patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,200,137 comments by 14,197 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, desertguy, HeadSet, krc, RedStar online now
Non-violence
invite response
2015 Apr 30, 1:47pm 70,490 views 200 comments
by CL ➕follow (1) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 180 - 200 of 200 Search these comments
tatupu70
2015 May 11, 12:04pm
Centralized govt and bank and an intent to increase the tariff
Stop it--you're killing me. They seceded out of the union because Lincoln was likely to raise the tariffs? You're kidding, right? What does centralized government even mean? And what does Lincoln getting elected have to do with it?
indigenous
2015 May 11, 12:06pm
What does centralized government even mean?
Sactly, that is your problem.
also he intended to increase mercantilism.
tatupu70
2015 May 11, 12:08pm
Sactly, that is your problem.
also he intended to increase mercantilism.
I've got news for you. States don't secede over intent.
Please explain how government became more centralized in the time between Lincoln's election and the secession. What exactly occurred to cause the South to leave the Union.
tatupu70
2015 May 11, 1:24pm
Read the thread
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase.
Now that the tariff nonsense has been thoroughly debunked here, and given that some of the Southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office--what do YOU think caused the Civil War?
indigenous
2015 May 11, 5:05pm
what do YOU think caused the Civil War?
A seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized government and the Republic defined in the Constitution. A seismic fault between an agrarian culture and a manufacturing culture.
HydroCabron
2015 May 11, 5:16pm
A seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized government and the Republic defined in the Constitution. A seismic fault between an agrarian culture and a manufacturing culture.
It was rich fuckers who wanted to own other people.
Or is that too hifalutin? Not plain-spoken and direct, like, say "seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized [sic] government and the Republic [sic] defined in the Constitution", plus using words like "culture".
In 1790 slavery was legal in all states. So the slave states had 18% slave to overall population ration. IN 1860 the slave states had 45% slave to overall population. Nothing dishonest about comparing slave states to slave states. At least no more dishonest than comparing to states that didn't exist.
LOL. That statement only proves your own dishonesty.
Comparing ratios across the entire US was the honest approach. New states west of the Appalachians were largely extensions of the original 13, and often initially settled by population in the original 13 immediately to its east. Transportation was expensive back then. The population in the immediate neighboring state to the east had significant logistical advantage.
North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder,
Exactly! And some slave masters were hanged after such murder.
Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty
Just like the Union Army would execute deserters every day as the first order of business in the morning, while supposedly trying to fight a war to end slavery. LOL.
The Tariff at the time of secession was one of the lowest in the Early Republic's history,
Just like slavery was still legal in the US at the time of the secession. What exactly is your point? South Carolina legislature decided to secede because Lincoln's party was known for advocating raising tariffs and abolitionist sympathy, the latter of which translated to financing terrorist mass murderers like John Brown. The secession was not in reaction what was done under Buchanan administration, but what they expected to happen under Lincoln administration . . . a president elected by a small minority of votes cast because the Democrat votes were split among three candidates!
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 May 11, 7:38pm
Just like slavery was still legal in the US at the time of the secession. What exactly is your point? South Carolina legislature decided to secede because Lincoln's party was known for advocating raising tariffs and abolitionist sympathy, the latter of which translated to financing terrorist mass murderers like John Brown. The secession was not in reaction what was done under Buchanan administration, but what they expected to happen under Lincoln administration . . . a president elected by a small minority of votes cast because the Democrat votes were split among three candidates!
Rubbish. The only reason the Morrill Tariff passed in 1861 was the South Seceded. They knew it had no chance of passage if they had stayed in the Union.
The Southern Constitution is the Revealed Truth of the matter. The CSA Constitution:
* Did not prohibit Tariffs in the CSA Constitution, only added the caveat that they had to be "Flat" without preference for industries.
* Did prohibit Emancipation: the CSA was forbidden in their Constitution from both ending slavery and prohibiting it's extension to new areas.
Doesn't sound like a State that wanted to Free Trade and was getting ready to ditch Slavery.
In 1790 slavery was legal in all states. So the slave states had 18% slave to overall population ration. IN 1860 the slave states had 45% slave to overall population. Nothing dishonest about comparing slave states to slave states. At least no more dishonest than comparing to states that didn't exist.
LOL. That statement only proves your own dishonesty.
Only in your warped mind johnny reb. For reasonable people it's not.
Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty
Just like the Union Army would execute deserters every day as the first order of business in the morning, while supposedly trying to fight a war to end slavery. LOL.
You are starting to bring stupid to an art form.
South Carolina legislature decided to secede because Lincoln's party was known for advocating raising tariffs
Ditto.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 May 11, 11:58pm
Wow, it's amazing that a system in decline, on the verge of being dropped, that Slavery spread fast and firmly along the Mississippi from it's home in the Old South.
Wow, it's amazing that a system in decline, on the verge of being dropped, that Slavery spread fast and firmly along the Mississippi from it's home in the Old South.
Christ, look at east texas, kentucky, lousiana, and the western half of tennessee. I never knew there was anywhere near that much slavery there. I always thought slavery was virginia to mississippi. That's what reality is calling a fricking decline? WTF? He should change to unreality.
HydroCabron
2015 May 12, 8:00am
I always thought WWII was silly for this same reason. Hitler had ceased attacking France, and the SS was winding down the extermination camps - Treblinka effectively ceased operation in late 1943, and the reception area at Chelmno was dismantled in 1942. Clearly Nazism was declining on its own. Similarly with the Japanese: there were no substantial attacks on American soil after December of 1941.
All in all, our actions against the Axis were unprovoked aggression, borne of a Hamiltonian conception of centralized government and driven by a rapacious central bank.
In the same vein, abortion rates are down dramatically over the past 30 years, indicating laws against it to be merely a power-grab of do-gooders aiming to enhance their own careers by stifling the Noble Cause.
indigenous
2015 May 12, 8:09am
All in all, our actions against the Axis were unprovoked aggression, borne of a Hamiltonian conception of centralized government.
Pinche Cabron the mutt, actually the centralization part is still going today. Thanks un American Asshole Abe.
No matter how you want to dice it technology has and will replace slavery, drudgery, dangerous work. I would think farming has or will completely change through robotic technology.
« First « Previous Comments 180 - 200 of 200 Search these comments
Much has been made lately about the power of non-violence and what the black community in Baltimore (and elsewhere) should do and how is best to achieve good results. Inevitably, the white community extolls Gandhi or MLK's path of non-violence.
I believe this serves multiple purposes. One, it allows the white community a way to celebrate what they see as their superior morals and culture as compared to the minority communities. 2nd, it appeals to white liberalism in that non-violence is believed to be an effective tool when confronted by injustice or state sponsored violence. It appeals to a conservative law-and-order authoritarian in that it promotes PASSIVITY (as opposed to pacifism) and a humble and obedient underclass of minorities.
However, I had also read many years back that there was intense violence that accompanied many of these so-called pacifist movements, such as the Independent India movement, the Civil Rights struggle and so on. How then can we attribute the change that occurred to the non-violent movement, and does it serve a larger purpose to do so?
What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence? Do you have any historical support for that belief?
https://prospect.org/article/baltimore-police-thuggery-real-violence-problem
"Eric Garner’s gruesome choking death, which was caught on video, does not elicit calls of nonviolence, but the burning of an inanimate object spurs a landslide of Martin Luther King Jr. quotes, sanitized for white consumption. If burning buildings is an act of violence, police murdering civilians with impunity must be called violence too."