Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[babe]

The Civil War did not end state's rights. The supremacy clause has always existed. The Civil War made clear that 1) states did not have the right to enslave their fellow humans, which was the primary issue leading to the war and 2) states could not secede from the union in order to keep slavery legal.

The Civil War was about slavery. That's the "State Right" in question. There was no broader ideological movement regarding State's Rights involved. To claim otherwise is absolute revisionist history.

babe just had the good sense to make an argument that there was nice slavery and not quite as nice slavery and so it was more complicated than just saying the keeping humans as slaves is wrong. Ahh babe.

Lincoln was tapped for the Republican ticket by a group of bankers who intended to split the country. They thought Lincoln was the dupe for the day. For years, British agents and their banking cronies had bankrolled abolitionists and secessionists alike, often exploiting local Masonic lodge networks of like-minded dupes. When the breakup began, they had surrounded Lincoln with their advisors who all said "Just let them go". But they should have checked out Lincoln's character a little better. He clearly saw that if the Union broke apart, the pieces would be run over by European interests if not armies. He figured the only chance America as an idea of a government owned by the people could stand in this world, is we stuck together.

He didn't believe in slavery in the least, but he believed in the Union more than anything. The South was babbling about States' Rights, not about the slaves when they formed up their ranks. Some slave states did not join. Lincoln excepted those from the 1/863 proclamation, which in specific terms only applied to the rebel states.

Look, slavery could not have lasted, war or no war. Machines were coming, the slaves would hardly be economical when the farm machinery was available. Yes, many northern soldiers believed they were fighting to free the slaves. And the popular voice of Americans was heavily going towards ending slavery.

It took the Democrat Party to keep the race issues going after the war. Good ol southern democrats, clear up to Senb Byrd and Sen. Fulbright.

Exploiting local issues and dividing people of another nation or place has always been the British way to manipulating everything.

 

[babe]

I stopped right here. And honestly, that’s probably all you needed to write. You should probably learn about the topics you want to discuss.

You don't know anything about it either. I was not a slave, I didn't live through any of that. If you have believed what you read, you probably won't get the picture. I mean, you definitely don't know much

Everyone who writes about stuff they don't know could just as well qualify their remarks with that confession..

But hey, being on chat discussion is equivalent to conessing ignorance People gotta talk, and for whatever it's worth, learn something from other people.

I understand David Webb on XM125 has been discussing a book about black history that tries to stick to the facts. I've heard a few of the sessions, and it is clearly much better than I know. It's a big book written byh two college professors who've spent their lives studying the history.

https://david-webb-show.simplecast.com/episodes/dr-walter-milton-and-dr-joel-a-freeman-black-history-365-an-inclusive-account-of-american-history-N5ihMt8b

 

[fishonjazz]

Things just got crazy in here


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

Don't be an idiot. People are always gonna be people, and always with some degrees of attitudes and manners of difference. Saying there are variations in how people act within societies or systems is virtually impossible to deny, except that when critics call out a society or a race, the rhetoric generally takes on aspects of hate speech, and the critics imply people are all bad or all good.

I could also argue that there were good slaves and bad slaves in various respects. It's like saying there are good bosses and bad bosses, good workers and bad workers. People cope. In any situation, in every circumstance, in every kind of government, in every religion, in every science, in every activity;. It's a survival mode. When you can't change things, you cope.

So black conservatives tend to speak more harshly against slavery than white liberals, did you notice?

But they are decrying the system more than the people who were in it, the institution more than the humans. And then they hoot about why reparations are nonsense, and how they have everything they need to succeed They are painting a pc of how despite the worst. the world or people can do, they don't have the attitude of being a victim. Times have changed. People changed things. Almost everybody changed. Now they have liberty and they are not about to let the stupid fascist globalist/Democrat cronys take it and make them slaves to socialism. Or communism.

Remember how many times I've said that as an ideology, nobody who is anybody really significant, especially the likes of Obama or Hillary, really believe in the ideas? They use the ideas. They are corrupt as hell, and bent on taking advantage of people to their own enrichment.

I could throw in McConnell too. And Pelosi.

These folks are tyrants, and they want the power.

I'll try not to be an idiot. Will you also... oh wait, you're taking another crack at the different levels of not so bad slavery. Oh hold my hat, you decided to say there were good slaves and bad slaves, just like there are good workers and bad workers. Cool. I never could have guessed that some slaves that were better at being slaves than others. Forget what I was going to ask. Carry on babe.

 

[The Thriller]

You don't know anything about it either. I was not a slave, I didn't live through any of that.

You don’t have to live through something to learn about it, otherwise what’s the point of education? I think we’re about done here.

 

[The Thriller]

I'll try not to be an idiot. Will you also... oh wait, you're taking another crack at the different levels of not so bad slavery. Oh hold my hat, you decided to say there were good slaves and bad slaves, just like there are good workers and bad workers. Cool. I never could have guessed that some slaves that were better at being slaves than others. Forget what I was going to ask. Carry on babe.

Were you alive in antebellum America to know that for sure? Maybe all slaves were the same? How do you know that some black people were good at being enslaved and others weren’t? You weren’t personally there.

 

[The Thriller]

I assume that was babe?

Yep. Honestly one of the weirdest people I’ve seen on the internet. Has anyone actually met him personally? I’m just amazed at the weird posts he makes. I’d love to know where he comes up with this stuff.

 

[Gameface]

Yep. Honestly one of the weirdest people I’ve seen on the internet. Has anyone actually met him personally? I’m just amazed at the weird posts he makes. I’d love to know where he comes up with this stuff.

Trout met him. Said he seemed legit but also that he was in fact weird AF. This was several years ago.

 

[The Thriller]

Trout met him. Said he seemed legit but also that he was in fact weird AF. This was several years ago.

He could be a cool guy, I’m honestly not disparaging that. But these political and historical takes are so strange.

 

[Gameface]

He could be a cool guy, I’m honestly not disparaging that. But these political and historical takes are so strange.

Nah, all Trout really said was that he was a real person, his account wasn't a troll account or a "persona" account. Trout, a weird enough guy on his own (love you bro) made clear that babe was next level weird AF.

#stuffyoulearnatGFpokergames

 

[The Thriller]

I couldn’t remember all the details, but I remember how there was legit concern on Lincoln’s end about Britain siding with the confederacy and there was legit thought on the other side of the pond whether to help the confederacy out as well. It’s one of the major reasons why the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) was written:

1. Encourage those enslaved to revolt.
2. Make it clear domestically and internationally what the war was about.

After it’s declaration, no European country wanted to overtly help the confederacy.

This doesn’t exactly paint a picture of Lincoln being a useful idiot for a bunch of Masonic British globalists:

United Kingdom and the American Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then again, I wasn’t personally there and I didn’t personally know Lincoln. Maybe he was just an empty husk? Maybe he was merely a useful idiot? Maybe slavery wasn’t that bad? I’ve never been a slave before.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The Civil War was about slavery. That's the "State Right" in question. There was no broader ideological movement regarding State's Rights involved. To claim otherwise is absolute revisionist history.

I know this is going to come back to bite me but your version is the narrative. It is the revisionist history that the victors wrote. The Thriller has the story much closer to correct.

The State's Right at issue is the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is not mentioned in the US Constitution which means per the Tenth Amendment it is a power of the States. The Tenth Amendment does not say the States can have the power if it is morally good. The southern states wanted to leave to maintain the disgusting practice of slavery and the Tenth Amendment gave them the right to do so. The north went to war to prevent the south from exercising their tenth amendment rights, their "states rights". The north did not go to war to abolish slavery. In fact one of the northern states that went to war against the south was a slave state and they stayed a slave state even after the emancipation proclamation. The American Civil war was about the state's right to secede from the union. We know the war was about the state's right to secede because Abraham Lincoln put it in writing.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
-Abraham Lincoln 1862

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

The narrative of the American Civil War being about the abolishment of slavery came out of the Trent Affair. The Union had blocked all southern ports with their navy. The Confederates sent emissaries down to Cuba to board an English postal ship named the RMS Trent with the intention of asking the English to break the Union blockade. The Union found out about it, intercepted the Trent, and imprisoned the emissaries who were technically under English protection. The Union did release the Confederate emissaries but only after sending their own emissaries to brand the war as for the abolition of slavery to poison the well. The narrative was maintained because #1) The Union were the ones legally in the wrong - and - #2) It gives white people something to point to as a price white people paid to end slavery.

We can all celebrate that the American Civil War resulted in the end of slavery, but that doesn't mean we can't be honest about the version of history that has been taught to kids.

 

[The Thriller]

We’re splitting hairs here.

The civil war was waged because southern states seceded so they could maintain their “state’s rights” of keeping human beings enslaved.

True, Lincoln and the American government weren’t all on monolithic in their thinking in 1861. There were heated discussions On how to end slavery, if slave owners could be bought out, if former slaves could be shipped to Liberia, and once freed from slavery how many rights could be allotted to them. That’s history that’s called being human. That Lincoln and attitudes of his government evolved and changed is important.

Why?

Because it shows that our country and government isn’t set in stone. It can change to meet the needs of the times.

Which is why arguments about returning the country to a time of less interconnectiveness and “State’s rights” is just absurd. It’s reactionary. It’s the opposite of what this county Needs. It’s why the filibuster needs to go and the house and Supreme Court need to be expanded. It’s why we need universal health care (universal health care wasnt necessary in the 18th century because health care was a joke. Washington died from doctors bleeding out his virus).

Governments must change to meet the needs of its people.

Which is why the civil war was fought. Tolerating seceding states who left over slavery wasn’t acceptable. Rebelling states needed to be brought back into the fold and the right to keep human beings enslaved as property needed to be ended. As @Gameface stated, slavery was the root cause. Without slavery, states wouldn’t have seceded. Without states seceding, there wouldn’t have been a need for a civil war.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Without slavery, states wouldn’t have seceded. Without states seceding, there wouldn’t have been a need for a civil war.

With or without slavery, the US Civil War was always going to be fought. The American Civil War almost happened 30 years earlier over tariffs in what is called the Nullification Crisis. If it was going to be tariffs or slavery or something else, the question of what we were was always going to result in war. Before the Civil War, America was not a country. It was a Union. There is a reason it was called the Union. In speeches before the Civil War we would be called "These United States" while after the Civil War we were called "The United States". That transition from Union to Country was what the American Civil War was really about. Slavery just happened to be the spark to make the fight happen.

 

[Red]

You don’t have to convince me that we have arrived, never sleepwalk through that portion of History that is yours to live. See the present moment with utmost clarity.

The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it

The right has recognized that the system is in collapse, and it has a plan: violence and solidarity with treasonous far-right factions

www.theguardian.com

The United States has burned before. The Vietnam war, civil rights protests, the assassination of JFK and MLK, Watergate – all were national catastrophes which remain in living memory. But the United States has never faced an institutional crisis quite like the one it is facing now. Trust in the institutions was much higher during the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act had the broad support of both parties. JFK’s murder was mourned collectively as a national tragedy. The Watergate scandal, in hindsight, was evidence of the system working. The press reported presidential crimes; Americans took the press seriously. The political parties felt they needed to respond to the reported corruption.

You could not make one of those statements today with any confidence.

 

[One Brow]

The American Civil war was about the state's right to secede from the union. We know the war was about the state's right to secede because Abraham Lincoln put it in writing.

We know it was about slavery because that's what the officers of the Confederacy said, that's what the seceding states (the four that created a document) said, and that's what the people trying to avert the civil war were addressing.

Confederacy denialism

Denialism seems to always come from political motivations. For one example, back in the 1960s, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, R...

lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com

Of course, as I said in that post, wars are complicated and have multiple reasons behind them. There were other reasons behind the US Civil War, but the primary reason was slavery.

The narrative of the American Civil War being about the abolishment of slavery came out of the Trent Affair.

It came from the mouths of the Confederates.

We can all celebrate that the American Civil War resulted in the end of slavery, but that doesn't mean we can't be honest about the version of history that has been taught to kids.

Apparently, you can't be honest about it.

 

[One Brow]

In speeches before the Civil War we would be called "These United States" while after the Civil War we were called "The United States".

Uh-huh. It's not like we have some founding document that starts with, "We the People of the United States...". If we did, your point would just look stupid.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You don’t have to convince me that we have arrived, never sleepwalk through that portion of History that is yours to live. See the present moment with utmost clarity.

There are certainly worrying signs reminiscent of the American Civil War. As I have pointed out, the American Civil War was about the transformation from a Union to a Country. New aggressors want to transform the United States again, this time from a Republic to a Democracy.

Are you sure you want to keep pushing us to war? Do you see that posting articles claiming our government is illegitimate and lamenting that people on the left aren’t more violent to right-wingers is pushing us to war?

It must abandon any imagined fantasies about the sanctity of governmental institutions that long ago gave up any claim to legitimacy. Stack the supreme court, end the filibuster, make Washington DC a state, and let the dogs howl, and now, before it is too late. … The left, meanwhile, has chosen infighting [instead of violence and solidarity] as their sport.

In the American Civil War 2.5% of Americans lost their lives. That would be over 8 million fellow Americans dead at today’s population. Before you dismiss those kinds of numbers as being from past wars that could never happen today, here is an article to chew on for a bit:

A Military Drone With A Mind Of Its Own Was Used In Combat, U.N. Says

Autonomous drones can fly themselves to a specific location, pick their own targets and kill without the assistance of a remote human operator. The U.N. says such a drone was in the air in March 2020.

www.npr.org

 

[Red]

Secession, the Confederate Flag, and Slavery | Constitution Center

In this commentary, Paul Finkelman, a Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, looks at the renewed debate over the southern motivation for secession at the Civil War's start, and how it was driven by slavery and white supremacy.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Al-O-Meter]

that's what the seceding states (the four that created a document) said

Not a single seceding state wrote a declaration of war. I've never said the southern states didn't secede to preserve slavery. What I said was slavery wasn't the reason the Union raised an army and went to war. Abraham Lincoln was crystal clear as to why the army was raised and it wasn't to end slavery.