Sunday, July 27, 2014
There isn't a single solitary thing that the North, the Republican party, and President Lincoln wouldn't have done to accommodate the South on the issue of slavery. NOTHING. That, and I will also point out that the vast, Vast, VAST, percentage of northerners were NOT anti-slavery (they were either pro-slavery - Wall Street, especially - or completely indifferent to it) and if anything the level of racism in the North was worse than it was in the South (the fact that the slave ships were virtually all from the North, the fact that multiple northern states had black codes which made it almost impossible for blacks to enter, the fact that the New York City draft riots probably killed more black folks than all of the slave insurrections combined, etc.). I mean, I know that the "official" story has changed over the years and the good guy, bad guy mentality certainly reigns supreme in the present but the record is the record is the record and there really isn't all that much that Lincoln boot-lickers like quasi-Marxist, Eric Foner (he writes for "The Nation", for Christ), can do to change THAT.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
It was preposterous and almost (almost, I said) makes George W. Bush's reasons for the second Iraq War seem sophisticated. a) The telegram said that, if America declared war on Germany. IF. b) Mexico represented literally no threat whatsoever to the United States. NONE. And c) even if it was a threat, Mexico itself was in such a state of abject turmoil at the time (President Carranza fighting for his life against the miscreants, Villa and Zapata) that there was no way in hell a war with the U.S. was even feasible. And the fact that the American people bought this shit (a la the Maine, a la the Gulf of Tonkin, a la WMD, etc.) apparently. That was the frigging scary part.
Friday, July 25, 2014
No historian sees through the bullshit and hypocrisy of previous U.S. Presidents quite like Jim Powell. Take, for example, his withering assessment of Woodrow Wilson and his "making the world safe for democracy" visions; "It was curious how Wilson could imagine himself making the world safe for democracy by allying with Britain and France, since both nations were determined to hold on to their colonial empires. France had rapidly expanded its colonial holdings since 1870, in Africa and East Asia. The French had a reputation for brutal colonial rule. In terms of global extent, the British Empire was unmatched in human history, with a presence in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. During World War 1, Britain was trying to suppress the Irish struggle for independence (he also mentions that our other ally, Russia, was being brutally ruled by a czar)."............................................................................................Of course, what makes this bald-faced hypocrisy all the more devastating is that Germany (admittedly, not a bunch of choir boys) didn't have anywhere near the empire of France and England, didn't murder people by the millions a la the Belgians (yet another of our allies), and was far less repressive (internally) than the Russian regime. I mean, I know that the Wilson apologists have been trying for decades to spin some sort of moral rationale for the fellow's actions but no, no.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
You can take all of the lies of Bill Clinton, all of the lies of George W. Bush, and all of the lies of Barack Obama, put them together, and it still wouldn't add up to the one monumental lie that Abraham Lincoln (it was actually Daniel Webster's lie and Lincoln ran with it) told just prior to the Civil War; namely, that the Union preceded the States and that any State which attempted to secede from it was committing treason...........................................................................................I mean, I know that Mr. Lincoln was a powerful persuader and all but on this particular issue he was either rewriting history to suit his own political purposes (lying through his teeth, in other words) or he was a total ignoramus when it came to the Constitution and/or American history. a) Literally every founding father (including the statist, Alexander Hamilton) had acknowledged the right of a state or states to secede. b) The New England states had threatened secession several times early in the 19th Century and on none of these occasions did the central government threaten invasion. c) James Madison, the father of the Constitution, stated that, "not in the opinions or intentions of the body which planned and proposed it, but in those of the state conventions where it (the Constitution) received ALL THE AUTHORITY WHICH IT POSSESSES...". d) Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island all ultimately ratified the Constitution but only after they were given reassurances that they could exit it if they desired. e) The reason that the founding fathers approved of the right of secession was because they saw it as the ONLY check on a potentially tyrannical central government. f) Jefferson and Madison authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, a treatise which unambiguously declared the supremacy of the individual states in the federal system (an act to which they received virtually zero criticism). g) The Declaration of Independence referred to the 13 colonies as "Free and Independent States". And h) the colonists had just fought a war to shed the repression of a powerful central government and so it is extremely unlikely that they would have willingly consented to yet another one.............................................................................................Look, I get it. All Presidents lie (and, yes, the last three in particular have told some dandies). But when you get a lie that ultimately resulted in the killing or maiming of 5% of the population, a destruction of half the country's wealth, and a post-war occupation that thoroughly destroyed the possibility of healing between the races, you really gotta call the thing for what it is, and that I've tried to do.