who truly respected the South wouldn't have sanctioned burning it to the ground and putting its women and children to the sword.

Jimbo Gomez

06-15-2006, 12:41 PM

Gentlemen, cease your flaming.

Daniel Shays

06-15-2006, 12:52 PM

IlluSionS667

06-15-2006, 01:08 PM

I think you mean D.W. Griffith, and my recollection of the film doesn't involve any insinuation that Lincoln truly "respected the South", though admitedly it has been a long time since I've seen it.

In any event, a man who truly respected the South wouldn't have sanctioned burning it to the ground and putting its women and children to the sword.

:o DW Grittifh. The one time I don't look up a name, I horribly misspell it. :o

"Birth or a Nation" basically stated that the Union camps was divided in a radical camp and a moderate camp. The radicals were the ones who wanted to destroy the south. While the film doesn't explicitly mentionned this, it seems obvious to me that these radicals were the ones sponsored by the banking elite, often jewish or origin, as I've seen mentionned in some literature.

Lincoln was one of the moderates. He had allowed the radicals to start a war, but he refused to further destroy the south when the radicals urged him to do so. The film implied that this may have been the reason he was killed.

Nevertheless, Lincoln also provoked the banking elite with his green bag notes : money printed by the state, that was free of interest. IMO, that's probably a more important reason. He definitely got killed for standing up agains his masters, though. For that, I honor him.

Most American presidents have been puppets of the banking elite (today commonly referred to as the NWO or ZOG). Lincoln and Kennedy defied them. That's why they were killed.

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 01:14 PM

The South had to be destroyed and rebuilt. It was dependant on slavery which was turning the Southland into South Africa and Whites were living in worse conditions than slaves except of course for the layer of "cream" on top.

False.

It would seem that you are viewing the conflict from the perspective of a modern 'racialist,' which generally is not translatable to the motivations of the time.

Firstly, when Lincoln called for an invasion of the South, there were eight slave states in the Union and only seven in the Confederacy, and even though a number of these states seceded from the Union upon Lincoln's declaration, slavery continued to exist as an institution in the North even after Lincoln's emancipation proclamation 'freed' the slaves in Confederate territories not yet under Northern occupation.

Secondly, it was really under Reconstruction that the free White began to find himself living in worse conditions than the negro. Not only was he reduced to sharecropping or tenant farming, but he was also politically disenfranchised and subjected to the tyranny of, temporarily, negro rule.

The great masses of men who had fought for the Confederacy were denied rights under the Constitution on the grounds that they had been "insurrectionists", further leading to their disenfranchisement.

Where the South was a stable, agrarian society before, after the invasion it became an impoverished place filled with bitterness and resentment.

Rebuilt? Hardly. More like tortured and left to suffer.

Not to mention Judah Benjamin.

So there was a jew in the Confederate government? That's a reason to destroy a nation?

Are you, by the way, insinuating that there were no jews in Lincoln's government?

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 01:17 PM

"Birth or a Nation" basically stated that the Union camps was divided in a radical camp and a moderate camp. The radicals were the ones who wanted to destroy the south. While the film doesn't explicitly mentionned this, it seems obvious to me that these radicals were the ones sponsored by the banking elite, often jewish or origin, as I've seen mentionned in some literature.

Lincoln was one of the moderates. He had allowed the radicals to start a war, but he refused to further destroy the south when the radicals urged him to do so. The film implied that this may have been the reason he was killed.

Lincoln was hardly a moderate, and he could easily have prevented the war had that been his intention. But no, he couldn't allow for economic competition, as he himself stated when he pondered what would happen to Northern trade if he allowed the South to trade freely with its lower tariffs.

Most American presidents have been puppets of the banking elite (today commonly referred to as the NWO or ZOG). Lincoln and Kennedy defied them. That's why they were killed.

No American president defied them more than my cousin Andy, and he lived to a ripe old age. :)

IlluSionS667

06-15-2006, 01:29 PM

Lincoln was hardly a moderate, and he could easily have prevented the war had that been his intention. But no, he couldn't allow for economic competition, as he himself stated when he pondered what would happen to Northern trade if he allowed the South to trade freely with its lower tariffs.

Lincoln was an idealist who got himself carried away by the bankers' agents. When he realised his mistakes, he wanted to change his policies.... and they killed him. Ditto for Kennedy.

No American president defied them more than my cousin Andy, and he lived to a ripe old age. :)

In case you're referring to Andrew Jackson, his presidency ended about 24 years before Lincoln's begun. A lot can change in 24 years. Just look at how much the world has changed since the late '60s.

The NWO established most of their power in the late 19th century (with the rise of the monopolies) and the early 20th century (especially during Wilson and FDR).

Hakluyt

06-15-2006, 01:32 PM

I don't like any of them, but Adams comes closest for his Hamiltonian tendencies.

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 01:43 PM

Lincoln was an idealist who got himself carried away by the bankers' agents. When he realised his mistakes, he wanted to change his policies.... and they killed him. Ditto for Kennedy.

Methinks you attribute too much to these elusive "bankers' agents".

In case you're referring to Andrew Jackson, his presidency ended about 24 years before Lincoln's begun.

Really? :p

The NWO established most of their power in the late 19th century (with the rise of the monopolies) and the early 20th century (especially during Wilson and FDR).

...thanks to Lincoln clearing the way. Granted, he saw it coming and expressed his dismay, but such are the fruits of his life's labors.

IlluSionS667

06-15-2006, 02:03 PM

Methinks you attribute too much to these elusive "bankers' agents".

It's not just bankers who're running the NWO, no more than it are just jews. The Rothschild banking dynasty and they affiliates are pretty much running the show, though.

...thanks to Lincoln clearing the way. Granted, he saw it coming and expressed his dismay, but such are the fruits of his life's labors.

At least he did express his dismay. Most presidents were just puppets who showed no desire whatsoever to do what's best for the American people, blinded by their fame and apparent power.

Daniel Shays

06-15-2006, 02:27 PM

False.

It would seem that you are viewing the conflict from the perspective of a modern 'racialist,' which generally is not translatable to the motivations of the time.
My view is certainly relevant to the time and it was even common. Don't pretend you never read of the American Colonization Society.

So there was a jew in the Confederate government?
That's an understatement. He was at various times the Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State.

Lee was famous for giving his Jewish soldiers permission to celebrate their holidays, unlike Grant who was very anti-semitic and railed against Jewish carpetbaggers, evicting them from military bases.

That's a reason to destroy a nation?
Nations are racially+culturally homogeneous, the CSA was a union of states, nothing more. There was a great high culture present in the South but only those indifferent to their lesser brethren took part. There were deep cultural chasms between Europeans in a land of hostile races, this is unacceptable, so much so that I do not consider Pres. Johnson a traitor to the South at all.

The worst part about the South was that without Blacks it would have collapsed, America is in a much better situation now where they can be removed from society (incarcerated) with a net gain instead of loss.
Are you, by the way, insinuating that there were no jews in Lincoln's government?
Surely there were but no one attempts to hold up Lincoln's government as some romantic ideal.

Intrepid

06-15-2006, 09:16 PM

No, I'm talking about the fact that it was largely German immigrants subscribing to socialist ideals that got Lincoln elected in the first place and to the fact that his government and military machine were rife with socialists who had been involved in the failed '48 revolution in Germany, including general-grade officers in the Union army, such as Sigel and Willich.

The yankee poet (and outspoken hater of the South) Ralph Waldo Emerson on Lincoln's war:
"This revolution has a feature new to history, that of socialism."

Interesting. Do you have a source to the exact amount of Leftist German immigrants holding cabinet positions during Lincoln's term? Was their presence maintained during Johnson's regime?

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 10:49 PM

My view is certainly relevant to the time and it was even common. Don't pretend you never read of the American Colonization Society.

The purpose of the American Colonization Society was to repatriate free negros, not to smash the South and rebuild it without blacks at all.

That's an understatement. He was at various times the Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State.

Yes. So that was reason to invade and destroy a nation?

Lee was famous for giving his Jewish soldiers permission to celebrate their holidays, unlike Grant who was very anti-semitic and railed against Jewish carpetbaggers, evicting them from military bases.

Grant is known to have given one such order, which did not expel jews from military bases, but expelled them from the Southern territories under Union occupation. This was done because the abuses of these jewish carpetbaggers stirred up the populace and made them even more difficult to control.

The order was almost immediately rescinded by the War Department. At whose orders? Follow the conversation for yourself:

Lincoln: And so the Children of Israel were driven from the happy land of Canaan.
Kaskel: Yes, and that is why we have come to Father Abraham, to ask his protection.
Lincoln: And this protection they shall have at once.

Nations are racially+culturally homogeneous, the CSA was a union of states, nothing more.

False. The CSA was a homogeneous nation virtually untouched by the immigration from continental Europe which plagued the North (and from whence the North drew its mercenary army, commonly referred to in the South as "Hessians"). Negroes were not citizens of this nation until after the CSA was crushed and the 14th Amendment illegally forced on its member states under duress.

The White population of the South remains to this day homogeneously Old Stock American to a degree seen nowhere else in the country.

There was a great high culture present in the South but only those indifferent to their lesser brethren took part.

It is not only "high culture" (ie. artificial culture) that defines a people.

There were deep cultural chasms between Europeans in a land of hostile races, this is unacceptable, so much so that I do not consider Pres. Johnson a traitor to the South at all.

It is true that there were deep cultural chasms between European-derived peoples here in America, just as there remain deep cultural chasms between European peoples in Europe to this day.

In this case, the divide was essentially along a North/South axis. Unfortunately, a misguided sense of cultural superiority on the part of the North led them to the ultimate folly: conquering and slaying their brothers to the South.

The worst part about the South was that without Blacks it would have collapsed, America is in a much better situation now where they can be removed from society (incarcerated) with a net gain instead of loss.

A better situation now? The good White people of Detroit, Washington DC, Richmond, Atlanta, etc. might beg to differ with you.

Surely there were but no one attempts to hold up Lincoln's government as some romantic ideal.

Are you kidding? Pick up an elementary American history textbook and you'll see nothing but a romantic eulogizing of Lincoln and his war machine.

"He is trampling out the vintage where the Grapes of Wrath are stored," my ass...

Will Scarlet

06-15-2006, 10:50 PM

Interesting. Do you have a source to the exact amount of Leftist German immigrants holding cabinet positions during Lincoln's term? Was their presence maintained during Johnson's regime?

Cabinet positions? Allow me some time.

WFHermans

06-15-2006, 11:20 PM

The Union had quite some german generals. I don't know how many of them were socialists. Although socialists would generally have supported Lincoln against the Confederacy, I don't see them as being decisive or even of much importance in Lincoln's victory.

I think this is the part of the Constitution referring to the abolishment of slave importation in 1808:

US Constitution of 1787 (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

"Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

It only says that it would be allowed for Congress to to prohibit the importation of people, slaves or not, after 20 years.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html has the complete texts of all Congressional proceedings etc., but it's hard to find anything I want to find in there because the texts are scanned but not digitalized. So it's still a mystery why some slaveholding states agreed to limiting the importation of slaves, but anyway not much southern support was needed.

A. Radek

06-16-2006, 01:14 AM

Jefferson Davis was a Secret Jew. Anybody reading his biography will see his distinctly Jew-like behavior.

So was Andrew Jackson, but that's a thread in itself.

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 01:48 AM

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 01:49 AM

So was Andrew Jackson, but that's a thread in itself.

So fire it up, hoss.

WFHermans

06-16-2006, 12:09 PM

The german socialists that arrived after the revolutions of 1848 wouldn't have much time to climb the ladder in cvil life. A career in the civil war was much more likely.

After the British outlawed the transatlantic slavetrade, they started to bully the other nations into doing so as well. It's very likely that was the most important reason the USA went along.

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 03:03 PM

The german socialists that arrived after the revolutions of 1848 wouldn't have much time to climb the ladder in cvil life. A career in the civil war was much more likely.

In certain parts of the country (primarily the upper Midwest) they were key players. But again, they don't seem to have been well-placed in DC, but they formed much of the broad, popular base of Lincoln supporters and were often well-placed in the Union Army.

After the British outlawed the transatlantic slavetrade, they started to bully the other nations into doing so as well. It's very likely that was the most important reason the USA went along.

But the clause establishing that 1808 would be the end of slave importation in the US was written into the Constitution before Britain outlawed the slavetrade in 1807.

Additionally, I redirect your attention to the fact that Virginia listed among its causes for separating from Britain that the crown refused to allow a ban on the importation of slaves.

WFHermans

06-16-2006, 04:00 PM

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
Not here. Do you have the list Virginia of grievances handy?

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 05:03 PM

Yes. They are included in the same document, the Virginia Constitution. You have quoted here only the Bill of Rights. The next section is the list of grievances:

THE CONSTITUTION OR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AGREED TO AND RESOLVED UPON BY THE DELEGATES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SEVERAL COUNTIES AND CORPORATIONS OF VIRGINIA

Whereas George the third, King of Great Britain and Ireland, and elector of Hanover, heretofore intrusted with the exercise of the kingly office in this government, hath endeavoured to prevent, the same into a detestable and insupportable tyranny, by putting his negative on laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:

By denying his Governors permission to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation for his assent, and, when so suspended neglecting to attend to them for many years:

By refusing to pass certain other laws, unless the persons to be benefited by them would relinquish the inestimable right of representation in the legislature:

By dissolving legislative Assemblies repeatedly and continually, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions of the rights of the people:

When dissolved, by refusing to call others for a long space of time, thereby leaving the political system without any legislative head:

By endeavouring to prevent the population of our country, and, for that purpose, obstructing, the laws for the naturalization of foreigners:

By keeping among us, in times of peace, standing armies and ships of war:

By effecting to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power:

By combining with others to subject us to a foreign jurisdiction, giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offences:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:

By plundering our seas, ravaging our coasts, burning our towns, and destroying the lives of our people:

By inciting insurrections of our fellow subjects, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation:

By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law:

By endeavoring to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence:

By transporting, at this time, a large army of foreign mercenaries, to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the head of a civilized nation:

By answering our repeated petitions for redress with a repetition of injuries: And finally, by abandoning the helm of government and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection.

By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED.

Fade the Butcher

06-16-2006, 05:08 PM

Jefferson Davis was a Secret Jew. Anybody reading his biography will see his distinctly Jew-like behavior.

Jefferson Davis once almost killed Judah Benjamin in a duel. :p

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 05:20 PM

Jefferson Davis once almost killed Judah Benjamin in a duel. :p

Now there's a cultural practice that needs to make a comeback.

WFHermans

06-16-2006, 05:33 PM

Jackson killed a lawyer because he had insulted Jackson's wife.

WFHermans

06-16-2006, 05:48 PM

These are two important grievances they never taught us about in school:

By endeavouring to prevent the population of our country, and, for that purpose, obstructing, the laws for the naturalization of foreigners:
.....
By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law:

Apparently Virginia wanted to be a white state, and the government didn't allow that. I think they even imported "free negroes" into Virginia while limiting the immigration of whites. The good people of Virginia were not specifically against slavery but against niggers and injuns.

This is yet another example that shows us we should always look for the source documents if there is any reason to suspect those source documents were in any way politically incorrect. Don't trust modern academia, Wikipedophilia, or any other kike-tainted "description" of what's supposed to be in the source document.

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 05:57 PM

Yeah, this part probably doesn't sit well with the politically correct set, either:

By endeavoring to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence:

WFHermans

06-16-2006, 06:05 PM

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
That one they changed into "taxation without representatation", which is of course something else.

Will Scarlet

06-16-2006, 06:31 PM

That one they changed into "taxation without representatation", which is of course something else.

Well, "No taxation without representation" comes from a rallying cry of the Revolutionary movement and referred to the fact that the American colonies had no representation (though we certainly had some friends) in Parliament.

Lenny

06-16-2006, 11:51 PM

Abraham Lincoln on the Civil War:
"This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of France, were at their disposal, if they would attack us. I pity the priests, the bishops and the monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war; the later the more terrible will the retribution be. I conceal what I know, on that subject, from the knowledge of the nation; for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would, at once, take a tenfold more savage and bloody character, it would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides. The Protestants of both the North and the South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor Morse has said to me of the plots made in the very city of Rome to destroy this Republic, and if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon, and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free."

Quote from Lincoln's adviser Charles Chiniquy, speaking to Lincoln:
"The unanimity with which the Catholic hierarchy of the United States is on the side of the rebels is an incontrovertible evidence that Rome wants to destroy this republic, and as you are, by your personal virtues, your popularity, your love for liberty, your position, the greatest obstacle to the diabolical schemes, their hatred is concentrated upon you; you are the daily object of their maledictions; it is at your breast they will direct their blows. My blood chills in my veins when I contemplate the day which may come, sooner or later, when Rome will add to all her other iniquities the murder of Abraham Lincoln."

...And Rome did murder him :mad:

Another quote from Lincoln's adviser speaking to Lincoln, after the publication of the Pope's letter recognizing the Confederacy:
"That letter is a poisoned arrow thrown by the Pope, at you personally; and it will be more than a miracle if it be not your irrevocable warrant of death. Before reading it, it is true that every Catholic could see by the unanimity of the bishops siding with the rebel cause, that their church as a whole, was against this free Republican government. However, a good number of liberty-loving Irish, German and French Catholics, following more the instincts of their noble nature, than the degrading principles of their church, enrolled themselves under the banners of Liberty, and they have fought like heroes. To detach these men from the rank and file of the Northern armies, and force them to help the cause of the rebellion, became the object of the intrigues of the Jesuits. Secret and pressing letters were addressed from Rome to the bishops, ordering them to weaken your armies by detaching those men from you. The bishops answered, that they could not do that without exposing themselves to be shot. But they advised the Pope to acknowledge, at once, the legitimacy of the Southern Republic, and to take Jeff Davis under his supreme protection, by a letter, which would be read everywhere. That letter, then, tells logically the Roman Catholics that you are a blood-thirsty tyrant! a most execrable being when fighting against a government which the infallible and holy Pope of Rome recognizes as legitimate."

Hail http://utahreach.org/govt/pics/lincoln.gif

Will Scarlet

06-17-2006, 01:19 AM

However, a good number of liberty-loving Irish, German and French Catholics, following more the instincts of their noble nature, than the degrading principles of their church, enrolled themselves under the banners of Liberty, and they have fought like heroes.

Banners of Liberty my ass. Have you any stats on which side had more Catholics fighting for them?

Lenny

06-17-2006, 02:02 AM

Have you any stats on which side had more Catholics fighting for them?The Federal Army clearly had more Catholics fighting for them. We know there were 144,000 Irish Catholics, ~60,000 German Catholics, perhaps 30,000 other foreign Catholics, and assuming that 5% of the native-born Northerners were Catholic that would be 85,000 native Catholics. Total of 319,000. The number of Confederate Catholics would've been limited mainly to the Cajuns and some Marylanders, maybe a handful of foreigners, certainly nothing approaching 300,000 (if there were 300k Catholic Confederate soldiers that would've been one-third of the CS army!)

It is also a fact that the Catholics (particularly Irish Catholics) deserted in vast numbers from the Northern Army:

In reply to the boast so freely made by Roman Catholic editors and orators that the Irish fought the battles of the civil war and saved the nation, the following document, received from the Pension department at Washington, is here given:

Whole number of troop . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,128,200

Natives of the United States . . . . . . . . .1,627,267

Germans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,817

Irishmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,221

British (other than Irish) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,040

Other foreigners and missions . . . . . . . . . .87,855

The "Desertions" were as follows:

Natives of the United States . . . . . . . . 5 percent

Germans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 percent

Irish Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 percent

British (Other than Irish) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 percent

Other foreigners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 percent

In other words: of the 144,000 Irishmen that enlisted. 104,000 deserted. And it is reliably stated that most of these desertions occurred after the recognition of the Confederacy by the Pope. It is also a fact that of the five percent of native Americans rated as deserters, 45 percent of the 5 percent were Catholics.

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/LA/rr.htm

A. Radek

06-17-2006, 07:27 AM

Good posts, Lenny. Much more informative than the grade school 'history' that preceded it for two+ pages.

Jefferson Davis once almost killed Judah Benjamin in a duel.

WASP propoganda. Glenn Miller has already exposed you as a Secret Jew as well.

Jefferson Davis' cotton plantation was run by a black overseer named Patterson, not himself, for most of it's existence. Apparently Southern whites were too stupid to be trusted with the job of making him a wealthy man with lots of free time on his hands.:p

Will Scarlet

06-17-2006, 01:49 PM

Lenny, the Irish didn't desert because of some communiqué from the pope. They deserted because the only way Irishmen know how to make war is on women and children, and they found themselves up against an army of men in a war they never believed in.

Not everything in this world is a Vatican conspiracy.

Good posts, Lenny. Much more informative than the grade school 'history' that preceded it for two+ pages.

Goodness, gracious! You really are nothing more than the yappy little dog leaping around behind the protection of the big dogs, breathlessly panting, "Go get him, Spike! Yeah, buddy, you're in trouble now! Spike's comin' for you!"

Pathetic...

A. Radek

06-17-2006, 08:59 PM

Yawn ... nobody was talking you, Gomer; I was complimenting Lenny on his most excellent posts and presentation, but you're such a jealous little twit you can't stand it, can you?:rofl:

Kodos

06-17-2006, 09:54 PM

Lenny, the Irish didn't desert because of some communiqué from the pope. They deserted because the only way Irishmen know how to make war is on women and children

Given the mortality rate for a civil war( the worst % in history other then WWI) private I can't blame them here but the statements of the Pope and their political leaders probably didn't help too much. They ain't innately all abject cowards Jackson... hell much of the British army prior to 1918 was Irish.

A. Radek

06-17-2006, 10:54 PM

Jackson never heard of the draft riots in NYC, or much of anything else, like the Erie Canal, or that they grew and exported food from the Midwest in the 1800's.

Will Scarlet

06-19-2006, 12:21 PM

Given the mortality rate for a civil war( the worst % in history other then WWI) private I can't blame them here but the statements of the Pope and their political leaders probably didn't help too much. They ain't innately all abject cowards Jackson... hell much of the British army prior to 1918 was Irish.

And how many of those were Ulster Scots or Anglo-Hibernians?

Tell me the last time the Irish openly engaged in a "war" that involved more than blowing pregnant women to smithereens.

Will Scarlet

06-19-2006, 12:22 PM

Yawn ... nobody was talking you, Gomer; I was complimenting Lenny on his most excellent posts and presentation, but you're such a jealous little twit you can't stand it, can you?:rofl:

No, I just find it a constant source of amusement that you never offer anything of substance, but you sure make a good cheerleader.

Will Scarlet

06-19-2006, 12:24 PM

Jackson never heard of the draft riots in NYC...

Yes, we all know that the Irish have a tendency to run riot and smash up the streets. Try to get them to fight against men, they riot. Have a parade they don't like, they riot. Tell them to get out of your country, they riot. Insult the pope, they riot.

Hell, not even "African Americans" are so prone to shit where they sleep as the Irish are.

WFHermans

06-19-2006, 02:50 PM

If only it would have been true that the Pope and the catholic states had supported the South. The world would be a better place now.

Lenny

06-19-2006, 09:32 PM

If only it would have been true that the Pope and the catholic states had supported the South. The world would be a better place now.It is a fact that the Pope recognized the Confederacy, the only foreign head of state to do so! (not because he liked the South or anything, but because he wanted to see the Protestant US destroyed)

----------------------
Letter to the Pope from Jefferson Davis

"RICHMOND, September 23, 1863.

VERY VENERABLE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF
"The letters which you have written to the clergy of New Orleans and New York have been communicated to me, and I have read with emotion the deep grief therein expressed for the ruin and devastation caused by the war which is now being waged by the United States against the States and people which have selected me as their President, and your orders to your clergy to exhort the people to peace and charity. I am deeply sensible of the Christian charity which has impelled you to this reiterated appeal to the clergy. It is for this reason that I feel it my duty to express personally, and in the name of the Confederate States, our gratitude for such sentiments of Christian good feeling and love, and to assure Your Holiness that the people, threatened even on their own hearths with the most cruel oppression and terrible carnage, is desirous now, as it has always been, to see the end of this impious war; that we have ever addressed prayers to Heaven for that issue which Your Holiness now desires; that we desire none of our enemy's possessions, but that we fight merely to resist the devastation of our country and the shedding of our best blood, and to force them to let us live in peace under the protection of our own institutions, and under our laws, which not only insure to every one the enjoyment of his temporal rights, but also the free exercise of his religion. I pray Your Holiness to accept, on the part of myself and the people of the Confederate States, our sincere thanks for your efforts in favor of peace. May the Lord preserve the days of Your Holiness, and keep you under His divine protection.
(Signed) "JEFFERSON DAVIS."

The Pope's reply:

"ILLUSTRIOUS AND HONORABLE PRESIDENT,
salutation:
We have just received with all suitable welcome the persons sent by you to place in our hands your letter, dated 23d of September last. Not slight was the pleasure we experienced when we learned, from those persons and the letter, with what feelings of joy and gratitude you were animated, illustrious and honorable President, as soon as you were informed of our letters to our venerable brother John, Archbishop of New York, and John, Archbishop of New Orleans, dated the 18th of October of last year, and in which we have with all our strength excited and exhorted those venerable brothers that, in their episcopal piety and solicitude, they should endeavor, with the most ardent zeal, and in our name, to bring about the end of the fatal civil war which has broken out in those countries, in order that the American people may obtain peace and concord, and dwell charitably together. It is particularly agreeable to us to see that you, illustrious and honorable President, and your people, are animated with the same desires of peace and tranquility which we have in our letters inculcated upon our venerable brothers. May it please God at the same time to make the other peoples of America and their rulers, reflecting seriously how terrible is civil war, and what calamities it engenders, listen to the inspirations of a calmer spirit, and adopt resolutely the part of peace. As for us, we shall not cease to offer up the most fervent prayers to God Almighty, that He may pour out upon all the people of America the spirit of peace and charity, and that He will stop the great evils which afflict them. We, at the same time, beseech the God of pity to shed abroad upon you the light of His grace, and attach you to us by a perfect friendship.
" Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, the 3d of December, 1863, of our Pontificate 18.
(Signed) ".Plus IX."

From the book, A Memoir of Jefferson Davis in two volumes, completed by his wife Varina Davis after his death. According to that book the main hope of the Confederate States lay in the military intervention of foreign countries.
----------------------

Then after Lincoln's death:

Funeral of President Lincoln

A grateful nation mourns....The funeral procession of President Lincoln visited 11 cities and over 1 million people filed past his coffin. He was mourned by millions throughout the world.

http://www.reformation.org/lincoln-funeral.jpg
President Lincoln's funeral procession in New York City.

Words of condolences were received from virtually every country in the world . . . except from the Pope!!

The Vatican was praying for a Confederate victory because a divided Unites States would eventually break up into several countries. All of these new countries would be fighting each other and the Bull of Borgia would be a lot easier to enforce.

http://www.reformation.org/lincoln.html

WFHermans

06-19-2006, 09:50 PM

Thanks for these very interesting source documents. Unfortunately, the Confederate States of America were not recognized as a sovereign federate nation, as shows this line in the letter of the Pope: "...they should endeavor, with the most ardent zeal, and in our name, to bring about the end of the fatal civil war which has broken out in those countries...".

Later again the phrase "civil war" is used, which shows that the Pope regarded this not as a war between two states, but as a war in one state between different parties.

I don't know whether the Papal State offered condolences, but I do know the USA didn't offer condolences after the death of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. I regard Abraham Lincoln as one of the most evil men in history.

Will Scarlet

06-19-2006, 11:35 PM

A quality post, Hermans.

The letters offered here show nothing more than that Davis, on hearing news of communication between the Vatican and its bishopry in America, appealed -- as any desperate head of state may be tempted to do -- to Rome's vanity by offering up flattery.

Rome replied with a noncommittal but equally flowery response, openly expressing its support for neither side.

There is no indication of a sinister conspiracy to be seen here.

Lenny

06-20-2006, 12:11 AM

Rome replied with a noncommittal but equally flowery response, openly expressing its support for neither side.

There is no indication of a sinister conspiracy to be seen here.Clearly the Pope (and other European powers, but especially the Pope seeing as how the US was an strong up-and-coming Protestant and anti-Catholic nation in the otherwise overwhelmingly Catholic Western Hemisphere) wanted to see the Confederates win the war so that the US would be broken apart and badly weakened. 1861 probably wouldnt have been the last time secession happened, either.

It is a fact that the Catholic Church were strong supporters of the Confederates. See the second and third quotations in the following post, said by Lincoln's personal friend and adviser Charles Chiniquy, speaking on this matter to Lincoln: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=108813&postcount=105

nfortunately, the Confederate States of America were not recognized as a sovereign federate nation, as shows this line in the letter of the Pope: "...they should endeavor, with the most ardent zeal, and in our name, to bring about the end of the fatal civil war which has broken out in those countries..."

Later again the phrase "civil war" is used, which shows that the Pope regarded this not as a war between two states, but as a war in one state between different parties.The fact that he calls Jefferson Davis "illustrious and honorable President" twice, clearly recognizes the legtimacy of the Confederacy. Also in the very passage you quoted, he refers to "those countries", i.e. more than one. The American people were still viewed as one people and the nation had recently been one government, in that sense it was a civil war, but the Pope clearly recognized the rebel government

I don't know whether the Papal State offered condolencesThey did not.