Bill Bonner, reckoning today from Paris, France General, I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know, as well as any one, what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arrayed for battle can take that position.
Yes, the union had all those advantages, but one more that was the coup de grace.
A very well developed rail system. Going in all the right directions. They could move thousands of troops and horses in a couple of days that would take Confederates a couple of weeks to arrive exhausted.
But once underway – like an empire, inflation or a love affair – war takes on a life of its own. People lose sight of what they are fighting for and concern themselves only with winning. They use “any means necessary” – murder, mayhem, deceit, invention, starvation, poison…whatever they can come up with – to beat their opponents.
Awesome quote, I'm adding it to my collection, attributed to Bill Bonner, hope that's correct.
Thomas DeLorenzo has excellent books on Lincoln and the War Between the States (sometimes, to get a rise out of people, I call it "The War of Northern Aggression").
Before the war, the South imported goods from England at better prices than from the North. The North forced tariffs through Congress on the goods imported from England, making it cheaper to buy from the North. This was most likely a major cause of secession - and war.
For the first two years, Lincoln fought "to preserve the Union". When England threatened to join on behalf of the South, he changed the purpose "to free the slaves", which made it morally repulsive to support the South, and England backed off.
The Emancipation Proc. only freed slaves in Conferedate states, not in states that belonged to the Union.
Some scholars maintain that the South had a legal right to secede, although there are arguments for both sides. They also claim this was explicitly assured to several states when they debated to ratify the Constitution.
As a result of the War Between the States, the Federal govt upset the balance of power between the states and Washington. The 10th amendment clearly states that if it's not in the Constitution, authority belongs to the states. But in the aftermath of the war, Washington got the income tax (there was none before 1913), senators represented the people instead of the state, and the federal reserve was established. All three greatly eroded our freedoms in numerous ways (I'll leave that for another post.)
I am very grateful for the U.S., and I think it's a wonderful country, but I have problems with the Pledge of Alleigance - notably, "one nation...indivisible". Written in the 1890s, I think it bolsters people's connection to the Federal Govt, and bypasses the state, diminishes the identity and authority of the state. (Aside from the fact it was written by a Christian Socialist, who believed factories were a way to control the masses, and everyone should live on small, family farms. The author's cousin wrote a best seller called "Looking Backward", about a utopian society, which I found peurile, and against everything that made this country great.
Do people get offended when you say that? I am very careful who I say this to, most people would not understand. But it's part of the groupthink that you're not patriotic if you don't agree with the Pledge.
They don't know what to say, as the idea is completely novel to them. But, it gets them to think, and maybe somewhere down the line, someone else will expand the idea further for them. I know what you're saying, but I can't help it if groupthink is all wrong. Most of what we are taught to believe is incorrect, and that includes physics. For instance, Ohm's Law does work, but only in a closed system. What if most of the systems in the world and universe are open? If that is true, then our vision is extremely limited, and we are focusing on the wrong thing, due to our natural selfish nature. It's a big universe out there.
Truth no longer has to be hidden as people now hide themselves from truth.
Few understand history. Few can explain it. In a time when the woke left will not allow history to be what it was and not what they want it to be, it was a pleasant read today. I had stopped from reading "Slavery and the Civil War" and needed to read my emails. The Bonner writings are always pleasant, but today's fit right in with my reading. My depth of knowledge and certainly not finance no where are close to yours Mr Bonner, but when I read things that dove tail into each other, I almost wished you did write history. You are needed.
“Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.”
Nice to live in a country where one can criticize the government.
Do I understand correctly that here you are suggesting that people of the south were in fact the righteous side in that war who were forced into submission by Lincoln’s armies?
Really, Nezam? Perhaps you simply haven't looked into it. I was going to send you a couple links, but there are so many pages on Allied war crimes, I will just send you the search link:
Even wikipedia has a long entry. The list is by no means exhaustive, and the pages listed barely scrap the surface of crimes committed by "the good guys." As I have stated before, in war, there is no "good guy." Remember, history is written by the "winners." The US, in particular, sold it's soul to win WWII, and the devil will have his due.
history happens to be retrospective .. that why today hitler stalin mussolini are celebrated by a bunch of young assholes who've never shit iin a foxhole full of water watching their own turds float around wondering what they were doing the .. every side does "war crimes" because WAR is a crime its all about getting rid of the greater enemy .. so who's side are you on ..?
First, great name. We are going to add you to the short list of Fantastic Name Posters. Seriously.
There are many ways to look at the "Civil" War and most of them that remove the BS narrative we have been fed by the "victors" and subsequently focus on Facts and Critical Thinking would lead an objective person to agree that, yes, the South was the "righteous" side (whatever that means in war.)
PS - You probably don't want to poke the bear of Slavery as part of your argument for two main reasons -
1. That institution had very little to do with why the war was fought (fact)
-and-
2. It has been proven that not a SINGLE Republican owned a single slave when the hostilities broke out (another fact.)
So if your intent is to eventually begin cheering about how "righteous" the dimocrats are and have always been, you might want to read some History...
1. I don’t have a dog in the fight between Democrats vs. Republicans. I do not like, support or belong to any political party.
2. My understanding of the history is that most (if not all) slave owners were in fact Democrats and it was Republicans or the Party of Lincoln that abolished slavery.
3. Also, my understanding of the history is that the Civil War was (primarily) driven by the fight over slavery. Feel free to educate me re why it was fought if not over slavery.
Btw, you actually keep a list of people with fantastic names who post here? Seriously?
It takes 2 to fight, and the Civil War was fought for one reason only - to preserve the Union. The North never would have amassed an army solely to force the South to free their slaves. It was Secession that motivated the North to take up arms. That said, Lincoln himself thought slavery was the central and most divisive issue. The South(meaning here the Democratic Party which controlled the South and was responsible for Secession and the war mongering that began in Charleston) may not have seceded had they believed there was no threat to their way of life as represented by the right to own slaves. But that is arguable and pure speculation. What was clear was that there was a cultural and economic divide between the North and South that drove bitter and escalating divisions that did not end in 1865. Only the kinetic war ended that year. The divide remained, and you can still see it and hear it to this day. I did just last month as I drove around Florida, Alabama and Georgia, where I grew up.
My understanding is the slavery issue only became an issue in the newer states being added in the West and only later in the war. War was about power as it always is, one side wanting to go it’s own way and the other believing in a nationalistic state with one central government. We are witnessing how well that worked out. Few were arguing to abolish slavery in the existing states. Brion McClanahan someone you may want to read if you would truly like to learn some history. Happy 4th all. Let’s celebrate the 50 independent States
I believe you are correct on all three points, just perhaps that Slavery was not the PRIMARY reason for the CW. Obviously it was an important point to the Confederate states, but there were others more important that were driving the decision to secede IMO. Mr. Scott educated me below that it was indeed the primary factor for at least two states.
I only brought up the dim vs. repub thing because current thinking represents one of the biggest bait-and-switches of all time. The dims were the slave holders, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow laws and fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act becoming the law of the land. But ask 100 people on the street which political party did all those things and 90+ will say the Republicants. Amazing display of successful propaganda and indoctrination and the precise opposite of Reality.
Yes, there IS a list, but it's short and I don't keep it personally. At this time I believe it is populated by Mr. Clem Devine and Mr. Orion Dworkin. I hope I remembered those correctly and didn't leave any others out. So welcome to an elite group Mr.(?) Tooloee...
nothing to do with 'slavery' just the excuse to attack the folks down south who were making all the money/cotton and them northern puritans trying as always to impose their idea of how humanity should be on their southern neighbors .. all about money .. blacks browns yellows were just obvious racial bigotry used to excite the masses into a frenzy of hate resentment to kill their own families confusion still reigns!
"3. Also, my understanding of the history is that the Civil War was (primarily) driven by the fight over slavery. Feel free to educate me re why it was fought if not over slavery." - The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. There are many who argue that the Civil War was primarily fought over state's rights, but the primary state right they were concerned about centered around the right to keep slaves. It was a strange time . . . those who advocated for slavery - an extreme powerful minority of slave owners, about 4% of the population - bent themselves into logically pretzels to justify its practice while slowly working to eliminate it from the states. Most Americans - white, black and Indian - were or had relatives who were slaves of one sort or another and those experiences likely resulted in the desire of the general public to end the practice. During the 1600s-1700s in North America race in conjunction with slavery was largely irrelevant. By the 1800s slavery mainly centered around black Africans and whites who were legacy slaves. I bring this up, because the general opinion of Americans between the 1600-1700s and the 1800s on race had shifted dramatically. In general, in colonial America people didn't care much about race. But by the 1800s, in general, people thought black Africans were inferior and did not want them in the country . . . including Abraham Lincoln who was primarily concerned with preserving the union. A union in which it was legal for any section to cede from the union. Secession was legal, foreseen, anticipated and intended by those who wrote the founding documents of the country. This is why Jefferson Davis was charged with treason at the end of the Civil War, but never brought to trial, as secession was constitutional. Could go on, but will spare you the ramblings . . . we also live in a time of contradictions and pretzel bending logic; invest accordingly.
As I mentioned in a separate post, the book entitled, "The Myth of the Lost Cause" by Edward H. Bonekemper III is a good read on why the Civil War was fought over slavery.
Slavery didn't become an issue until the war was two years old. Thomas DiLorenzo's, The Real Lincoln, does a fine job of illuminating what kind of man Lincoln really was. The victors write the history books so you need to weed out the propaganda to get a clearer view of what actually transpired.
As with most of history, what filters down to us many years later is probably a simplified version of a more complex situation. My understanding is that for political reasons, Lincoln could not make the Civil War just about slavery - he would not have received the support he needed to go to war. (Note: I'm not saying that we should have gone to war. I don't know the answer to that. It is possible that the institution of slavery would have blown up in the Southern States "face" at some point.) In any event, "The Myth of the Lost Cause" is not about Lincoln. It makes the point that the Southern States wanted to secede because they were concerned that their institution of slavery was endangered from the North. It makes its case citing many examples. Therefore, from a Southern State perspective, one of the main reasons they seceded was due to the slave issue.
There is difference of opinion whether or not the South had a legal right to secede. Instead of settling in the courts, Lincoln settled the matter with the business end of the gun.
I’ve never understood how the churches and synagogues in the south never denounced slavery.
I’ve also wondered whether had they done so if our ruinous Civil War could have been averted forever negating the need to wonder what would have happened had Lee accepted Longstreet’s advice
One synagogue was mere blocks from where the first causality of the Civil War was killed in combat. Col. Elmer Ellsworth was killed May 24, 1861 while removing a Confederate flag from the roof of the Marshall House Inn in Alexandria, Virginia
same exact situation in modern France .. they imported all of their former slaves/colonies and now the have NOT's are going to take their 'fair' share of it by force .. vive la francais !
oh yea it's the fourth no wonder there's so much soul searching .. about time to wake up and recognise that the deprived northern folks have always envied them warm happy southerners regardless of what color they were .. the war between the states was same as always .. the have NOT's wanting to have what the other side has .. slave was just the excuse the have nots used to steal rape and pillage and take what was not theirs .. slavery was not invented by southern whites and it's still around today .. look at all them gladiators your watching in every singe sport ? they are all rich white guys right .? got nothing to do with color anymore just greed envy resentment .. the poor hating the rich and those do gooder's trying to play God and rectify the human race from all it sin's ... good luck with that!
Bill Stop conflating/comparing the war of aggression in Ukraine to the USA Civil .. if you have not been there or studied the history of the Donbas Luschank, then don't stick your comments into an argument you don't know anything about .. yes I know you lost money in Russia and prefer a strong dictator /Trump, but just like your enjoying the fruits of the struggles in your Irish hideaway .. you did nothing to earn them .. just living life by shrewd financial finagling and contributing zilch to the betterment of humanity is not a life worth living either .. are you still attending church ? I wonder why ? ultimately the folks in Ukraine have the same rights as you think you have .. don't back the biggest tyrant since Stalin/Hitler/Mussolini etc the world is again full of them and it's the common street folks who'll be asked to go and get rid of them ..
Mr. Altschule, I thought Bill was making a larger point about globalism, even in the 1860s; i.e., fewer countries, eventually leading to one world rather than more countries that could lead to more independent thinking and actions, which would be more difficult for the globalists to control.
It would be interesting to know why Bonner feels it necessary to defend the feudal system in the southern states which enslaved blacks. He seems to think they had every right to secede. Yet, the Constitution of the US begins with the words, "We the people of the United States...". Why do you think that is? It is because the Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution to be a pact between the federal government and the people of the US, not between the federal government and the States. Hence, the Southern States did not have a "right" to secede from the Union. In terms of the war, it is true that the North had advantages simply because it was based predominately on a free market system as opposed to the slave and feudal system of the South. When the South lost the war, certain elements concocted a narrative known as "The Myth of the Lost Cause" which, among other things, posits the view that the central cause of secession was the South's concern for the protection of State's rights. A book by that title by Edward H Bonekemper III demonstrates that the real reason was the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery.
Among Bill's laments, I think, is that the war began the great increase in size of the US government, with the many unhappy milestones to follow. Spanish-American War-why? US entry to WWI-avoidable, bunch of terrible legislation before 1920, and many more. I think it all would have happened anyway, even if the Union had bought every slave. The momentum of the empire was inevitable.
The Union was interested in Southern tax revenue. The Southern defeat ended in the destruction of the republic and its replacement with a mercantile empire.
Fascinating how everything posted here is actually relevant to this BPR blog. It's a dark history with the same concept in every era.
I'm thankful for what Bill and the crew bring to the table and how folk's like them keep it real.
Although there's no denying historical wisdom and knowledge are crucial when determining a strategy for adaptive advancement within a competitive environment.
The current state of events has offered up such an opportunity and regardless of our history, race and political differences.
Global citizens must realize the magnitude of what is transpiring today.
I'll stick to the regional location of Bills post today, America.
The FedNow Blockchain infrastructure that which the USDC/CBDC and other digital dollars will centrally execute and monitor our transactions on this topography, is not decentralized but will require by it's own design to integrate with only "verified" decentralized applications. Bare in mind this is not cryptocurrency and will not reward you for using it in the same principle as a p2p DAO ecosystem.
If you are not familiar with the actual cryptocurrency community by either of these critical points of use I highly suggest you to be and immediately.
Now, if y'all don't have the time to learn a new computer interface and language in less than 2 weeks, my second suggestion is to consider your data - your data. Privacy and public domain is of the essence in the coming digital asset conversion. Whether you like it or not it's happening this month and doesn't matter what part of the world you're hiding out to prolong the inevitable (y2k and the Internet 1.0 should come to mind here...) There are tools to use that completely comply with USG SEC and other alphabet regulations and privacy laws.
Additionally there is an upside to the government's willingness to grab their opportunity to restore confidence and perpetuate their dominance within the monotony of their own creation as well. So with the assistance of the SEC, Commodity Commission, their unwilling and hopefully, probably not, waterboarded crypto project founders. The Federal Reserve has been diligently working to synthesize Blockchain technology over the past 15 years to come to this moment in time; coincidence?
Probably not. Nonetheless you're protecting your asset's value come hell or high water and that's exactly what everyone needs to do, yesterday.
The US dollar is toast and may not recover regardless of the CBDC schedule. The Blockchain is sacrosanct to the property owner of digital assets. People are now money and a commodity. Therefore our data must be categorized as personal and/or private property as it stays under the statute. Terms and conditions must be reasonable to conduct activities on any related asset technology including social media.
This strategy alone will protect your assets in the digital economy no matter who is fighting for total control of it. Yes there is a gold and silver digital asset registry on the Blockchain too. And real estate and property titles, art, wine, music and even clean energy. All on a lightning fast low fee p2p secured transaction immutable ledger and autonomous incentive ecosystem..
Let me know if you need any links to the good guys that are actively providing free services to do what I posted here. Yes it's free because you actually own it!
I remember a scene in ‘Gone with the Wind’, where Rhett Butler tells a group of wealthy southern gentleman that the South did not have one cannon factory and was ill equipped to win the war. The South had cotton, slaves, and egos. Need to watch the movie again! Interesting about the Irish immigrant population to help the north- never heard that before.
Yes, the union had all those advantages, but one more that was the coup de grace.
A very well developed rail system. Going in all the right directions. They could move thousands of troops and horses in a couple of days that would take Confederates a couple of weeks to arrive exhausted.
But once underway – like an empire, inflation or a love affair – war takes on a life of its own. People lose sight of what they are fighting for and concern themselves only with winning. They use “any means necessary” – murder, mayhem, deceit, invention, starvation, poison…whatever they can come up with – to beat their opponents.
Awesome quote, I'm adding it to my collection, attributed to Bill Bonner, hope that's correct.
Thomas DeLorenzo has excellent books on Lincoln and the War Between the States (sometimes, to get a rise out of people, I call it "The War of Northern Aggression").
Before the war, the South imported goods from England at better prices than from the North. The North forced tariffs through Congress on the goods imported from England, making it cheaper to buy from the North. This was most likely a major cause of secession - and war.
For the first two years, Lincoln fought "to preserve the Union". When England threatened to join on behalf of the South, he changed the purpose "to free the slaves", which made it morally repulsive to support the South, and England backed off.
The Emancipation Proc. only freed slaves in Conferedate states, not in states that belonged to the Union.
Some scholars maintain that the South had a legal right to secede, although there are arguments for both sides. They also claim this was explicitly assured to several states when they debated to ratify the Constitution.
As a result of the War Between the States, the Federal govt upset the balance of power between the states and Washington. The 10th amendment clearly states that if it's not in the Constitution, authority belongs to the states. But in the aftermath of the war, Washington got the income tax (there was none before 1913), senators represented the people instead of the state, and the federal reserve was established. All three greatly eroded our freedoms in numerous ways (I'll leave that for another post.)
I am very grateful for the U.S., and I think it's a wonderful country, but I have problems with the Pledge of Alleigance - notably, "one nation...indivisible". Written in the 1890s, I think it bolsters people's connection to the Federal Govt, and bypasses the state, diminishes the identity and authority of the state. (Aside from the fact it was written by a Christian Socialist, who believed factories were a way to control the masses, and everyone should live on small, family farms. The author's cousin wrote a best seller called "Looking Backward", about a utopian society, which I found peurile, and against everything that made this country great.
More on the Pledge of Allegiance here:
http://rexcurry.net/Bellamy.html
I don't stand or take part in the Pledge of Allegiance, and if asked I explain I'm not a socialist, but I do support their right to be a socialist.
Do people get offended when you say that? I am very careful who I say this to, most people would not understand. But it's part of the groupthink that you're not patriotic if you don't agree with the Pledge.
They don't know what to say, as the idea is completely novel to them. But, it gets them to think, and maybe somewhere down the line, someone else will expand the idea further for them. I know what you're saying, but I can't help it if groupthink is all wrong. Most of what we are taught to believe is incorrect, and that includes physics. For instance, Ohm's Law does work, but only in a closed system. What if most of the systems in the world and universe are open? If that is true, then our vision is extremely limited, and we are focusing on the wrong thing, due to our natural selfish nature. It's a big universe out there.
Truth no longer has to be hidden as people now hide themselves from truth.
-Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Mr. Bonner:
Thank you! I receive several newletters - but don't have time to read all of them.
However, yours I would never miss reading. You are Simply the Best!.
By the way, I'm an Iowan the first 40 years of my life, so take no sides......
Jeanne de Boer
Few understand history. Few can explain it. In a time when the woke left will not allow history to be what it was and not what they want it to be, it was a pleasant read today. I had stopped from reading "Slavery and the Civil War" and needed to read my emails. The Bonner writings are always pleasant, but today's fit right in with my reading. My depth of knowledge and certainly not finance no where are close to yours Mr Bonner, but when I read things that dove tail into each other, I almost wished you did write history. You are needed.
Happy 4th of July!
“Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.”
Nice to live in a country where one can criticize the government.
I love my country.
Do I understand correctly that here you are suggesting that people of the south were in fact the righteous side in that war who were forced into submission by Lincoln’s armies?
Do you want Mr. Bonner to draw you a picture?
Seriously, though, in war there is no "good guy."
No, I don’t need a picture, but I’d like Bill to say if he does mean what I understood.
I believe in some wars there are bad guys and good guys like Hitler/Nazis vs Allies in WWII.
Really, Nezam? Perhaps you simply haven't looked into it. I was going to send you a couple links, but there are so many pages on Allied war crimes, I will just send you the search link:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wwii+crimes+of+the+allied+powers&va=v&t=ha&ia=web
Even wikipedia has a long entry. The list is by no means exhaustive, and the pages listed barely scrap the surface of crimes committed by "the good guys." As I have stated before, in war, there is no "good guy." Remember, history is written by the "winners." The US, in particular, sold it's soul to win WWII, and the devil will have his due.
history happens to be retrospective .. that why today hitler stalin mussolini are celebrated by a bunch of young assholes who've never shit iin a foxhole full of water watching their own turds float around wondering what they were doing the .. every side does "war crimes" because WAR is a crime its all about getting rid of the greater enemy .. so who's side are you on ..?
God's side.
the ONLY side that matters ..
Hi friend Tooloee -
First, great name. We are going to add you to the short list of Fantastic Name Posters. Seriously.
There are many ways to look at the "Civil" War and most of them that remove the BS narrative we have been fed by the "victors" and subsequently focus on Facts and Critical Thinking would lead an objective person to agree that, yes, the South was the "righteous" side (whatever that means in war.)
PS - You probably don't want to poke the bear of Slavery as part of your argument for two main reasons -
1. That institution had very little to do with why the war was fought (fact)
-and-
2. It has been proven that not a SINGLE Republican owned a single slave when the hostilities broke out (another fact.)
So if your intent is to eventually begin cheering about how "righteous" the dimocrats are and have always been, you might want to read some History...
Hi Friend. Just a few thoughts:
1. I don’t have a dog in the fight between Democrats vs. Republicans. I do not like, support or belong to any political party.
2. My understanding of the history is that most (if not all) slave owners were in fact Democrats and it was Republicans or the Party of Lincoln that abolished slavery.
3. Also, my understanding of the history is that the Civil War was (primarily) driven by the fight over slavery. Feel free to educate me re why it was fought if not over slavery.
Btw, you actually keep a list of people with fantastic names who post here? Seriously?
It takes 2 to fight, and the Civil War was fought for one reason only - to preserve the Union. The North never would have amassed an army solely to force the South to free their slaves. It was Secession that motivated the North to take up arms. That said, Lincoln himself thought slavery was the central and most divisive issue. The South(meaning here the Democratic Party which controlled the South and was responsible for Secession and the war mongering that began in Charleston) may not have seceded had they believed there was no threat to their way of life as represented by the right to own slaves. But that is arguable and pure speculation. What was clear was that there was a cultural and economic divide between the North and South that drove bitter and escalating divisions that did not end in 1865. Only the kinetic war ended that year. The divide remained, and you can still see it and hear it to this day. I did just last month as I drove around Florida, Alabama and Georgia, where I grew up.
My understanding is the slavery issue only became an issue in the newer states being added in the West and only later in the war. War was about power as it always is, one side wanting to go it’s own way and the other believing in a nationalistic state with one central government. We are witnessing how well that worked out. Few were arguing to abolish slavery in the existing states. Brion McClanahan someone you may want to read if you would truly like to learn some history. Happy 4th all. Let’s celebrate the 50 independent States
Hi Mr.(?) Tooloee -
I believe you are correct on all three points, just perhaps that Slavery was not the PRIMARY reason for the CW. Obviously it was an important point to the Confederate states, but there were others more important that were driving the decision to secede IMO. Mr. Scott educated me below that it was indeed the primary factor for at least two states.
I only brought up the dim vs. repub thing because current thinking represents one of the biggest bait-and-switches of all time. The dims were the slave holders, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow laws and fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act becoming the law of the land. But ask 100 people on the street which political party did all those things and 90+ will say the Republicants. Amazing display of successful propaganda and indoctrination and the precise opposite of Reality.
Yes, there IS a list, but it's short and I don't keep it personally. At this time I believe it is populated by Mr. Clem Devine and Mr. Orion Dworkin. I hope I remembered those correctly and didn't leave any others out. So welcome to an elite group Mr.(?) Tooloee...
Just an FYI that I posted in a separate comment, a good read on the Civil War is the book, "The Myth of the Lost Cause", by Edward H. Bonekemper III.
nothing to do with 'slavery' just the excuse to attack the folks down south who were making all the money/cotton and them northern puritans trying as always to impose their idea of how humanity should be on their southern neighbors .. all about money .. blacks browns yellows were just obvious racial bigotry used to excite the masses into a frenzy of hate resentment to kill their own families confusion still reigns!
Why, my dear Altschule. You perchance may be a Redneck at heart.
I KNEW there was something I liked about you...
:) LOL
"3. Also, my understanding of the history is that the Civil War was (primarily) driven by the fight over slavery. Feel free to educate me re why it was fought if not over slavery." - The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. There are many who argue that the Civil War was primarily fought over state's rights, but the primary state right they were concerned about centered around the right to keep slaves. It was a strange time . . . those who advocated for slavery - an extreme powerful minority of slave owners, about 4% of the population - bent themselves into logically pretzels to justify its practice while slowly working to eliminate it from the states. Most Americans - white, black and Indian - were or had relatives who were slaves of one sort or another and those experiences likely resulted in the desire of the general public to end the practice. During the 1600s-1700s in North America race in conjunction with slavery was largely irrelevant. By the 1800s slavery mainly centered around black Africans and whites who were legacy slaves. I bring this up, because the general opinion of Americans between the 1600-1700s and the 1800s on race had shifted dramatically. In general, in colonial America people didn't care much about race. But by the 1800s, in general, people thought black Africans were inferior and did not want them in the country . . . including Abraham Lincoln who was primarily concerned with preserving the union. A union in which it was legal for any section to cede from the union. Secession was legal, foreseen, anticipated and intended by those who wrote the founding documents of the country. This is why Jefferson Davis was charged with treason at the end of the Civil War, but never brought to trial, as secession was constitutional. Could go on, but will spare you the ramblings . . . we also live in a time of contradictions and pretzel bending logic; invest accordingly.
As I mentioned in a separate post, the book entitled, "The Myth of the Lost Cause" by Edward H. Bonekemper III is a good read on why the Civil War was fought over slavery.
Slavery didn't become an issue until the war was two years old. Thomas DiLorenzo's, The Real Lincoln, does a fine job of illuminating what kind of man Lincoln really was. The victors write the history books so you need to weed out the propaganda to get a clearer view of what actually transpired.
As with most of history, what filters down to us many years later is probably a simplified version of a more complex situation. My understanding is that for political reasons, Lincoln could not make the Civil War just about slavery - he would not have received the support he needed to go to war. (Note: I'm not saying that we should have gone to war. I don't know the answer to that. It is possible that the institution of slavery would have blown up in the Southern States "face" at some point.) In any event, "The Myth of the Lost Cause" is not about Lincoln. It makes the point that the Southern States wanted to secede because they were concerned that their institution of slavery was endangered from the North. It makes its case citing many examples. Therefore, from a Southern State perspective, one of the main reasons they seceded was due to the slave issue.
Hello NT. In my opinion, the answer would be yes.
There is difference of opinion whether or not the South had a legal right to secede. Instead of settling in the courts, Lincoln settled the matter with the business end of the gun.
That’s how things were done back then!
Exactly
I’ve never understood how the churches and synagogues in the south never denounced slavery.
I’ve also wondered whether had they done so if our ruinous Civil War could have been averted forever negating the need to wonder what would have happened had Lee accepted Longstreet’s advice
There were synagogues in the south? I thought the south had more Baptists than people.
One synagogue was mere blocks from where the first causality of the Civil War was killed in combat. Col. Elmer Ellsworth was killed May 24, 1861 while removing a Confederate flag from the roof of the Marshall House Inn in Alexandria, Virginia
I was half joking, but thanks, I learned something new today.
It was “Seminary Ridge”, not Cemetery Ridge, but, nice try!
Yup...
I have stood in those woods where they launched the charge and imagined myself crossing that field, up the hill into the guns. It was a scary thought!
same exact situation in modern France .. they imported all of their former slaves/colonies and now the have NOT's are going to take their 'fair' share of it by force .. vive la francais !
oh yea it's the fourth no wonder there's so much soul searching .. about time to wake up and recognise that the deprived northern folks have always envied them warm happy southerners regardless of what color they were .. the war between the states was same as always .. the have NOT's wanting to have what the other side has .. slave was just the excuse the have nots used to steal rape and pillage and take what was not theirs .. slavery was not invented by southern whites and it's still around today .. look at all them gladiators your watching in every singe sport ? they are all rich white guys right .? got nothing to do with color anymore just greed envy resentment .. the poor hating the rich and those do gooder's trying to play God and rectify the human race from all it sin's ... good luck with that!
Bill Stop conflating/comparing the war of aggression in Ukraine to the USA Civil .. if you have not been there or studied the history of the Donbas Luschank, then don't stick your comments into an argument you don't know anything about .. yes I know you lost money in Russia and prefer a strong dictator /Trump, but just like your enjoying the fruits of the struggles in your Irish hideaway .. you did nothing to earn them .. just living life by shrewd financial finagling and contributing zilch to the betterment of humanity is not a life worth living either .. are you still attending church ? I wonder why ? ultimately the folks in Ukraine have the same rights as you think you have .. don't back the biggest tyrant since Stalin/Hitler/Mussolini etc the world is again full of them and it's the common street folks who'll be asked to go and get rid of them ..
Mr. Altschule, I thought Bill was making a larger point about globalism, even in the 1860s; i.e., fewer countries, eventually leading to one world rather than more countries that could lead to more independent thinking and actions, which would be more difficult for the globalists to control.
It would be interesting to know why Bonner feels it necessary to defend the feudal system in the southern states which enslaved blacks. He seems to think they had every right to secede. Yet, the Constitution of the US begins with the words, "We the people of the United States...". Why do you think that is? It is because the Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution to be a pact between the federal government and the people of the US, not between the federal government and the States. Hence, the Southern States did not have a "right" to secede from the Union. In terms of the war, it is true that the North had advantages simply because it was based predominately on a free market system as opposed to the slave and feudal system of the South. When the South lost the war, certain elements concocted a narrative known as "The Myth of the Lost Cause" which, among other things, posits the view that the central cause of secession was the South's concern for the protection of State's rights. A book by that title by Edward H Bonekemper III demonstrates that the real reason was the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery.
Yet they (the South) opposed further international slave trade and/or in America at least. Because they were breeding well enough at home. Correct?
Just some interesting factoids to add to it..
beautiful "words" don't change the human proclivity to be corrupt bastards ...
Among Bill's laments, I think, is that the war began the great increase in size of the US government, with the many unhappy milestones to follow. Spanish-American War-why? US entry to WWI-avoidable, bunch of terrible legislation before 1920, and many more. I think it all would have happened anyway, even if the Union had bought every slave. The momentum of the empire was inevitable.
The Union was interested in Southern tax revenue. The Southern defeat ended in the destruction of the republic and its replacement with a mercantile empire.
Fascinating how everything posted here is actually relevant to this BPR blog. It's a dark history with the same concept in every era.
I'm thankful for what Bill and the crew bring to the table and how folk's like them keep it real.
Although there's no denying historical wisdom and knowledge are crucial when determining a strategy for adaptive advancement within a competitive environment.
The current state of events has offered up such an opportunity and regardless of our history, race and political differences.
Global citizens must realize the magnitude of what is transpiring today.
I'll stick to the regional location of Bills post today, America.
The FedNow Blockchain infrastructure that which the USDC/CBDC and other digital dollars will centrally execute and monitor our transactions on this topography, is not decentralized but will require by it's own design to integrate with only "verified" decentralized applications. Bare in mind this is not cryptocurrency and will not reward you for using it in the same principle as a p2p DAO ecosystem.
If you are not familiar with the actual cryptocurrency community by either of these critical points of use I highly suggest you to be and immediately.
Now, if y'all don't have the time to learn a new computer interface and language in less than 2 weeks, my second suggestion is to consider your data - your data. Privacy and public domain is of the essence in the coming digital asset conversion. Whether you like it or not it's happening this month and doesn't matter what part of the world you're hiding out to prolong the inevitable (y2k and the Internet 1.0 should come to mind here...) There are tools to use that completely comply with USG SEC and other alphabet regulations and privacy laws.
Additionally there is an upside to the government's willingness to grab their opportunity to restore confidence and perpetuate their dominance within the monotony of their own creation as well. So with the assistance of the SEC, Commodity Commission, their unwilling and hopefully, probably not, waterboarded crypto project founders. The Federal Reserve has been diligently working to synthesize Blockchain technology over the past 15 years to come to this moment in time; coincidence?
Probably not. Nonetheless you're protecting your asset's value come hell or high water and that's exactly what everyone needs to do, yesterday.
The US dollar is toast and may not recover regardless of the CBDC schedule. The Blockchain is sacrosanct to the property owner of digital assets. People are now money and a commodity. Therefore our data must be categorized as personal and/or private property as it stays under the statute. Terms and conditions must be reasonable to conduct activities on any related asset technology including social media.
This strategy alone will protect your assets in the digital economy no matter who is fighting for total control of it. Yes there is a gold and silver digital asset registry on the Blockchain too. And real estate and property titles, art, wine, music and even clean energy. All on a lightning fast low fee p2p secured transaction immutable ledger and autonomous incentive ecosystem..
Let me know if you need any links to the good guys that are actively providing free services to do what I posted here. Yes it's free because you actually own it!
This includes the BPR crew, don't be shy.
Respectfully,
Orion
I remember a scene in ‘Gone with the Wind’, where Rhett Butler tells a group of wealthy southern gentleman that the South did not have one cannon factory and was ill equipped to win the war. The South had cotton, slaves, and egos. Need to watch the movie again! Interesting about the Irish immigrant population to help the north- never heard that before.