Posted on 10/13/2019 9:33:17 AM PDT by rktman
What is “4GW”?
4th Generation Warfare. Essentially the same tactics we used during the revolution, but infused with technology and a concentration on high pay-off targets.
https://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html
Lincoln did not campaign for or seek the presidency to eliminate slavery, but to oppose its extension. That was the Republican position. The South’s rejecting of all compromise, violation of their grandfathers’ bond, and firing upon Ft. Sumter ignited it.
As war progressed, Lincoln came to see it in a terrible redemptive reckoning. From his second inaugural:
“Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”
Sadly we are in need of a similar redemption. The regressive, racist fascists will not accept any compromise. Like the unwise South, they insist on expansion and nothing else.
A terrible price must be paid, or their tyranny endured. No other choice.
https://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html
From your article:
"Lincoln's March 16, 1861 letters to the governors did not endorse or oppose the proposed thirteenth amendment. "
From Lincoln's first inaugural address.
" I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "
The chief proponent of the Corwin Amendment in the Senate was William Seward, who was also Lincoln's secretary of state. Seward guaranteed that New York would pass the amendment, and there is absolutely no possibility that Lincoln would have tolerated Seward working at cross purpose to him. Seward was doing Lincoln's bidding, and Lincoln was very much pushing for the Corwin amendment to be passed.
Tracking it back to it's origins, there are even some claims that Lincoln wrote the initial outline for it, and then pushed it through third parties to cover up his involvement in it.
Lincoln did not campaign for or seek the presidency to eliminate slavery, but to oppose its extension. That was the Republican position.
And why did Northern Liberals oppose the expansion of slavery? If you think they did so for moral reasons, I think you will be shocked to discover that the evidence indicates they did it only for reasons of gaining and holding on to money controlling power in Washington DC.
As for money vs. morality. Both principles often operate in concert. That fact doesn’t negate the truth. If you want “pure as the driven snow”, in politics, as in life, you will be sorely disappointed.
The profits of slavery flowed North as well as benefited the planter class in the South. Yet Northern states began its abolition, the South refused all compromise and reaped the whirlwind.
The same is now coming due for the haters that infest the left and control the Democrat (slaver) party.
Thanks...
I don’t want a civil war. Those are the worst wars. Just finished reading Robert Graves’ brilliant novel “Mrs. Milton” about the English civil war. Worse in many ways than our own.
It is my observation that when the contest comes down to money vs morality, it is the money that wins.
This is why the Great Emancipator was willing to embrace permanent slavery in the South through the Corwin Amendment and made no issue of the continuation of slavery until nearly two years after the war was initiated.
The profits of slavery flowed North as well as benefited the planter class in the South.
From my reading, the North, specifically New York together with the tax and spend government in Washington DC, were taking 60% of all the profits of slavery. This amounted to 200 million to 230 million per year flowing through the pockets of New York and Washington DC power barons, and of course they wanted that money to continue coming in.
Yet Northern states began its abolition, the South refused all compromise and reaped the whirlwind.
What were they going to compromise on? The Northern Congress had already passed the Corwin amendment which would guarantee permanent slavery, and five Northern states had already ratified it. Since this effectively presents indefinite continuation of slavery wrapped up in a tidy little bow and presented to the Southern states, what more could be desired in the way of compromise?
The one issue for which it is claimed the South was wanting independence was settled and done, yet it was clearly insufficient to convince them to stay in the Union. They must have wanted something else that Washington DC was unwilling to offer.
I believe it was the other 60% of their profits that was ending up in New York and Washington DC. It's always about money.
Not quite true. A civil war would be a terrible thing; I estimate 50 million dead (seriously, and that's based on math). However, there are even worse things. A civil war happens when (1) both sides miscalculate and think it won't be that bad, or (2) one side demands something even worse and the other makes the logical decision to avoid that worse outcome. Either of the two triggers could easily happen in today's political climate.
I don't either, but I remain vigilant to the possibility.
The communists in Russia, in Germany, in China, and so forth, simply would not leave the ordinary folk alone. They are driven to make changes to society that result in them being empowered through totalitarian government, and I fear they may eventually try to do here what their counterparts have already done in other countries.
And now the tech oligarchy is helping them. I get the eerie feeling not unlike the Jews in 1930s Germany, that there is something in the air that does not bode well for us.
I agree with your assessment. But I have my doubts about our side being up to the task. Good people do have the tendency to do nothing, lol!
Ask Diogenes about the Acela Corridor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu5f9hp0IP4
Yet ours will be much similar and much different in ways.
The regressive, racist, fascists won’t stop. Their ideology is at root the same as Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s, Hitler’s, Hirohito’s and radical Islam. It seeks control of the human spirit.
My Dad spent four years in a Jap prison camp after surviving the Bataan Death March. He was treated as a slave. He was beaten as a slave. But he was never a slave.
He had three brothers. One helped build the bomb, one built island airfields, and the third built bombers. They help free him and when 250,000 Japanese civilians burned or later died, he came home.
The Japanese chose badly. As do the regressive, racist fascists.
The question isn’t whether you do not want a civil war. The question is are you willing to be a slave.
Ugh. The Spanish Civil War. Atrocities against men, women and children from both sides. Yuck!
Well, if women cops are going to act in a civil war they way they act generally, they’ll shoot first even if the enemy is before them eating ice cream while sitting on a couch.
I agree but we have reached a point that the institutions of power have demonstrated they won’t tolerate a president they don’t want and will do anything to stop him and will at the same point import illegals to bolster their own electorate
We better do something
Excellent post
The revolution was a rebellion which is more civil war
Our war between the states was a schism..a separation, the south had no intention of occupying the part of the nation that didn’t want to leave
Different...
Course NeoCons don’t see it that way cause it doesn’t fit their narrative
Which is basically demonize the South at will so they look open minded on race given how sensitive they are about being called racist
Third world country? What does the cold war have to do with this? Outdated terminology.
Syria, particularly Damascus, was very modern.
https://petapixel.com/2016/08/02/26-photos-show-war-changed-syria/
Yeah, I’m guessing you thought Beruit and Havana were “third world” too before war ravages and everyone was subsistence living off berry bushes and cock roaches.
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.