Discussion:
Lincoln might have been the victim of a coup d'etat
Add Reply
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-21 00:16:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.

I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.

Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.

But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.

I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.

The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.

Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.

So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
BOZ
2019-04-22 01:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-22 15:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.

I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...

...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.

Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.

Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
BOZ
2019-04-22 23:54:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Oswald did almost everything alone. There is no evidence of conspiracy in
the Walker shooting
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-24 02:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Oswald did almost everything alone. There is no evidence of conspiracy in
the Walker shooting
There's reason to believe that he might have been driven away from the
Walker shooting, and he couldn't drive a car.
bigdog
2019-04-25 03:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Oswald did almost everything alone. There is no evidence of conspiracy in
the Walker shooting
There's reason to believe that he might have been driven away from the
Walker shooting, and he couldn't drive a car.
What reason would that be? He had busses and taxis available to him.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-26 00:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Oswald did almost everything alone. There is no evidence of conspiracy in
the Walker shooting
There's reason to believe that he might have been driven away from the
Walker shooting, and he couldn't drive a car.
No, there is not. He took the bus. And you are forgetting that he had to
bury the rifle before going home.

He did know how to drive a car, but was too poor to buy one.
bigdog
2019-04-23 00:04:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Booth certainly wasn't a man of low stature. He was a well known actor as
were his father and brother, the latter of who saved the life of Lincoln's
son Robert a few months earlier when he was almost pushed into the path of
an arriving train on a crowded station platform. Had People magazine been
around in the 1860s, they might have named John Wilkes Booth Sexiest Man
Alive.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-24 02:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Booth certainly wasn't a man of low stature. He was a well known actor as
were his father and brother, the latter of who saved the life of Lincoln's
son Robert a few months earlier when he was almost pushed into the path of
an arriving train on a crowded station platform. Had People magazine been
around in the 1860s, they might have named John Wilkes Booth Sexiest Man
Alive.
Granted. He still regarded himself as being in the shadow of his father
and brother. And he wasn't regarded as a major political player anyway,
which I suppose is what I meant to convey.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-23 17:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
OK, so you are excluding all the CIA's plots against Castro. Exploding
sea shells? Poison wet suit?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Then why do you HINT that Oswald had help in the Walker attempt?
Trying to play both sides?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
One of the greatest actors of his time?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
gave him a certain amount of moral support and limited assistance in his
designs against Lincoln. Whether or not he and they were acting as part
of a larger and more sophisticated operation is an open question, IMO.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-25 03:14:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by BOZ
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. It involved Booth, Lewis
Powell, David E Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Mary Surratt, John Surratt,
Edman Spangler, Samuel Arnold, George A Atzerodt, Dr. Samuel Mudd.
I said "sophisticated conspiracy". "Sophisticated conspiracy". I am not
talking about a coalition of ne'er-do-wells. Oswald may have had
assistance or thought he had assistance from other malcontents such as
himself. Booth certainly associated with such people.
I make it a point to distinguish between the concept of a "conspiracy" --
which is a broad term that might encompass any group of two or more people
acting toward a common goal, including a coalition of ne'er-do-wells...
...and a "sophisticated conspiracy" -- which suggests larger interests and
OK, so you are excluding all the CIA's plots against Castro. Exploding
sea shells? Poison wet suit?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here, and I doubt that
you do either.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
more/better resources -- and which is what most people envision when using
the unmodified word "conspiracy" in discussing the JFK question.
Oswald may or may not have had help from others, especially in the Walker
shooting (there's no evidence to suggest that he had assistance in the JFK
shooting), but I'm confident that he wasn't part of a sophisticated
conspiracy.
Then why do you HINT that Oswald had help in the Walker attempt?
Trying to play both sides?
I don't know what that very last question means, and I doubt that you do
either.

The response to your earlier question is that cause Oswald couldn't drive
and there's reason to think that he may have been driven away from that
scene. It's easy to envision someone agreeing to become part of a
conspiracy against General Walker but NOT agreeing to become part of a
conspiracy against Kennedy. If anyone assisted Oswald in the Walker
shooting, it's doubtful that it was anyone particularly noteworthy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Booth unquestionably associated with others of low stature who at least
One of the greatest actors of his time?
Well. Lincoln wasn't the only Republican president to have at least one
enemy in acting circles. Trump has a few.

Suppose -- just for laughs -- that Robert DeNiro, Rosie O'Donnell, George
Takei, Rob Reiner, and Madonna conspired to kill Trump. Or -- to follow
up on an idea suggested by Madonna -- suppose that they conspired to blow
him up in the White House.

If any of them actually handled guns or explosives, they would probably
end up like Wile E. Coyote with blackened soot covering their fur, but
let's say that such a plot on the part of these people existed.

These individuals are well known in entertainment circles, but none of
them has any institutional power in Washington or in intelligence circles
and none of them is a trained assassin. If there isn't a larger network
behind them, I'd still call this a conspiracy of low-brow malcontents
regardless of the fame and fortune that they obtained in their field.
bigdog
2019-04-22 01:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It is well known that the Lincoln assassination was part of a greater plot
to decapitate the federal government. Secretary of State Seward was
seriously injured by a knife attack by Boothe compatriot Lewis Powell.
George Atzerodt was assigned the task of killing Andrew Johnson but
apparently got cold feet and never made the attempt. Powell, Atzerodt,
David Herold, and Mary Surratt were later hanged for their roles in the
plot. Some have speculated that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was in on
the plot and aided Boothe's escape but the arguments I've seen for that
seem pretty weak. Stanton was at Lincoln's bedside when he died and
uttered the famous words, "Now he belongs to the ages" at Lincoln's
passing.

Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
assassination:

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html

As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-22 15:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It is well known that the Lincoln assassination was part of a greater plot
to decapitate the federal government. Secretary of State Seward was
seriously injured by a knife attack by Boothe compatriot Lewis Powell.
George Atzerodt was assigned the task of killing Andrew Johnson but
apparently got cold feet and never made the attempt. Powell, Atzerodt,
David Herold, and Mary Surratt were later hanged for their roles in the
plot. Some have speculated that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was in on
the plot and aided Boothe's escape but the arguments I've seen for that
seem pretty weak. Stanton was at Lincoln's bedside when he died and
uttered the famous words, "Now he belongs to the ages" at Lincoln's
passing.
"I am constantly being followed. They are professionals. I cannot fool
them. In new Rome, there walked three men, a Judas, a Brutus and a spy.
Each planned that he should be king when Abraham should die. One trusted
not the other but they went on for that day, waiting for the final moment
when, with pistol in his hand, one of the sons of Brutus could sneak
behind that cursed man and put a bullet in his brain and lay his clumsey
[sic] corpse away. As the fallen man lay dying, Judas came and paid
respects to the one he hated, and when at last he saw him die, he said
'Now the ages have him and the nation now have I' But alas, fate would
have it Judas slowly fell from grace, and with him went Brutus down to
their proper place. But lest one is left to wonder what happened to the
spy, I can safely tell you this, it was I."

- Coded message apparently signed by Lafayette Baker on February 5,
1868
claviger
2019-04-23 00:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
"I am constantly being followed. They are professionals. I cannot fool
them. In new Rome, there walked three men, a Judas, a Brutus and a spy.
Each planned that he should be king when Abraham should die. One trusted
not the other but they went on for that day, waiting for the final moment
when, with pistol in his hand, one of the sons of Brutus could sneak
behind that cursed man and put a bullet in his brain and lay his clumsey
[sic] corpse away. As the fallen man lay dying, Judas came and paid
respects to the one he hated, and when at last he saw him die, he said
'Now the ages have him and the nation now have I' But alas, fate would
have it Judas slowly fell from grace, and with him went Brutus down to
their proper place. But lest one is left to wonder what happened to the
spy, I can safely tell you this, it was I."
- Coded message apparently signed by Lafayette Baker on February 5,
1868
Lincoln could not be trusted because his wife was from a very prominent
slave owning family in Kentucky. The Northern industrialists who Lincoln
owed money to, wanted to rape the South but Lincoln stood in their way. He
had to be removed and JWB was dumb enough to be manipulated as the fall
guy. Evidently Booth was a face-man all the women were crazy about but a
male airhead. He may have actually got away and finally died in Oklahoma.
What soured Confederates on Booth is no Southern Man of dignity would
sneak up and shoot a man in the back next to his wife, just like LHO did.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-24 20:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
"I am constantly being followed. They are professionals. I cannot fool
them. In new Rome, there walked three men, a Judas, a Brutus and a spy.
Each planned that he should be king when Abraham should die. One trusted
not the other but they went on for that day, waiting for the final moment
when, with pistol in his hand, one of the sons of Brutus could sneak
behind that cursed man and put a bullet in his brain and lay his clumsey
[sic] corpse away. As the fallen man lay dying, Judas came and paid
respects to the one he hated, and when at last he saw him die, he said
'Now the ages have him and the nation now have I' But alas, fate would
have it Judas slowly fell from grace, and with him went Brutus down to
their proper place. But lest one is left to wonder what happened to the
spy, I can safely tell you this, it was I."
- Coded message apparently signed by Lafayette Baker on February 5,
1868
Lincoln could not be trusted because his wife was from a very prominent
slave owning family in Kentucky. The Northern industrialists who Lincoln
owed money to, wanted to rape the South but Lincoln stood in their way. He
had to be removed and JWB was dumb enough to be manipulated as the fall
guy. Evidently Booth was a face-man all the women were crazy about but a
male airhead. He may have actually got away and finally died in Oklahoma.
What soured Confederates on Booth is no Southern Man of dignity would
sneak up and shoot a man in the back next to his wife, just like LHO did.
Cute conspiracy theory. Did you think it up all by yourself or did you
see it on TV?
claviger
2019-04-23 00:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.

The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.

As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.

The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley

38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg

Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.

______________________________
Here is the rest of the story:

Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.

Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.

In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.

This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.

Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.

After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
bigdog
2019-04-24 04:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Mark
2019-04-25 03:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!


Mark
bigdog
2019-04-26 00:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Mark
2019-04-26 17:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal situation
any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
bigdog
2019-04-27 21:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal situation
any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
Southern Ohio had lots of Confederate sympathizers. I suspect southern
Illinois did as well with Missouri and Kentucky right across the rivers.
Those were slave states that didn't secede. I believe these people were
called Copperheads.
claviger
2019-04-28 17:49:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal situation
any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
Southern Ohio had lots of Confederate sympathizers. I suspect southern
Illinois did as well with Missouri and Kentucky right across the rivers.
Those were slave states that didn't secede. I believe these people were
called Copperheads.
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.

This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.

Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.

Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
bigdog
2019-04-30 20:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal situation
any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
Southern Ohio had lots of Confederate sympathizers. I suspect southern
Illinois did as well with Missouri and Kentucky right across the rivers.
Those were slave states that didn't secede. I believe these people were
called Copperheads.
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
claviger
2019-05-01 19:39:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
BT George
2019-05-02 02:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after* the
war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South had as much
right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.

I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and the Union
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
claviger
2019-05-03 03:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after* the
war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South had as much
right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and the Union
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
Actually the first instance of a Southern State threatening to withdraw
from the new alliance of 13 colonies was over Tax Policy. The Northern
States had passed High Tariffs on buying metal gods from Birmingham,
England, most farming tools like shovels, hoes, axes, saws, and plows.
"Made in Birmingham" meant long lasting quality at a good price around the
world. Southern farmers and plantations were livid about this import tax,
coupled with the fact Railroads were owned by Northern companies with no
competition. So the fix was in and hard on Southern agriculture.

Protectionism favoring Northern Industrial States was the first problem to
cause Southern farmers to question this unbalanced economic situation. All
but one of the original Colonies were involved with Slavery. When the
Northern states voted to end that "peculiar institution" they transitioned
by selling their Slaves down South, rather than grant them freedom.

As for Secession most States were formed by seceding from larger States.
At the beginning of the Civil War, West Virginia seceded from Virginia and
no one complained. Virginia acknowledged their right to do so, remaining
consistent as to existing law governing States Rights. To claim States had
no right to secede was radical new concept. All these existing States had
collectively seceded from Great Britain. Scotland was constantly at odds
with England, and Northern Ireland seceded from Ireland.

There is an active Secession debate currently going on in Spain with the
State of Catalonia voting to be independent. It was once an independent
kingdom. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union many previous historic
regions like the Ukraine and smaller Baltic States reasserted their claim
to independence. The State of Texas can legally divided into 5 States
based on the original agreement with the US in 1845.

The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.

Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.

From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.

The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.

So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
BT George
2019-05-09 19:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after* the
war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South had as much
right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and the Union
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
Actually the first instance of a Southern State threatening to withdraw
from the new alliance of 13 colonies was over Tax Policy. The Northern
States had passed High Tariffs on buying metal gods from Birmingham,
England, most farming tools like shovels, hoes, axes, saws, and plows.
"Made in Birmingham" meant long lasting quality at a good price around the
world. Southern farmers and plantations were livid about this import tax,
coupled with the fact Railroads were owned by Northern companies with no
competition. So the fix was in and hard on Southern agriculture.
Protectionism favoring Northern Industrial States was the first problem to
cause Southern farmers to question this unbalanced economic situation. All
but one of the original Colonies were involved with Slavery. When the
Northern states voted to end that "peculiar institution" they transitioned
by selling their Slaves down South, rather than grant them freedom.
As for Secession most States were formed by seceding from larger States.
At the beginning of the Civil War, West Virginia seceded from Virginia and
no one complained. Virginia acknowledged their right to do so, remaining
consistent as to existing law governing States Rights. To claim States had
no right to secede was radical new concept. All these existing States had
collectively seceded from Great Britain. Scotland was constantly at odds
with England, and Northern Ireland seceded from Ireland.
There is an active Secession debate currently going on in Spain with the
State of Catalonia voting to be independent. It was once an independent
kingdom. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union many previous historic
regions like the Ukraine and smaller Baltic States reasserted their claim
to independence. The State of Texas can legally divided into 5 States
based on the original agreement with the US in 1845.
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.

(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)

(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
more than a further, indirect reference to my point (1):

https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html?utm_term=.0405853583a9
John McAdams
2019-05-09 20:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.

In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.

But if you don't have an army that can make it stick, you're just
going to waste a lot of lives.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2019-05-10 14:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
point (1): Of course, the question of why the South seceded is
different from the issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Yes, the Southern States had recent historic validation
in a well read international document that began:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for
one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation."

This is called a Legal Precedent.
But if you don't have an army that can make it
stick, you're just going to waste a lot of lives.
Toombs, Stephens, et al, tried to convince President Davis
to not start a war the South did not have resources to win.
Basic Logic. Do the Math.
BT George
2019-05-11 01:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Indeed. The entire American Revolution becomes hard to defend unless you
believe that it was based on the notion that separate regions of country
or empire have a right to leave if their citizens or representatives vote
to do so because of grievances. That is the very definition of ideals
like self-determination. (Though in this case, a huge number of persons
in the seceding states had no voice or say, but then so too was the
situation with the original 13 Colonies in general.)
Post by John McAdams
But if you don't have an army that can make it stick, you're just
going to waste a lot of lives.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-12 17:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Indeed. The entire American Revolution becomes hard to defend unless you
believe that it was based on the notion that separate regions of country
Ok, so you are against Democracy and favor Monarchy.
Which country or territory in the UK would be the model for us?
Post by BT George
or empire have a right to leave if their citizens or representatives vote
to do so because of grievances. That is the very definition of ideals
like self-determination. (Though in this case, a huge number of persons
in the seceding states had no voice or say, but then so too was the
situation with the original 13 Colonies in general.)
Post by John McAdams
But if you don't have an army that can make it stick, you're just
going to waste a lot of lives.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2019-05-14 03:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Indeed. The entire American Revolution becomes hard to defend unless you
believe that it was based on the notion that separate regions of country
Ok, so you are against Democracy and favor Monarchy.
Both Davis and Lincoln ignored Democracy and acted like two monarchs
wanting to duke it out. The Founders hoped the commonsense of reason
expressed in Law and Order would prevail over gunpowder and bullets to
solve every dispute.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which country or territory in the UK would be the model for us?
Whichever one avoided Civil War to solve national disputes. Socialists
were war starters in WWII and Venezuela is the most shocking failure
of Socialism in modern history.
BT George
2019-05-14 03:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Indeed. The entire American Revolution becomes hard to defend unless you
believe that it was based on the notion that separate regions of country
Ok, so you are against Democracy and favor Monarchy.
Which country or territory in the UK would be the model for us?
Post by BT George
or empire have a right to leave if their citizens or representatives vote
to do so because of grievances. That is the very definition of ideals
like self-determination. (Though in this case, a huge number of persons
in the seceding states had no voice or say, but then so too was the
situation with the original 13 Colonies in general.)
Post by John McAdams
But if you don't have an army that can make it stick, you're just
going to waste a lot of lives.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Tony do you ever actually read what someone posts before you respond? I'll
admit sometimes I don't read very thoroughly, but I at least take the time
to get the gist of it. Clearly you did not here, and lots of other place.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-15 01:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Indeed. The entire American Revolution becomes hard to defend unless you
believe that it was based on the notion that separate regions of country
Ok, so you are against Democracy and favor Monarchy.
Which country or territory in the UK would be the model for us?
Post by BT George
or empire have a right to leave if their citizens or representatives vote
to do so because of grievances. That is the very definition of ideals
like self-determination. (Though in this case, a huge number of persons
in the seceding states had no voice or say, but then so too was the
situation with the original 13 Colonies in general.)
Post by John McAdams
But if you don't have an army that can make it stick, you're just
going to waste a lot of lives.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Tony do you ever actually read what someone posts before you respond? I'll
admit sometimes I don't read very thoroughly, but I at least take the time
to get the gist of it. Clearly you did not here, and lots of other place.
Yes, I did and my points stand.
You did not object to anything I said.
BT George
2019-05-16 12:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by John McAdams
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
The UK is in the process of doing a Brexit from the faltering European
Union. In WW II three international world leaders agreed with Lincoln's
interpretation: Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. All these are historic
facts.
Lincoln acted more like an Emperor than a President. The US Civil War was
the largest catastrophic event in US History and could have been
prevented, but Lincoln's imperial attitude didn't help, perhaps copied
Andrew Jackson, nor did all the Southern "Fire Eaters" invective.
From what I can tell those regional scars never healed completely. A
couple of years ago on a driving vacation I saw a car with an Alabama
license plate and a bumper sticker: "If at First you don't Secede, Try
and Try Again." I'm sure it was a regional joke, however there can be no
doubt a country as large as the USA has regional cultural differences.
This time it seems to be a division of the Heartland versus West Coast and
East Coast.
The City of New York recently discussed the possibility of seceding from
the State of New York and becoming their own State with two Senators. Not
the first time NYC has considered that option. During the middle of the US
Civil War there were riots in the streets and buildings set on fire.
Lincoln had to send in troops.
So it's obvious the Southern States in the USA did not invent the
political concept of Secession, nor will they be the last.
They left over slavery. That is an *irrefutable* fact of history.
(1) It's common sense. (Ya' think it was just a coincidence it was after
the election of the Abolitionist Abraham Lincoln that they began to
Secede?)
(2) It's well documented in the *stated* reasons for withdrawal --Noting
that disputing the coming to power of the "sectional party" is nothing
Of course, the question of why the South seceded is different from the
issue of whether states had a right to secede.
In fact, there was a quite good case that states had a right to
secede.
Indeed. The entire American Revolution becomes hard to defend unless you
believe that it was based on the notion that separate regions of country
Ok, so you are against Democracy and favor Monarchy.
Which country or territory in the UK would be the model for us?
Post by BT George
or empire have a right to leave if their citizens or representatives vote
to do so because of grievances. That is the very definition of ideals
like self-determination. (Though in this case, a huge number of persons
in the seceding states had no voice or say, but then so too was the
situation with the original 13 Colonies in general.)
Post by John McAdams
But if you don't have an army that can make it stick, you're just
going to waste a lot of lives.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Tony do you ever actually read what someone posts before you respond? I'll
admit sometimes I don't read very thoroughly, but I at least take the time
to get the gist of it. Clearly you did not here, and lots of other place.
Yes, I did and my points stand.
You did not object to anything I said.
Just the part where you completely misstated what I was saying.

Anthony Marsh
2019-05-03 16:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after* the
war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South had as much
right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States. The
republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only colonies
of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and the Union
Not entirely.
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
BOZ
2019-05-05 01:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after* the
war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South had as much
right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States. The
republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only colonies
of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and the Union
Not entirely.
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Robert E Lee wrote “the maintenance of the rights and authority
reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the
adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the
continuance of a free government."
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-06 01:48:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after* the
war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South had as much
right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States. The
republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only colonies
of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and the Union
Not entirely.
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Robert E Lee wrote “the maintenance of the rights and authority
reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the
adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the
continuance of a free government."
So, like Trump you praise a traitor.
claviger
2019-05-10 02:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States. The
republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only colonies
of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
It was basically a Tax Revolt. The US Congress is our new King George III
except worse.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away
with, and the Union
Not entirely.
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say
the South was wrong on point of legal Constitutional
principal as it then existed, even if I think their primary
reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Robert E Lee wrote “the maintenance of the rights and
authority reserved to the states and to the people, not
only essential to the adjustment and balance of the
general system, but the safeguard to the continuance
of a free government."
So, like Trump you praise a traitor.
In a voluntary association of States, highest duty and primary
loyalty is to the Home State first, which is entirely logical and
normal because that is where all your family and friends live.

Any other loyalty would be unnatural. One of the most famous
Confederate Generals came from a Virginia family opposed to
slavery who were outspoken against it. When the call to arms
spread across Virginia to resist invasion, he reported for duty
to protect friends and family.

This is normal human behavior. A surprising number of people
in the North were sympathetic to Southern grievances and the
right of any State to act in their own best interest. Actually the
Taxation complaints preceded the slavery issue as a reason for
concern and why there was friction with President Jackson, a
southern slave owner.

Two arrogant politicians started this tragic war, against the
temperate advice and sage wisdom by concerned advisors,
and ignoring the quintessence of Democracy. Both did pay
a grievous high price for such arrogance. More Americans
suffered and died because of this political blunder than any
war in US history.

Most cynical historians would contend not a blunder at all.
After the Civil War the States were reduced to mere Federal
provinces. Some historians might argue that was by intent,
the real purpose of the Civil War was to convert an alliance
for self protection into a domineering world empire. Master
Plan or not that did happen. Does the end justify the means?

Politicians yes, Historians neutral, Christians no.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 14:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States. The
republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only colonies
of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
It was basically a Tax Revolt. The US Congress is our new King George III
except worse.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away
with, and the Union
Not entirely.
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say
the South was wrong on point of legal Constitutional
principal as it then existed, even if I think their primary
reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Robert E Lee wrote ???the maintenance of the rights and
authority reserved to the states and to the people, not
only essential to the adjustment and balance of the
general system, but the safeguard to the continuance
of a free government."
So, like Trump you praise a traitor.
In a voluntary association of States, highest duty and primary
loyalty is to the Home State first, which is entirely logical and
normal because that is where all your family and friends live.
Any other loyalty would be unnatural. One of the most famous
Confederate Generals came from a Virginia family opposed to
slavery who were outspoken against it. When the call to arms
spread across Virginia to resist invasion, he reported for duty
to protect friends and family.
This is normal human behavior. A surprising number of people
in the North were sympathetic to Southern grievances and the
right of any State to act in their own best interest. Actually the
Taxation complaints preceded the slavery issue as a reason for
concern and why there was friction with President Jackson, a
southern slave owner.
Two arrogant politicians started this tragic war, against the
temperate advice and sage wisdom by concerned advisors,
and ignoring the quintessence of Democracy. Both did pay
a grievous high price for such arrogance. More Americans
suffered and died because of this political blunder than any
war in US history.
So you are in favor of no Civil War and keeping slavery.
That explains a lot.
Post by claviger
Most cynical historians would contend not a blunder at all.
After the Civil War the States were reduced to mere Federal
provinces. Some historians might argue that was by intent,
the real purpose of the Civil War was to convert an alliance
for self protection into a domineering world empire. Master
Plan or not that did happen. Does the end justify the means?
Politicians yes, Historians neutral, Christians no.
claviger
2019-05-12 18:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
e first president to own slaves, including while he was president."

Slavery was legal at the time of voluntary membership in a regional
unified political governing body for Defense, Commerce, Trade, Courts,
eventually a National Monetary System, although the idea of a National
Central Bank was anathema for many years.

Andrew Jackson, the first dynamic President, despised the very thought of
a National Central Bank in New York or even Washington. Except for the
National Bank he was a very forceful advocate for national allegiance,
acquiescence, and cooperation. He was quite domineering as President. Some
scholars claim Lincoln was not a fan, but emulated his Presidency of force
over reason. The enduring question for legal historians is why did
neither Lincoln, a former lawyer, or Davis, a former Senator, make use of
the Supreme Court to adjudicate this constitutional dispute?

Both Davis and Lincoln were "My Way or Highway" Presidents and even more
perilous both men had a messiah complex. Ironically modern legal scholars
have confirmed yes Davis was correct as to Constitutional Law based on
precedent of The Declaration of Independence and the factual history the
larger States kept subdividing with peaceful negotiations and commonsense.

The Revolutionary War was the most conspicuous precedent in freedom from
overt domination and the Supreme Court was the obvious venue for
resolution to this historic conflict. As a practicing attorney now become
President why did Lincoln not instinctively resort to the Highest Court?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States. The
republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only colonies
of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
It was basically a Tax Revolt. The US Congress is our new King George III
except worse.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away
with, and the Union
Not entirely.
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say
the South was wrong on point of legal Constitutional
principal as it then existed, even if I think their primary
reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Robert E Lee wrote ???the maintenance of the rights and
authority reserved to the states and to the people, not
only essential to the adjustment and balance of the
general system, but the safeguard to the continuance
of a free government."
So, like Trump you praise a traitor.
In a voluntary association of States, highest duty and primary
loyalty is to the Home State first, which is entirely logical and
normal because that is where all your family and friends live.
Any other loyalty would be unnatural. One of the most famous
Confederate Generals came from a Virginia family opposed to
slavery who were outspoken against it. When the call to arms
spread across Virginia to resist invasion, he reported for duty
to protect friends and family.
This is normal human behavior. A surprising number of people
in the North were sympathetic to Southern grievances and the
right of any State to act in their own best interest. Actually the
Taxation complaints preceded the slavery issue as a reason for
concern and why there was friction with President Jackson, a
southern slave owner.
Two arrogant politicians started this tragic war, against the
temperate advice and sage wisdom by concerned advisors,
and ignoring the quintessence of Democracy. Both did pay
a grievous high price for such arrogance. More Americans
suffered and died because of this political blunder than any
war in US history.
So you are in favor of no Civil War and keeping slavery.
That explains a lot.
I despise Slavery: Black Slavery and Native American Slavery.
Your ancestors in New England were involved with BOTH.

Every Colony and State (but Vermont) were involved in Black
Slavery and some historians might say White Slavery too.

Native Americans were the First slaves, the Most slaves, and
the Last slaves in North America. It is extreme hypocrisy for
anyone to feign concern over Slavery and ignore Amerindian
Slavery like it never happened.

President Andrew Jackson personally owned Black Slaves and
proceeded to enslave the Native Tribes of the Southeast region
and moved them on a death march "Trail of Tears" to Oklahoma.
When Lincoln became President he approved the same harsh
treatment of Minnesota Native Americans.

Minnesota is a Native American name. Now it is known for
Nordic Americans who took their place.

The only difference, Jackson did not hang any Native American
leaders in a public execution like Lincoln did, and Lincoln made
no attempt to free Native American slaves as a group. The fact
Native Americans were starving on reservations during the deep
freeze winter months was no concern to the Great Emancipator.
The only Freedom they ever got from him was death.

At least Slaves were fed, clothed, and sheltered on Plantations.
Not on Native Reservations which were basically concentration
camps. Read some real History Books.

As for the Law in the British Colonies and after the Revolution,
Slavery was a legal institution North and South. As mentioned,
the North decided to do away with Black slavery, most did not
free any slaves, instead sold them to the Southern plantations.
Once they got all their purchase money back then they could
denounce Slavery. Lucky for them Lincoln had not yet signed
the Emancipation Proclamation.

If all this stinks of hypocrisy, your nostrils are working correctly.

Therefore the basic sense of separation was already established,
slavery no longer legal above the line of separation but continued
as a Constitutional institution south of the line. This was a perfect
time to accept a Missouri Compromise and save lives.

Ironically, the Missouri people were a Native American Tribe too.

There are Civil, State, and Federal Laws many people don't like, but
as citizens we are expected to obey them. Nothing changed in the
South from Day 1 of the Constitution and they kept operating under
Federal Law. If there is a legal challenge to any Federal Law it must
be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The correct venue where this
Constitutional conflict should have been sorted out, not on bloody
battlefields. That is what a Great Nation would do.

I consider Davis and Lincoln equally to blame for the carnage.

" Roughly 1,264,000 American soldiers have died in the nation's wars--
620,000 in the Civil War and 644,000 in all other conflicts."

This number does not include civilian deaths.

Instead of behaving like great American Leaders, Davis and Lincoln
acted like two Banana Republic caudillos shooting it out. Given the
soaring language of the Declaration of Independence the Civil War
was gross hypocrisy.

Shame on Davis and Lincoln for ignoring commonsense, The Bible,
and the US Constitution.
claviger
2019-05-05 01:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after*
the war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South
had as much right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States.
They seceded from the Disunited States. Notice the plural.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only
colonies of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
The rebellion was against a United Kingdom. The Colonies were
attempting to disunite and pay no more taxes to Great Britain.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and
the Union
Not entirely.
Slavery was partially done away with. For Native Americans it got
worse. The Union Army began the ethnic cleansing assault on all
Native Americans for several decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Your ancestors were the first to commit Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing
on Native Americans, so are you proud of them?
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-06 01:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
Oh I believe on point of law---as it existed before the SCOTUS *after*
the war interpreted the Constitution to mean otherwise---the South
had as much right to secede as the Colonies did. After all, if white, largely
slave-owning or slave-owning tolerant, men could vote to leave England,
then their Southern descendants could do the same.
Treason. The colonies did not secede from the United States.
They seceded from the Disunited States. Notice the plural.
Silly. It was called United States. Where do you find your treasonous
memes? The KKK web site?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The republic of the United States did not yet exist. We were only
colonies of a monarchy and we rebelled to gain our freedom.
The rebellion was against a United Kingdom. The Colonies were
attempting to disunite and pay no more taxes to Great Britain.
Can you even spell the word Monarchy or are you afraid to say it?
Freedom is a little more than not paying taxes.
We know YOU don't like to pay taxes. Why don't you secede?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and
the Union
Not entirely.
Slavery was partially done away with. For Native Americans it got
worse. The Union Army began the ethnic cleansing assault on all
Not the same thing. Stop playing the Trump card and making up false
equivalencies. Women did not have the right to vote so YOU could say
that women were slaves too.
Post by claviger
Native Americans for several decades.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Your ancestors were the first to commit Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing
on Native Americans, so are you proud of them?
More cheap slander. I don't bring up our ancestors.
claviger
2019-05-07 18:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and
the Union
Not entirely.
Slavery was partially done away with. For Native Americans it got
worse. The Union Army began the ethnic cleansing assault on all
Not the same thing. Stop playing the Trump card and making up false
equivalencies. Women did not have the right to vote so YOU could say
that women were slaves too.
Post by claviger
Native Americans for several decades.
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Your ancestors were the first to commit Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing
on Native Americans, so are you proud of them?
More cheap slander. I don't bring up our ancestors.
For good reason, your ancestors hung people for being witches.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-08 20:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and
the Union
Not entirely.
Slavery was partially done away with. For Native Americans it got
worse. The Union Army began the ethnic cleansing assault on all
Not the same thing. Stop playing the Trump card and making up false
equivalencies. Women did not have the right to vote so YOU could say
that women were slaves too.
Post by claviger
Native Americans for several decades.
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Your ancestors were the first to commit Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing
on Native Americans, so are you proud of them?
More cheap slander. I don't bring up our ancestors.
For good reason, your ancestors hung people for being witches.
All you have is cheap slander. I never bring up YOUR relatives. You seem
to think everyone must be related.
claviger
2019-05-09 23:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and
the Union
Not entirely.
Slavery was partially done away with. For Native Americans it got
worse. The Union Army began the ethnic cleansing assault on all
Not the same thing. Stop playing the Trump card and making up false
equivalencies. Women did not have the right to vote so YOU could say
that women were slaves too.
Post by claviger
Native Americans for several decades.
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Your ancestors were the first to commit Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing
on Native Americans, so are you proud of them?
More cheap slander. I don't bring up our ancestors.
For good reason, your ancestors hung people for being witches.
All you have is cheap slander.
Gosh, I wonder who I learned that from on this Debate Forum?
Hmmm, who could be? I do believe it must be none other than
MR NAZI MOUTH!!! If anyone disagrees with him they must be
a Nazi! Most of us got over this silliness in Elementary School,
but not bombastic MNM.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I never bring up YOUR relatives.
You cast aspersions on everyone who understands
the fallacy and fraud of Socialism.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You seem to think everyone must be related.
That is a Biblical fact confirmed by Modern Genetic
Science.

Socialism is the Sin of Envy. It first came about when
Cain hated Abel for his self-reliance and following the
rules. The implication of this Biblical story is Abel was
diligent and Cain was lazy, otherwise why blame Cain
since he cannot control sunshine and rainfall?

In the modern world of Socialist politics productive Abels
of the world are forced to pay more in taxes to support all
lazy Cains. Not only that, goat and sheep herding was is a
dangerous job, even to this day in parts of the world. As a
young man David had to protect his flock from Lions and
Wolves 24/7, not to mention thieves. Both Abel and David
should be the patron Saints of all Guardians in out Society.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-11 01:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
I am very glad at the end results. (Slavery done away with, and
the Union
Not entirely.
Slavery was partially done away with. For Native Americans it got
worse. The Union Army began the ethnic cleansing assault on all
Not the same thing. Stop playing the Trump card and making up false
equivalencies. Women did not have the right to vote so YOU could say
that women were slaves too.
Post by claviger
Native Americans for several decades.
Post by claviger
Post by BT George
staying together. But I think it is truly difficult to say the South was
wrong on point of legal Constitutional principal as it then existed, even
if I think their primary reason for secession was reprehensible.
So you are a proud confederate.
Your ancestors were the first to commit Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing
on Native Americans, so are you proud of them?
More cheap slander. I don't bring up our ancestors.
For good reason, your ancestors hung people for being witches.
All you have is cheap slander.
Gosh, I wonder who I learned that from on this Debate Forum?
Hmmm, who could be? I do believe it must be none other than
MR NAZI MOUTH!!! If anyone disagrees with him they must be
a Nazi! Most of us got over this silliness in Elementary School,
but not bombastic MNM.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I never bring up YOUR relatives.
You cast aspersions on everyone who understands
the fallacy and fraud of Socialism.
False. I specifically said that Socialism does not work. Did you fall
asleep? What is your obsession with Socialism? You think you can win ANY
argument just by calling your opponent a Socialist?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You seem to think everyone must be related.
That is a Biblical fact confirmed by Modern Genetic
Science.
seriously doubt it. You think genetics confirms the Bible?
You know nothing about Science and nothing about the Bible.
Post by claviger
Socialism is the Sin of Envy. It first came about when
Not sure what logic gets you to that conclusion.
Post by claviger
Cain hated Abel for his self-reliance and following the
rules. The implication of this Biblical story is Abel was
Which pundit told you that?
Post by claviger
diligent and Cain was lazy, otherwise why blame Cain
since he cannot control sunshine and rainfall?
That makes no sense. Cain and Abel is about jealousy.
Post by claviger
In the modern world of Socialist politics productive Abels
of the world are forced to pay more in taxes to support all
lazy Cains. Not only that, goat and sheep herding was is a
dangerous job, even to this day in parts of the world. As a
young man David had to protect his flock from Lions and
Wolves 24/7, not to mention thieves. Both Abel and David
should be the patron Saints of all Guardians in out Society.
YOU should pay more taxes. Trump should pay taxes.
The Koch brothers should pay taxes. That would solve all our problems.
Anthony Marsh
2019-05-03 03:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
So King George was Right and the Colonies were Wrong?!
If true, the United Confederation of Colonies were outlaws
and but for the timely arrival of the French Fleet the Legal
British Army of expeditionary colonial police enforcement
troops would have put down the Rebellion of all Colonial
Rebels, correct? What you are saying is Colonial Gangs
took over the Colonies and then defeated a legitimate
British Police Enforcement Department. IOW, put the
British in Blue Uniforms and the Colonial Rebels in
Grey and then you would have a valid parallel to
the US Civil War, which actually is a misnomer.
There is a running joke about that on one show.
The wag says, "War Between The States."
claviger
2019-05-02 02:04:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men:
A History of the American Civil War
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel 1996


The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln,
His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
by Thomas J. Dilorenzo 2003
claviger
2019-05-11 23:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Somewhere I read there were Indiana Regiments in the Confederate Army.
This war should never have happened. Had Douglas and Toombs been the
winning Presidential candidates there would have been a peaceful solution.
Toombs and Stephens begged Jefferson Davis to not fire on Fort Sumter.
Senator Seward of New York implored Lincoln to avoid a Civil War and did
everything he possibly could to prevent it. He should be recognized as an
American hero for his efforts.
Douglas, Seward, Stephens, Toombs are unsung heroes in American history as
peacemakers who did everything possible to find a nonviolent solution to
avoid the appalling carnage and bloodshed that took place. Brazil was the
second largest slave economy in the Western Hemisphere who banished
slavery with no war and no bloodshed.
Shame on the USA for not doing the same.
The slave states were not going to give up their slaves without a fight. A
peaceful solution would have required appeasement. 7 states had already
seceded before Lincoln even took office. Four more seceded after Fort
Sumter was taken. Lincoln's choices were to allow them to secede or fight
to hold the Union together. Choosing the former would have permitted
slavery to continue indefinitely.
“In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their
lives, eight of whom owned slaves while serving as president. George
Washington was the first president to own slaves, including while he was
president."

Slavery was legal at the time of voluntary membership in a regional
unified political governing body for Defense, Commerce, Trade, Courts,
eventually a National Monetary System, although the idea of a National
Central Bank was anathema for many years.

Andrew Jackson, the first dynamic President, despised the very thought
of a National Central Bank in New York or even Washington. Except for
the National Bank he was a very forceful advocate for national allegiance,
acquiescence, and cooperation. He was quite domineering as President.
Some scholars claim Lincoln was not a fan, but emulated his Presidency
of force over reason. The enduring question for legal historians is why
did neither Lincoln, a former lawyer, or Davis, a former Senator, make
use of the Supreme Court to adjudicate this constitutional dispute?

The Revolutionary War was the most conspicuous precedent in freedom
from overt domination and the Supreme Court was the obvious venue for
resolution to this historic conflict. As a practicing attorney now become
President why did Lincoln not instinctively resort to the Highest Court?
Mark
2019-04-30 01:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal situation
any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
Southern Ohio had lots of Confederate sympathizers. I suspect southern
Illinois did as well with Missouri and Kentucky right across the rivers.
Those were slave states that didn't secede. I believe these people were
called Copperheads.
I have driven across Ohio many times, mostly on I-70. It's beautiful
state. From its western flat land to the beautiful rolling hills of the
east. One time I was smart and arrived in Columbus at evening rush hour.
Many slow rolling halts. Perhaps I should have taken I-270. Mark
claviger
2019-04-30 20:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue
of the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton
which would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states
feared Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention
of waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal
situation any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
Southern Ohio had lots of Confederate sympathizers. I suspect southern
Illinois did as well with Missouri and Kentucky right across the rivers.
Those were slave states that didn't secede. I believe these people were
called Copperheads.
I have driven across Ohio many times, mostly on I-70. It's beautiful
state. From its western flat land to the beautiful rolling hills of the
east. One time I was smart and arrived in Columbus at evening rush hour.
Many slow rolling halts. Perhaps I should have taken I-270. Mark
Do you know about the amazing Serpent Mounds in Ohio that might have a
connection to similar mounds in Scotland?
Mark
2019-05-01 19:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue
of the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton
which would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states
feared Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention
of waiting around for that to happen.
As a short summary of the reasons for the Civil War, you're pretty
accurate. Though I hate to admit that to a dadgum Buckeye Yankee!

For what it's worth, I was born in Chicago and raised in Omaha.
Well, now. Just as I suspected. That doesn't make your personal
situation any better, suh. Both are Yankee strongholds. Mark
Southern Ohio had lots of Confederate sympathizers. I suspect southern
Illinois did as well with Missouri and Kentucky right across the rivers.
Those were slave states that didn't secede. I believe these people were
called Copperheads.
I have driven across Ohio many times, mostly on I-70. It's beautiful
state. From its western flat land to the beautiful rolling hills of the
east. One time I was smart and arrived in Columbus at evening rush hour.
Many slow rolling halts. Perhaps I should have taken I-270. Mark
Do you know about the amazing Serpent Mounds in Ohio that might have a
connection to similar mounds in Scotland?
No, I didn't. But have since read about them online. Mark
claviger
2019-05-03 03:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by claviger
Do you know about the amazing Serpent Mounds in Ohio that
might have a connection to similar mounds in Scotland?
No, I didn't. But have since read about them online. Mark
What did you think? Is there any connection?
These mounds are amazing as to the precise
celestial alignment to seasons. In fact, some
researchers say they are really big calendars.
claviger
2019-04-25 03:24:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?

The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
bigdog
2019-04-26 00:54:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Lincoln and Roosevelt did not own slaves.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?
The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
Red slavery was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War which is what
this discussion is about. The southern states were determined to hold on
the slaves they had, most of which were black. They saw Lincoln as an
abolitionist and feared he would eventually move to free the slaves.
Rather than wait for that to happen, the Confederate States chose
secession.
claviger
2019-04-27 01:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Lincoln and Roosevelt did not own slaves.
Lincoln ended up with a whole bunch of slaves, more than
he bargained for: Red, Brown, and Black. Those should be
the colors of our Ethnic History National Flag.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?
The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
Red slavery was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War which is what
this discussion is about. The southern states were determined to hold
on the slaves they had, most of which were black. They saw Lincoln
as an abolitionist and feared he would eventually move to free the
slaves. Rather than wait for that to happen, the Confederate States
chose secession.
Thanks for the minimal propaganda we all learned in elementary school.
Much more to that story. The victorious Union Army had the momentum
and kept the Manifest Destiny Ball rolling to the West Coast swallowing
up Native American tribes as prisoners all the way to the Pacific Ocean,
then crossed over to Hawaii.

The Germans called it Lebensraum (living space). They were bullies
who forced neighbors to surrender to their lust for more land space
and strategic waterways. Sound familiar?

Reality is a bitch and getting worse. Now the tables have turned and
poverty is being exported to the USA through the minimal fencing on
the porous Southern border. Even we in the prosperous USA cannot
produce enough food to sustain the projected influx+birth rate. Bad
situation that inevitably leads to conflict.

This is what historians now believe happened to the mysterious Mayan
culture of Central America, that vanished for no obvious reason. Some
experts are now predicting a Second Civil War in the United States, or
a peaceful realignment by process of scientific, rational, and amicable
reorganization.

Socialists and Liberals want to control all the worker bees to do their
labor as our political masters. Socialist Slavery is their solution to
all economic problems of mankind on Planet Earth.


Is the United States on the verge of civil war? - SFChronicle.com Sep 29,
2018 - He saw stasis as a bitter civil war between the revolutionary
masses and the traditionalist ... Americans increasingly are either proud
of past U.S..
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Is-the-United-States-on-the-verge-of-civil-war-13257556.php


American Civil War in 2010, Russian Academic Says | Vanity Fair Are you
ready for the next Civil War? ... American Civil War in 2010, Russian
Academic Says. by. Bill Bradley ... Canada will grab a group of Northern
states Prof.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/12/american-civil-war-in-2010-russian-academic-says


Igor Panarin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

Igor Nikolaevich Panarin is a Russian professor and political scientist.
He is best known for predicting in 1998 that the United States would ....
the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and
intervention of foreign powers.
BOZ
2019-04-28 01:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Lincoln and Roosevelt did not own slaves.
Lincoln ended up with a whole bunch of slaves, more than
he bargained for: Red, Brown, and Black. Those should be
the colors of our Ethnic History National Flag.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?
The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
Red slavery was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War which is what
this discussion is about. The southern states were determined to hold
on the slaves they had, most of which were black. They saw Lincoln
as an abolitionist and feared he would eventually move to free the
slaves. Rather than wait for that to happen, the Confederate States
chose secession.
Thanks for the minimal propaganda we all learned in elementary school.
Much more to that story. The victorious Union Army had the momentum
and kept the Manifest Destiny Ball rolling to the West Coast swallowing
up Native American tribes as prisoners all the way to the Pacific Ocean,
then crossed over to Hawaii.
The Germans called it Lebensraum (living space). They were bullies
who forced neighbors to surrender to their lust for more land space
and strategic waterways. Sound familiar?
Reality is a bitch and getting worse. Now the tables have turned and
poverty is being exported to the USA through the minimal fencing on
the porous Southern border. Even we in the prosperous USA cannot
produce enough food to sustain the projected influx+birth rate. Bad
situation that inevitably leads to conflict.
This is what historians now believe happened to the mysterious Mayan
culture of Central America, that vanished for no obvious reason. Some
experts are now predicting a Second Civil War in the United States, or
a peaceful realignment by process of scientific, rational, and amicable
reorganization.
Socialists and Liberals want to control all the worker bees to do their
labor as our political masters. Socialist Slavery is their solution to
all economic problems of mankind on Planet Earth.
Is the United States on the verge of civil war? - SFChronicle.com Sep 29,
2018 - He saw stasis as a bitter civil war between the revolutionary
masses and the traditionalist ... Americans increasingly are either proud
of past U.S..
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Is-the-United-States-on-the-verge-of-civil-war-13257556.php
American Civil War in 2010, Russian Academic Says | Vanity Fair Are you
ready for the next Civil War? ... American Civil War in 2010, Russian
Academic Says. by. Bill Bradley ... Canada will grab a group of Northern
states Prof.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/12/american-civil-war-in-2010-russian-academic-says
Igor Panarin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin
Igor Nikolaevich Panarin is a Russian professor and political scientist.
He is best known for predicting in 1998 that the United States would ....
the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and
intervention of foreign powers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/man-who-killed-americas-most-14323359
bigdog
2019-04-28 01:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Lincoln and Roosevelt did not own slaves.
Lincoln ended up with a whole bunch of slaves, more than
he bargained for: Red, Brown, and Black. Those should be
the colors of our Ethnic History National Flag.
The fact he became president while there were slaves of various ethnicities
hardly makes hi a slave master. He did not own them or have control over them.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?
The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
Red slavery was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War which is what
this discussion is about. The southern states were determined to hold
on the slaves they had, most of which were black. They saw Lincoln
as an abolitionist and feared he would eventually move to free the
slaves. Rather than wait for that to happen, the Confederate States
chose secession.
Thanks for the minimal propaganda we all learned in elementary school.
Much more to that story. The victorious Union Army had the momentum
and kept the Manifest Destiny Ball rolling to the West Coast swallowing
up Native American tribes as prisoners all the way to the Pacific Ocean,
then crossed over to Hawaii.
Manifest Destiny was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War. The Missouri
Compromise of 1820 had already set the boundary where slavery would be allowed at the 36/30 parallel. Slavery would not be allowed north of that for any new states or territories.
Post by claviger
The Germans called it Lebensraum (living space). They were bullies
who forced neighbors to surrender to their lust for more land space
and strategic waterways. Sound familiar?
Reality is a bitch and getting worse. Now the tables have turned and
poverty is being exported to the USA through the minimal fencing on
the porous Southern border. Even we in the prosperous USA cannot
produce enough food to sustain the projected influx+birth rate. Bad
situation that inevitably leads to conflict.
The world produces enough food for 1 1/2 times the population of the earth. Nobody is starving because the world can't keep up with demand. Famines result distribution problems, not supply. It is a simple fact of life that the population cannot expand beyond the earth's capacity to feed it.
Post by claviger
This is what historians now believe happened to the mysterious Mayan
culture of Central America, that vanished for no obvious reason. Some
experts are now predicting a Second Civil War in the United States, or
a peaceful realignment by process of scientific, rational, and amicable
reorganization.
Who are these experts and how did they become experts?
Post by claviger
Socialists and Liberals want to control all the worker bees to do their
labor as our political masters. Socialist Slavery is their solution to
all economic problems of mankind on Planet Earth.
Yes we've always had people pushing a socialist agenda. They've influenced public policy but so far haven't gained control of it.
Post by claviger
Is the United States on the verge of civil war? - SFChronicle.com Sep 29,
2018 - He saw stasis as a bitter civil war between the revolutionary
masses and the traditionalist ... Americans increasingly are either proud
of past U.S..
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Is-the-United-States-on-the-verge-of-civil-war-13257556.php
American Civil War in 2010, Russian Academic Says | Vanity Fair Are you
ready for the next Civil War? ... American Civil War in 2010, Russian
Academic Says. by. Bill Bradley ... Canada will grab a group of Northern
states Prof.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/12/american-civil-war-in-2010-russian-academic-says
Sounds pretty wacky to me.
Post by claviger
Igor Panarin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin
Igor Nikolaevich Panarin is a Russian professor and political scientist.
He is best known for predicting in 1998 that the United States would ....
the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and
intervention of foreign powers.
And you believe this? Why?

How did we get here from discussing the Lincoln assassination?
claviger
2019-04-30 15:22:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Lincoln and Roosevelt did not own slaves.
Lincoln ended up with a whole bunch of slaves, more than
he bargained for: Red, Brown, and Black. Those should be
the colors of our Ethnic History National Flag.
The fact he became president while there were slaves of various
ethnicities hardly makes hia slave master. He did not own them
or have control over them.
Lincoln ended up being the first National Slave Master in US history.
Succeeding Presidents inherited his responsibility and none of them
did a good job. In fact, a shameful national disgrace. Brown slaves
were invisible compared to Black slaves. You just proved the reality
of that situation.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?
The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
Red slavery was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War which is what
this discussion is about. The southern states were determined to hold
on the slaves they had, most of which were black. They saw Lincoln
as an abolitionist and feared he would eventually move to free the
slaves. Rather than wait for that to happen, the Confederate States
chose secession.
Thanks for the minimal propaganda we all learned in elementary school.
Much more to that story. The victorious Union Army had the momentum
and kept the Manifest Destiny Ball rolling to the West Coast swallowing
up Native American tribes as prisoners all the way to the Pacific Ocean,
then crossed over to Hawaii.
Manifest Destiny was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War.
Manifest Destiny was the driving force of The Civil War. After the South
was crushed and annexed as vassal states, Phase Two began to overrun and
envelop all the native tribes from the Mississippi River to the Pacific
Ocean.
Post by bigdog
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had already set the boundary where
slavery would be allowed at the 36/30 parallel. Slavery would not be
allowed north of that for any new states or territories.
Yes and politicians like Jefferson Davis should have understood
and grasped the reality of the situation, that Half a Loaf is better
than No Loaf.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
The Germans called it Lebensraum (living space). They were bullies
who forced neighbors to surrender to their lust for more land space
and strategic waterways. Sound familiar?
Reality is a bitch and getting worse. Now the tables have turned and
poverty is being exported to the USA through the minimal fencing on
the porous Southern border. Even we in the prosperous USA cannot
produce enough food to sustain the projected influx+birth rate. Bad
situation that inevitably leads to conflict.
The world produces enough food for 1 1/2 times the population of the earth.
Nobody is starving because the world can't keep up with demand. Famines
result distribution problems, not supply. It is a simple fact of life that the
population cannot expand beyond the earth's capacity to feed it.
The World is in a water crisis. With out clean potable water we're all in
trouble. California has a major salinization problem.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This is what historians now believe happened to the mysterious Mayan
culture of Central America, that vanished for no obvious reason. Some
experts are now predicting a Second Civil War in the United States, or
a peaceful realignment by process of scientific, rational, and amicable
reorganization.
Who are these experts and how did they become experts?
Read the articles.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Socialists and Liberals want to control all the worker bees to do their
labor as our political masters. Socialist Slavery is their solution to
all economic problems of mankind on Planet Earth.
Yes we've always had people pushing a socialist agenda. They've
influenced public policy but so far haven't gained control of it.
Socialists are counting on Unregistered Democrats from South America
to be granted amnesty to transform the politics of the USA forever. They
want to create a massive new Venezuela inside the USA. New York will
be renamed New Cuba to honor the Godfather of Venezuela Socialism.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Is the United States on the verge of civil war? - SFChronicle.com Sep 29,
2018 - He saw stasis as a bitter civil war between the revolutionary
masses and the traditionalist ... Americans increasingly are either proud
of past U.S..
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Is-the-United-States-on-the-verge-of-civil-war-13257556.php
American Civil War in 2010, Russian Academic Says | Vanity Fair Are you
ready for the next Civil War? ... American Civil War in 2010, Russian
Academic Says. by. Bill Bradley ... Canada will grab a group of Northern
states Prof.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/12/american-civil-war-in-2010-russian-academic-says
Sounds pretty wacky to me.
This same Professor predicted the break-up of the Soviet Union to the year.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Igor Panarin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin
Igor Nikolaevich Panarin is a Russian professor and political scientist.
He is best known for predicting in 1998 that the United States would ....
the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and
intervention of foreign powers.
And you believe this? Why?
He was exactly right on his prediction of the collapse of the USSR.
Ever heard of Aztlán?

Aztlán
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztlán
File:Aztlan's goal map.PNG
Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
How did we get here from discussing the Lincoln assassination?
Who had Lincoln assassinated and why? The North benefitted from
his assassination, not the South.
claviger
2019-05-11 01:14:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
This same Professor predicted the break-up of the Soviet Union to the year.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Igor Panarin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin
Igor Nikolaevich Panarin is a Russian professor and political scientist.
He is best known for predicting in 1998 that the United States would ....
the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and
intervention of foreign powers.
And you believe this? Why?
He was exactly right on his prediction of the collapse of the USSR.
Ever heard of Aztlán?
Aztlán
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztlán
File:Aztlan's goal map.PNG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aztlan%27s_goal_map.PNG
MYTHS AND LEGENDS
Journey to Aztlán, the Mythical Homeland of the Aztecs
http://mexicounexplained.com/journey-aztlan-mythical-homeland-aztecs/
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-28 17:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston.
Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
Wrong. Black Slavery was the overriding issue of the Civil War.
The Lincoln Administration approved, supported, and enforced
Native American slavery in Minnesota and elsewhere. The Sioux
leaders of their tribal Homeland Security were executed in the
largest mass hanging in US History. Three of the faces on Mount
Rushmore were slave masters. For Native Americans the Lincoln
graven image is the worst.
Lincoln and Roosevelt did not own slaves.
Lincoln ended up with a whole bunch of slaves, more than
he bargained for: Red, Brown, and Black. Those should be
the colors of our Ethnic History National Flag.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics
of King Cotton which would be upset if slavery were to
be abolished. The slave states feared Lincoln's election
would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Why did those humanitarian Northern Industrialists wait so
long to speak out against Black Skin slavery? There were
cotton mills in the North the whole time. Why were they so
quiet about Red Skin slavery?
The First was politically useful at a certain point in time, the
Second was politically expedient. Both were blatant Slavery
except Black Slaves had value, while Red Slaves had none.
Same pattern established by the New England colonies.
Red slavery was irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War which is what
this discussion is about. The southern states were determined to hold
on the slaves they had, most of which were black. They saw Lincoln
as an abolitionist and feared he would eventually move to free the
slaves. Rather than wait for that to happen, the Confederate States
chose secession.
Thanks for the minimal propaganda we all learned in elementary school.
Much more to that story. The victorious Union Army had the momentum
and kept the Manifest Destiny Ball rolling to the West Coast swallowing
up Native American tribes as prisoners all the way to the Pacific Ocean,
then crossed over to Hawaii.
The Germans called it Lebensraum (living space). They were bullies
who forced neighbors to surrender to their lust for more land space
and strategic waterways. Sound familiar?
False. Not the same thing.
Post by claviger
Reality is a bitch and getting worse. Now the tables have turned and
poverty is being exported to the USA through the minimal fencing on
You seem to have overlooked the fact that the US was always a haven for
the Poor Yearning to Breath Free.
YOU trump supporterters conveniently overlook the fact that Trump's
relatives escaped Germany to come to the US.
Post by claviger
the porous Southern border. Even we in the prosperous USA cannot
How come you never say anything about the porous Northern border? For
many years people from both sides could enter without a visa of passport.
And Canada is where some terorists found is easier to sneak in.
And all those crazy comediens.
Post by claviger
produce enough food to sustain the projected influx+birth rate. Bad
situation that inevitably leads to conflict.
You are talking nonsense again. Birth rates are down and you white
racists aren't having kids fast enough to maintain your edge.
Post by claviger
This is what historians now believe happened to the mysterious Mayan
Yeah sure. Which ones? This is another Trumpism. I don't know that we've
had enough time to name it, but it is a false appeal to authority. Like
Trump claiming that MANY of his generals telling him that Robert E. Lee
was the best General ever. NO ONE was stupid enough to tell him that.
Post by claviger
culture of Central America, that vanished for no obvious reason. Some
experts are now predicting a Second Civil War in the United States, or
a peaceful realignment by process of scientific, rational, and amicable
reorganization.
No one is. You just make up crap.
Post by claviger
Socialists and Liberals want to control all the worker bees to do their
labor as our political masters. Socialist Slavery is their solution to
all economic problems of mankind on Planet Earth.
Do you get this crap directly from Fox News or do you make it up all by
yourself every day?
Post by claviger
Is the United States on the verge of civil war? - SFChronicle.com Sep 29,
2018 - He saw stasis as a bitter civil war between the revolutionary
masses and the traditionalist ... Americans increasingly are either proud
of past U.S..
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Is-the-United-States-on-the-verge-of-civil-war-13257556.php
American Civil War in 2010, Russian Academic Says | Vanity Fair Are you
ready for the next Civil War? ... American Civil War in 2010, Russian
Academic Says. by. Bill Bradley ... Canada will grab a group of Northern
states Prof.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/12/american-civil-war-in-2010-russian-academic-says
Igor Panarin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin
Igor Nikolaevich Panarin is a Russian professor and political scientist.
He is best known for predicting in 1998 that the United States would ....
the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and
intervention of foreign powers.
Just more Russian propaganda.
BT George
2019-04-25 18:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Why would South Carolina fire the first shots of the Civil War if it was
about control of the Mississippi river basin? What did they care about
that? They had the port of Charleston. Slavery was the overriding issue of
the Civil War. It was the bond shared by all the Confederate states. It
was about the southern way of life and the economics of King Cotton which
would be upset if slavery were to be abolished. The slave states feared
Lincoln's election would lead to abolition and they had no intention of
waiting around for that to happen.
Exactly. There may have been other motivations, but the *South* went to
war over the institution of slavery. The fact that the North's original
intentions were merely to put down the rebellion and only later became a
crusade against the slavery, does not change that fact.

...And since I am from Texas, and my mother's family with roots in
Georgia, no one can accuse me of expressing a sectarian attitude on this.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-24 20:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
No historical secret Lincoln and Stanton did not see eye-to-eye and to
Stanton Lincoln was overly sentimental and not vindictive enough for
Northern Industrialists wanting a big payoff on their loans to Lincoln's
government during the war. Some even called it "Lincoln's War." The
idea he would allow the Southern States to come back in the Union as
equal partners to reestablish the original concept of an American Union
was an outrage to these powerful industrialists.
The political scam a US Civil War was fought over slavery was simply
a cover story. The Civil War was fought over control of the Mississippi
River Basin, the largest strategic transportation network in the USA at
that time. No Interstate highways yet. Who controlled the Mississippi
River would control the wealth of an expanding US economy.
As the Union Army was fighting against slavery in the Southeast Region
of the USA they were brutally implementing slavery in Minnesota Territory
with ethnic cleansing and breaking treaties with the Dakota Sioux Tribe in
1862, who had a choice to fight or starve in an extreme cold climate. The
incredible irony of US History, by the end of the US Civil War the Federal
Government was de facto the largest slave owner in North America.
The Dakota War of 1862: Minnesota's Other Civil War
Kenneth Carley
38 Nooses: Lincoln, Little Crow, and the Beginning of
the Frontier's End
Scott W. Berg
Edwin Stanton was the most powerful politician in Washington DC
and the watchdog on President Lincoln. As soon as the Civil War
ended they no longer needed Lincoln who became extra baggage
they had no use for except as a dead martyr.
______________________________
Booth's diary was handed to Baker who later passed it onto Edwin M.
Stanton. Baker was rewarded for his success by being promoted to
brigadier general and receiving a substantial portion of the $100,000
reward.
Baker was dismissed as head of the secret service on 8th February,
1866. Baker claimed that President Andrew Johnson had demanded
his removal after he discovered that his agents were spying on him.
Baker admitted the charge but argued he was acting under instructions
from the Secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton.
In January, 1867, Baker published his book, History of the Secret
Service. In the book Baker described his role in the capture of the
conspirators. He also revealled that a dairy had been taken from
John Wilkes Booth when he had been shot.
This information about Booth's diary resulted in Baker being called
before a Congress committee looking into the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln. Edwin M. Stanton and the War Department was
forced to hand over Booth's diary. When shown the diary by the
committee, Baker claimed that someone had "cut out eighteen
leaves" When called before the committee, Stanton denied being
the person responsible for removing the pages.
Speculation grew that the missing pages included the names of
people who had financed the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln.
It later transpired that John Wilkes Booth had received a large
amount of money from a New York based firm to which Edwin M.
Stanton had connections.
After his appearance before the Congress committee Baker became
convinced that a secret cabal was intent of murdering him. He was
found dead at his home in Philadelphia on 3rd July, 1868. Officially
Lafayette Baker died of meningitis but the authors of the book, The
Lincoln Conspiracy (1977), claim that he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Walter Pollack, a detective at the War Department.
Where do you get these crazy theories? You're worse than Fetzer.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-23 17:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It is well known that the Lincoln assassination was part of a greater plot
to decapitate the federal government. Secretary of State Seward was
seriously injured by a knife attack by Boothe compatriot Lewis Powell.
George Atzerodt was assigned the task of killing Andrew Johnson but
apparently got cold feet and never made the attempt. Powell, Atzerodt,
David Herold, and Mary Surratt were later hanged for their roles in the
plot. Some have speculated that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was in on
the plot and aided Boothe's escape but the arguments I've seen for that
seem pretty weak. Stanton was at Lincoln's bedside when he died and
uttered the famous words, "Now he belongs to the ages" at Lincoln's
passing.
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
Ever hear of Julius Caesar? You guys should try claiming that it was not
a conspiracy. We have one kook here who would try to claim that that it
was just an accident and maybe he fell on his own sword by accident. 37
times!
Never admit any conspiracy.
BOZ
2019-04-24 19:40:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It is well known that the Lincoln assassination was part of a greater plot
to decapitate the federal government. Secretary of State Seward was
seriously injured by a knife attack by Boothe compatriot Lewis Powell.
George Atzerodt was assigned the task of killing Andrew Johnson but
apparently got cold feet and never made the attempt. Powell, Atzerodt,
David Herold, and Mary Surratt were later hanged for their roles in the
plot. Some have speculated that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was in on
the plot and aided Boothe's escape but the arguments I've seen for that
seem pretty weak. Stanton was at Lincoln's bedside when he died and
uttered the famous words, "Now he belongs to the ages" at Lincoln's
passing.
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
Ever hear of Julius Caesar? You guys should try claiming that it was not
a conspiracy. We have one kook here who would try to claim that that it
was just an accident and maybe he fell on his own sword by accident. 37
times!
Never admit any conspiracy.
Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times and it was the second one that was
fatal.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-26 00:53:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It is well known that the Lincoln assassination was part of a greater plot
to decapitate the federal government. Secretary of State Seward was
seriously injured by a knife attack by Boothe compatriot Lewis Powell.
George Atzerodt was assigned the task of killing Andrew Johnson but
apparently got cold feet and never made the attempt. Powell, Atzerodt,
David Herold, and Mary Surratt were later hanged for their roles in the
plot. Some have speculated that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was in on
the plot and aided Boothe's escape but the arguments I've seen for that
seem pretty weak. Stanton was at Lincoln's bedside when he died and
uttered the famous words, "Now he belongs to the ages" at Lincoln's
passing.
Here are some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Lincoln
https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
As we can see, conspiracy theories are nothing new.
Ever hear of Julius Caesar? You guys should try claiming that it was not
a conspiracy. We have one kook here who would try to claim that that it
was just an accident and maybe he fell on his own sword by accident. 37
times!
Never admit any conspiracy.
Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times and it was the second one that was
fatal.
So you can't figure out which poster here I suggested would say it was
an accident?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-22 01:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can find crazy people who are
part of a conspiracy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
Even if there were larger interests involved, just the facts that day
point to conspiracy.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
So you saying that we have to wait another 100 years before we find the
secret message proving conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It was already proven and they hanged the guilty.
Study history.

FYI, a case with only a lone shooter can also be a conspiracy.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-22 15:10:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can find crazy people who are
part of a conspiracy.
I am making a distinction between a "conspiracy" and a "sophisticated
conspiracy". It is unlikely that sophisticated planners with resources
would involve "crazy people" in their machinations.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
Even if there were larger interests involved, just the facts that day
point to conspiracy.
I would not expect you to understand the distinction that I have been
making.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
So you saying that we have to wait another 100 years before we find the
secret message proving conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
There was no sophisticated conspiracy in the JFK assassination, or I
regard the prospect as very unlikely, in any event. I don't expect the
passage of time to change that verdict.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It was already proven and they hanged the guilty.
Study history.
You think they had due process of law afforded to them by that military
tribunal? You think that Mary Surratt was proven guilty? Really?
Post by Anthony Marsh
FYI, a case with only a lone shooter can also be a conspiracy.
Yes, but I am making a distinction between a "conspiracy" as defined by
the dictionary and a "sophisticated conspiracy" which is what most people
envision when they consider the word without qualification. Again, it's
not a distinction that I would expect you to understand.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-23 17:31:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can find crazy people who are
part of a conspiracy.
I am making a distinction between a "conspiracy" and a "sophisticated
conspiracy". It is unlikely that sophisticated planners with resources
would involve "crazy people" in their machinations.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
Even if there were larger interests involved, just the facts that day
point to conspiracy.
I would not expect you to understand the distinction that I have been
making.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
So you saying that we have to wait another 100 years before we find the
secret message proving conspiracy in the JFK assassination?
There was no sophisticated conspiracy in the JFK assassination, or I
regard the prospect as very unlikely, in any event. I don't expect the
passage of time to change that verdict.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
It was already proven and they hanged the guilty.
Study history.
You think they had due process of law afforded to them by that military
tribunal? You think that Mary Surratt was proven guilty? Really?
Post by Anthony Marsh
FYI, a case with only a lone shooter can also be a conspiracy.
Yes, but I am making a distinction between a "conspiracy" as defined by
the dictionary and a "sophisticated conspiracy" which is what most people
envision when they consider the word without qualification. Again, it's
not a distinction that I would expect you to understand.
No, you are just being silly. Trying to Poison the Well, by preemptively
ruling out possibilities.
Ace Kefford
2019-04-22 23:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
Highly unlikely. Remains open just for those who like to "ponder" such
things.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-04-24 02:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Trump was the would-be victim of an attempted bloodless coup d'etat.
It's actually still ongoing and, notwithstanding the violent agitation on
the street -- and in more upscale environments such as Washington,
Hollywood, and the halls of academia and in print and on the networks --
it's still bloodless.
I'm disdainful of the notion that Kennedy was the victim of a coup d'etat
for reasons that I've mentioned before: I don't think that Kennedy
amounted to any sort of threat or opposition toward what we might now call
"the deep state" and the circumstances of his death and the haphazardness
of Oswald's actions afterward -- to say nothing of Oswald's own
mercurialness and unreliability -- were too discordant to allow room for a
sophisticated conspiracy.
Most American assassinations or assassination attempts appear to have been
committed by mentally disturbed people who would have been unlikely to
have been working for larger interests.
But Lincoln's assassination -- well, there is some reason to suppose there
were larger interests involved there.
I'm basing that primarily on the ciphered message said to have been
written by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Bureau at the
time, which actually sets forth details of such a conspiracy against
Lincoln which included at least one member of his own cabinet. The
message was discovered in 1957, obviously long after the end of the Civil
War and the death of members of the Lincoln administration.
The ciphered message wouldn't have been that easy for a hoaxter to concoct
and Baker's signature underneath the message was apparently confirmed as
genuine.
Baker was hardly a man of integrity, but the ciphered message doesn't
describe his own role in the affair in particularly flattering terms so
that adds some verisimilitude to it.
So I would say that the case for a conspiracy against Lincoln, if it
hasn't exactly been proven, remains open.
Highly unlikely. Remains open just for those who like to "ponder" such
things.
Why is it "highly unlikely"?
Loading...