Posted on 10/04/2018 3:55:06 PM PDT by NRx
...Well. In Madison, Wisconsin, the city council has voted overwhelmingly to remove a cemetery marker noting the names of about 140 Confederates, most of whom died in a prisoner of war camp in the town. More:
“You don’t have discussion in a cemetery. You have reflection, and you have memories, and this (monument) brings up memories that are not so pleasant in our history,” said Council Vice President Sheri Carter.
These are Americans who died as prisoners of war. “They die off like rotten sheep,” said a Union soldier who worked at the camp, where conditions were bad. The “monument” is a tombstone large enough to feature the names of each of the dead. This is not a statue of a Confederate war hero. It is simply a grave marker noting the names of POWs who died far from home.
There is no longer equality before God of the fallen, not in Madison, Wisconsin. The city council spits on these dead men, who passed away not in combat, but in Union custody.
YUP; Kind of like the TALIBAN!
I believe that a lot of people; especially LIB/PROG/LEFTY/COMMIE/DEMOCRATS, and even some people here at FR have a tendency to forget that;
BLUE OR GRAY, THEY WERE ALL AMERICANS.
What a family saga!
Yep.
The more and more I see of the leftist insistence on destroying our nation each day, I am convinced that this will only be resolved and ended when we kill all of them or they kill all of us, and I am tired of our side being led like sheep to the slaughter.
The winners of the war covered up a lot more than that. For example, how the war started, and who started it and why.
And the fact it was the North that invaded and warred on the South, not the other way around.
I keep telling people it isn't really over. The same forces at work then ( Powerful NorthEastern people using their influence in the Government to enrich themselves) are still in place.
We are still fighting the same enemy. We are fighting the Crony Capitalist "Deep State" coalition, which is mostly located in the North East. (New York/Boston) but which also has much support in Chicago and Los Angeles.
It's about Federal Dollars, and Federal steering of Dollars into the right pockets. That's what it has always been about.
I've been saying this.
Other Freepers disagree.
Yes. Many people are not aware of the fact that it was Northern Armies that marched into the South to subjugate them, and that Southern Armies didn't march North until much later after the war had began.
Exactly like the Taliban and Stalin and Mao as well.
Over and over and over again ...
The same forces at work then ( Powerful NorthEastern people using their influence in the Government to enrich themselves) are still in place.
If the Confederacy had won you'd have another powerful Southern clique using their influence to their own advantage. Come to think of it, that's what you did get, even when the Confederacy lost -- the Solid Democratic South with a grip on Congress for decades.
And something like that is what you had before the Civil War. Southern Democrats dominated then, too. The stakes were lower because the economy was smaller. As the economy grew the stakes got larger. If it didn't grow, you'd see the same chasing only pettier and after a smaller pot of money.
We are still fighting the same enemy. We are fighting the Crony Capitalist "Deep State" coalition, which is mostly located in the North East. (New York/Boston) but which also has much support in Chicago and Los Angeles.
"Crony capitalism" is all over the place if you want to look for it. So I suppose is "non-crony capitalism." The idea that New York or New England or Pennsylvania business was characterized by some "cronyism" that business in other parts of the country would have been laughable in the days of Lyndon Johnson.
The idea that New York dominates the economy or politics today is likewise laughable. The percentage of the US population living in New York City or New York state has been declining for decades, and so has the economic and political power of the city and the state.
You seem to be at war with history, geography, and capitalist economics, demanding that a city that is well located geographically, still very large in population, and containing many people skilled in handling money, ought to have as little influence in national politics and in the national economy as an equal area of rocks or sand or trees. That's not going to happen.
And what you complain about when you complain about New York or the Northeast is where Western culture is right now. I'm not sure I like it that much either, but it's not going to go away because you jump up and down screaming about New York capitalists or cotton planters not keeping every dollar's value they were able to wring from their slaves.
It's about Federal Dollars, and Federal steering of Dollars into the right pockets. That's what it has always been about.
That is democracy. That is a game that Lyndon Johnson and Lloyd Bentsen, and Richard Russell and Robert Byrd and their generation of Southerners played very well. New Yorkers and New Englanders and Pennsylvanians had a lot to learn from them - to the extent that they did learn it.
You say over and over again that it's all about money and power. Fine. Say it is. It doesn't stop - and won't stop - when the people you want elected get elected. Find something else to obsessively complain about.
I have said that several times myself. Instead of me bitching about the power brokers of New York, I would instead be bitching about the power brokers of Charleston, or Atlanta, or wherever. Yes, there would be another major money clique in power, and I would probably be bitching about it.
"Crony capitalism" is all over the place if you want to look for it. So I suppose is "non-crony capitalism." The idea that New York or New England or Pennsylvania business was characterized by some "cronyism" that business in other parts of the country would have been laughable in the days of Lyndon Johnson.
I am not familiar with this claim. Are you suggesting that there was a great boost to Texas businesses as a consequence of Johnson being President? I do recall one incident in which he called the President of Dr. Pepper in the middle of the night, demanding to have Dr. Pepper ready to be loaded on Air Force one when it landed, but I am not aware of any other examples of Johnson throwing business to Texas in Particular.
The idea that New York dominates the economy...
Seriously? Where is the largest Federal Reserve bank located? Where are the banks that loan money to the Federal Government located? Where is the Stock Market located?
New York is the world financial capitol, not just that of the United States.
...or politics today is likewise laughable.
What dominates politics? Is it not our "news" media that dominate politics? How do people reach their voting decisions if not from information obtained by these extremely left wing biased sources of "news", the bulk of which are located in and controlled by New York?
ABC? Headquartered in New York. NBC? Headquartered in New York. CBS? Headquartered in New York. CNN is headquartered in Atlanta, but for some reason they are even more extreme in pushing New York Liberal positions than are the other news organizations located in New York.
You seem to be at war with history, geography, and capitalist economics, demanding that a city that is well located geographically, still very large in population, and containing many people skilled in handling money, ought to have as little influence in national politics and in the national economy as an equal area of rocks or sand or trees.
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that their interests took control of the Government in 1861, and the government has been working to protect their interests ever since. Charleston was a threat to them because Charleston would have moved millions of dollars of wealth and industry out of their control, but they had the government, so they stopped it from happening.
And what you complain about when you complain about New York or the Northeast is where Western culture is right now.
Why is it here? Could it be the "News" industry (New York) and the entertainment industry (New York and Los Angeles) have steered it here?
I don't know about you, but I keep up with what happens in American politics and I have for a very long time. It seems clear to me that the propaganda coming out of our "news" services is greatly responsible for getting voters to vote for liberal ideas. If our side were running the news, the public would have very different ideas about various events like Bill Clinton the serial rapist, Corrupt Hillary, Incompetent lying Obama, and so forth.
They would hear about what a pile of sh*t Venezuela is turning into, they would hear about Muslim murders of people in Europe, they would hear that Christine Blasely Ford worked for an Abortion pill manufacturer, and that she had over 50 sexual partners while in High school.
They would hear news that we are not now hearing, and they would vote differently than they are now voting, because they would be learning things they are not now learning.
You talk about where Western culture is going, but why is it going there? Could it be all the propaganda we get from the "News" and Entertainment industries?
That is democracy. That is a game that Lyndon Johnson and Lloyd Bentsen, and Richard Russell and Robert Byrd and their generation of Southerners played very well. New Yorkers and New Englanders and Pennsylvanians had a lot to learn from them - to the extent that they did learn it.
You're going to have to enlighten me here. Johnson created the 21 trillion dollar (up to now) "War on Poverty." Are you saying most of the money went to Texas? Robert Byrd is known for "pork barrel" politics, but did more money go to West Virginia or New York as a result of what he was doing? From where are all these Federal Dollars Borrowed?
Lyndon Johnson was a very powerful senator before he became president. Look at how Johnson made his fortune by getting radio station licenses. Look at how he helped other Texans make their fortunes with advantageous tax laws.
Where are the banks that loan money to the Federal Government located?
Increasingly they are located outside New York in places like Charlotte, San Francisco, Atlanta or Minneapolis, or they are foreign banks whose US operations are centered in New York. I don't dispute that Wall Street is a major player in the economy, but it's not the all powerful center that it may have been a century or even a half-century ago. The stock market is much larger than the physical building on Wall Street.
ABC? Headquartered in New York. NBC? Headquartered in New York. CBS? Headquartered in New York. CNN is headquartered in Atlanta, but for some reason they are even more extreme in pushing New York Liberal positions than are the other news organizations located in New York.
Fox News? Headquartered in New York. Nobody pays much attention to CBS or ABC News anymore. I guess NBC News is doing alright because of its cable branches, but if you compare the media scene now with what it was fifty years ago, bitching about New York dominance is silly.
As with the stock market, the media world is much bigger than a few steel and glass buildings in NYC. You are looking backwards and complaining about the Mad Men world of 1960, rather than seeing where the world is now and tracing where it may be headed.
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that their interests took control of the Government in 1861, and the government has been working to protect their interests ever since. Charleston was a threat to them because Charleston would have moved millions of dollars of wealth and industry out of their control, but they had the government, so they stopped it from happening.
New Yorkers had the foresight to build canals and railroads and factories rather than relying on cotton and slaves. Did "the government working to protect their interests" since the Civil War really amount to anything more than promoting a strong and wealthy America?
If you have a prospering free market economy, people who are good at making money will make money. Where there are more people who are skilled at making money, money will accumulate, but it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else will be impoverished.
A rising tide lifts all boats, and complaining that people who have more still have more - if they do - looks a lot like envy. I don't know if it's good or bad that you direct that feeling based on how things were in by-gone years, rather than the way they are now, but maybe you ought to reread some of your books about socialism and envy before you post anything else.
You're going to have to enlighten me here. Johnson created the 21 trillion dollar (up to now) "War on Poverty." Are you saying most of the money went to Texas? Robert Byrd is known for "pork barrel" politics, but did more money go to West Virginia or New York as a result of what he was doing? From where are all these Federal Dollars Borrowed?
If I remember from what you wrote above, the federal dollars are borrowed from banks in New York City.
As for Johnson, look up his Senate career. And look up where military bases were built during the Democrats' long dominance of Congress. I don't think New York or Vermont or Rhode Island were very high on the list.
As for Robert Byrd and the war on poverty, per capita more money probably did go to West Virginia than to New York. Government money goes to where more people qualify for the program, and that's usually where there are more people (or more soybeans if we're talking about farm subsidies). But per person, more money may actually go to less populous, more rural states.
Why is it here? Could it be the "News" industry (New York) and the entertainment industry (New York and Los Angeles) have steered it here?
Mass affluence plus individual freedom means a lot of ideas will be circulating. People will choose the ideas that they find agreeable. They think the way they do and live the way they do because the economy allows and encourages it. What are you going to do? Impose thought control? Quarantine ideas?
They would hear about what a pile of sh*t Venezuela is turning into, they would hear about Muslim murders of people in Europe, they would hear that Christine Blasely Ford worked for an Abortion pill manufacturer, and that she had over 50 sexual partners while in High school.
But people do hear about the worsening Venezuelan economy and terrorist acts abroad. That gets through to the public over and around and even through the old media.
But that last thing, Diogenes. You really disappoint me. Like never before. Do you really not know that that is fake news? That it was completely made up? Dio, I get the feeling that if you "ran the news" people might learn a lot of things that just aren't true.
There was that little "invasion of 'neutral' Kentucky thing" if you will recall.
I know of no incident in which the Confederate army invaded Kentucky while Kentucky was neutral. Kentucky was only neutral prior to April 11, 1861. No Confederate armies invaded anyone prior to that time.
What civilians do should not be required of the government to answer for.
When I watch the "news", which I seldom do anymore, all I see are talking heads from the New York labor pool. That city voted 89% to elect Obama. That's all you need to know about how f***ed up is their thinking in that city.
As for Robert Byrd and the war on poverty, per capita more money probably did go to West Virginia than to New York.
And from where did this money come, and who handled the loaning of it? Who made money off of "Poverty" other than obviously the eventual recipients of welfare? Did other people make money off of the 21 trillion we spent? Who were these people, and where would you suppose they were, geographically speaking?
New Yorkers had the foresight to build canals and railroads and factories rather than relying on cotton and slaves.
Well that was certainly a bad idea for those people who built their economies on cotton and slaves, because they should have predicted that when they took their slavery produced economic trade away from them, the people who had the foresight to build canals and railroads and factories were going to convince the government to go down into their lands, kill their people, destroy their capital accumulation, and wreck their entire economic system.
We will never know how wealthy would have been the South, and how much less wealthy would have been the North, because they deliberately changed the result that would have occurred had they been left alone. I personally think the additional capital in the South would have spurred much industry, and there is a very good chance that the Confederacy would have ended up with the bulk of what is now the United States, if not eventually obtaining the entire thing. I think they would have certainly ended up with at least this much of it.
Notice that almost everything connected by waterways to the controlling port of New York is blue? (Left coast excepted.)
If you have a prospering free market economy, people who are good at making money will make money. Where there are more people who are skilled at making money, money will accumulate, ...
Especially when the laws have been gimmicked to funnel everything through your port.
...but it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else will be impoverished.
If you buck the money men in contact with the Washington DC government, you will certainly be impoverished, if you survive.
A rising tide lifts all boats, and complaining that people who have more still have more - if they do - looks a lot like envy.
My point isn't that they have more, it's that they only have more because they used the force of government to destroy the ability of their competitors to challenge their dominance. Why do you think it's called the "Empire State"?
Mass affluence plus individual freedom means a lot of ideas will be circulating. People will choose the ideas that they find agreeable.
They will tend to find ideas "agreeable" when they are constantly repeated in their ears. I think it is axiomatic that those people who constantly repeat certain ideas on mass broadcasting airwaves will tend to move the suggestible part of the public in the direction of accepting those ideas. Eventually a preference cascade is reached, and these ideas are the "new normal."
What are you going to do? Impose thought control? Quarantine ideas?
The exact opposite. I would impose the absence of thought control, and the absence of Quarantine for ideas.
I would demand equal access for the 40% or so people who represent the conservative body of thought. Why should we tolerate "news" systems who have gained their wealth from their monopoly of the public airwaves, restricting their use to the body of people from New York who voted for Obama at 89%? We should have equal time on all broadcasting media.
I assure you, that could the public but hear the other side as a consequence of equal time, a lot of ideas that have been adopted by the public would suddenly not appear so popular as they are now. Socialism for example.
But people do hear about the worsening Venezuelan economy and terrorist acts abroad.
Not to the degree they should. The "news" systems never points out that communism is responsible for the destruction of Venezuela, or that Islam is the prime factor in European murders. They minimize it, and shadow it if they can. Also, many stories get just a blurb, while some kook bitch liberal loon from California gets weeks and weeks of undeserved coverage.
But that last thing, Diogenes. You really disappoint me. Like never before. Do you really not know that that is fake news?
How do you know it is made up? I've seen it from several sources. The woman was in therapy for some reason or other, and this sounds like a pretty good and believable reason. Also she purged all her social media, so this tells me she's trying to hide what she is and was.
The problem of not being able to trust the mainstream news is that you have to look for alternative news sources, because you can't get the hidden details anywhere else. Sometimes this circulates fake news, but it is likely no worse at this than the "mainstream" sources.
Apart from that, since the woman is trucking in false allegations, why should I care when false allegations are made against her? The lying kook bitch deserves to get her own medicine back, don't you think?
I believe in being civil to those who are civil, and I believe in being a cut-throat bastard to those who are not.
So let's look at the record:
Indeed, Jefferson Davis never gave up his dreams (fantasies?) of offense -- Davis' order to John Bell Hood at the time of Franklin & Nashville, were not to march northeast to save Lee in VA, but to march Northwest into Illinois and capture Chicago!!.
Kentucky first declared its "neutrality" on May 20, 1861, two weeks after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
On September 4, 1861 Confederate Gen. Polk ordered Confederate Gen. Pillow to invade Columbus, KY, thus first violating Kentucky's declared neutrality.
DiogenesLamp: "No Confederate armies invaded anyone prior to that time [April 11, 1861]."
Nor did any Union army!
But prior to April 11, 1861 Confederates seized dozens of Union properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. -- many before their states declared secession.
Confederates also threatened Union officials & fired on Union ships before April 11.
DiogenesLamp: "What civilians do should not be required of the government to answer for."
Governments are required to at least express opinions regarding unlawful acts by their own citizens.
No Confederate official ever condemned unlawful actions by Confederates in Union states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.