Abe Lincoln is more of a let-down than Obama even - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13798136
I wrote:the deaths of so many well paid white soldiers lead to shortages of labor

And Smilin Dave wasted two posts because he didn't get it.

One great result of the Civil War was all those dead white workers could be replaced by much less expensive black workers, who also - and this is a huge advantage for the rich - had no sense of rights vis-a-vis white people.

After WW1 killed millions of French men, Algerian/Moroccan men got the same luxury of working among the whites at half the salary.

This makes war look like a nice way to trim down your workforce and scare everyone into submission.

The Civil War was no exception. And neither is the War on Terror.
#13798225
Smilin' Dave wrote:Restrictions on labour mobility would make no sense given the majority of industry was in the north. And apparently the proportion working in the agriculutural sector increased after the war, rather than declined.


Many states north of the mason-dixon line enacted their own "black" code and some of it was specifically for the purpose you state.

Another thing that amuses me about Qatz's attempt, is that it has been the passion of southern historians since the end of the Civil War to discredit Lincoln, and Qatz seems to think his statements about Lincoln are shocking and edgy. He assumes that all students in the United States are taught that Lincoln was without fault. (And I've seen Qatz make this error before, that is assuming US students are taught from a uniform curriculum).

Our federal system frequently throws people off. Since the founding of our republic, there has been an ongoing conflict between those who prefer a strong central government versus those who prefer more local control. It's played out constantly in American politics. In any regard, our education system is overwhelmingly controlled at the state and local levels. The feds have two essential tools for exerting some control: offering federal funds tied down with requirements, and stepping in to protect civil liberties like they did 40 years ago with forced integration. Otherwise, the individual States set their own curriculum, and that includes picking their own history books.

And what do you think the history books in the southern states say about the Civil War?
#13798396
dgun, thanks for that synopsis of the Reconstruction period.

But here's one by Thom Hartmann that's quite different than your version of "the results" of the ejection of slave labor onto the commercial market:

"When cons took over the United States during the Reconstruction after the Civil War and help power until the Republican Great Depression, the damage they did was tremendous. Our nation was wracked by the classic scourges of poverty - epidemics of disease, crime, riots - and the average working person was little more than a serf. The concepts of owning a home, having health or job security, and enjoying old age were unthinkable for all but the mercantile class and the rich. America seemed to be run for the robber barons and not for the thousands who worked for them. Democracy in America was at its lowest ebb: our nation more resembled the Victorian England that Dickens wrote about than the egalitarian and middle-class-driven democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville saw here in 1836."
Screwed: the Undeclared War Against the Middle Class, Thom Hartmann p. xxxi

Sounds like the neocons were the ones who won the Civil War.
#13798774
Qatz fails to produce evidence. Again. What a shock.

QatzelOk wrote:And Smilin Dave wasted two posts because he didn't get it.

No, I understood exactly what you said. The issue is you are now trying to pretend you meant something else.

Remember how you said you would never have a blog on PoFo because you wouldn't be able to edit the content after people had replied? Bet you wish you could go back and re-phrase your post right now...
#13799345
QatzelOk wrote:Did you research the Thom Hartmann article I quoted?

The article didn't address the evidence I suggested would prove your point beyond any doubt. It doesn't even directly prove your point. However the article I linked to, which you completely ignored, is well researched and contradicts once more your assertions.

As always there is a double standard. If you say it, it is unassailable fact. If someone else says different, you dismiss it as fabrication.

QatzelOk wrote:Did it seem like a happy picture of post-Lincoln bliss?

Lincoln can't be entirely held responsible for what followed the Civil War since he was dead by then. Hard to control policy when you've been buried. Or is this the result of your time machine again.

I also don't remember describing the post-Lincoln period as bliss. I'm glad you're discovering history in a round about way Qatz but it is extremely arrogant to act like you're fighting a war against a position when nobody actually holds it.
#13799777
In conclusion... as dgun suggests, it was the Moderns who wanted the Civil War because the South refused to modernize.

This is an interesting parallel to today, where our current Western regimes attack countries whose only "sin" is to have not become cynical materialists.
#13800361
dgun, thanks for that synopsis of the Reconstruction period.


I didn't say one word about reconstruction.

And I would never give heed to an article about reconstruction that starts like so:

When cons took over the United States during the Reconstruction


I'm not 100% sure what he means by "cons", I suppose "con-artists". Regardless, it immediately loses credibility.

And referring to reconstruction as "the" reconstruction is a little odd. In the context of American history, Jr. high schoolboys recognize "reconstruction" as a specific period. It's not necessary to say "the reconstruction after the civil war" just "reconstruction" will suffice.

And the failure of reconstruction is a huge topic. We could start with the fight between the radical republicans and Andy Johnson if you like.. I doubt it would do you any good.
#13800395
dgun wrote:We could start with the fight between the radical republicans and Andy Johnson if you like.

But what if these well-publicized political squabbles were really just a smokescreen for the money behind the curtain?

Aren't we stuck with making broad assertions about history - based at least partially on the projection of our own personal experiences onto the entire earth - no matter how many details we have ingested?

Lincoln, Obama, and Laurier are all marketing campaigns. They're not the faces of power, they are the masks.

That's the let-down I'm talking about.

Realizing that some of your favorite celebrity politicians are/were spokesmodels for regulatory capture.
#13800404
I'm extremely disappointed Qatz didn't rise to my bait. dgun, this is your fault you sensible person you.
QatzelOk wrote:But what if these well-publicized political squabbles were really just a smokescreen for the money behind the curtain?

Aren't we stuck with making broad assertions about history - based at least partially on the projection of our own personal experiences onto the entire earth - no matter how many details we have ingested?

You can't make broad assertions based on no evidence, which is exactly what you are doing. Where is the evidence of money behind the curtain?

QatzelOk wrote:Lincoln, Obama, and Laurier are all marketing campaigns.

Your comparison between Lincoln and Obama is off then. You are comparing the post-Lincoln 'marketing' to the pre-President Obama 'marketing'. The quote way back in the OP was Lincoln marketing himself to constituents, he wasn't hiding anything. He didn't campaign on freeing the slaves at all. The two are quite distinct in cause and effect, you really shouldn't be comparing them.

And the only interesting thing to come out of your Laurier thread was your incorrect use of a proper noun. :lol:
#13800463
I'm extremely disappointed Qatz didn't rise to my bait. dgun, this is your fault you sensible person you.


Sorry Dave.

But what if these well-publicized political squabbles were really just a smokescreen for the money behind the curtain?


What if they were all a bunch of Nazi Space Lizards?

Are you making the assumption that there were one set of interests, and that the united powers that existed at the time were putting on a show to fool the public? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there really was several powerful forces with diverse interests battling each other?

This is one of your more egregious errors and you have made it several times during this thread.

Research Andrew Johnson's presidency and his impeachment to see what I'm talking about. Have you ever wondered why Andrew Johnson, from the slave holding southern state of Tennessee, was Lincoln's VP? And if he was Lincoln's VP, why did he have such a hell of a time with the Republicans in congress and most of Lincoln's cabinet following Lincoln's death? And why was Lincoln's cabinet never completely united on the objectives of the war?

We know so much about this time period through letters and journals that were never meant to be published. Or is that huge body of documentation part of your vague, impossible, all encompassing conspiracy that spans all of American history and touches on every possible topic?

Abraham Lincoln was born dirt poor in Kentucky, was self-educated, and rose to only moderate professional success in practicing law in Illinois, and only moderate national success in politics before 1860, having served only one unremarkable term in congress to that point. He won the Republican Primary in 1860 only by the skin of his teeth, and only after some complicated maneuvering between at least two candidates who were better known and had more momentum. He was the completely unexpected, compromise candidate of the Republicans. The industrialists of the north-east? They mocked him. They didn't take him serious and they didn't support him. At least at first. He eventually won them over.

But that's not all. If there had not been 4 parties receiving significant votes in 1860, Lincoln would never have been elected. Lincoln's first term was mostly a fluke, not some contrived and absurd conspiracy to replace free labor with more than free labor. To claim that Lincoln represents what you have claimed he represents is just a result of willful ignorance on your part.
#13800465
Lincoln, Obama, and Laurier are all marketing campaigns.


I can't help if you had a false understanding of Lincoln prior to stumbling upon the text of the little known and scarcely cited Lincoln-Douglas debates. It was so well hidden and all, you can hardly be blamed for the fact that it burst your bubble.

If you have something to say about Obama, fine. Hell, I might even agree with you. But comparing him to Lincoln was a bad analogy.
#13802937
Research Andrew Johnson's presidency and his impeachment to see what I'm talking about. Have you ever wondered why Andrew Johnson, from the slave holding southern state of Tennessee, was Lincoln's VP? And if he was Lincoln's VP, why did he have such a hell of a time with the Republicans in congress and most of Lincoln's cabinet following Lincoln's death? And why was Lincoln's cabinet never completely united on the objectives of the war?

These are all excellent questions that suggest the murkiness of big money politics.

That murkiness is due to the fact that Liberal democracies are money-based, and making huge piles of money implies backroom dealing and Omerta.

The backroom wheeling and dealing of moneyed and interested parties ensures the disappointment of the great masses of dupes.
#13804098
QatzelOk wrote:These are all excellent questions that suggest the murkiness of big money politics.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy. It is however a pretty persuasive indication that your claims have no basis.

Everything that follows after your first point is babble and a reference to Omerta as though that were exotic knowledge :roll: . You know what's interesting? Despite Omerta the function and activities of the mafia haven't been a complete mystery. You can't cover up large conspiracies, and if we believe your 'big money runs everything, including how we think' approach then we have to accept that would be the biggest conspiracy in history.
#13804263
Still shadowing me in every History thread, Smilin' Dave wrote:You know what's interesting? Despite Omerta the function and activities of the mafia haven't been a complete mystery.

"The" mafia?

Thanks to mainstream media, you actually believe that there is only one mafia, and that they have been caught?

The reason Al Capone got "caught" is because there are higher mafias than is. And at the level of financial mafia (banks) and Big Money mafia (industry, old money, former dictators, etc.)... the omerta is so successful that you actually believe the media silence around the conspiracies of the Elite "proves" that there isn't anything to worry about.

This Omerta has even duped an astute political observer like yourself, Smilin' Dave.
#13804456
QatzelOk wrote:"The" mafia?

Thanks to mainstream media, you actually believe that there is only one mafia, and that they have been caught?

Reading comprehension failure again Qatz. Lower case 'm', so not a proper noun. I didn't have time to list every regional crime group of italian descent (many of which are of course not based in Italy) which employs a code of silence, so I used the colloquial 'mafia'.

I also didn't say they had all been caught. Even when arrests of mafia were low or non-existent people were aware of the existence and activities of the mafia.

QatzelOk wrote:The reason Al Capone got "caught" is because there are higher mafias than is. And at the level of financial mafia (banks) and Big Money mafia (industry, old money, former dictators, etc.)... the omerta is so successful that you actually believe the media silence around the conspiracies of the Elite "proves" that there isn't anything to worry about.

This Omerta has even duped an astute political observer like yourself, Smilin' Dave.

...still no evidence Qatz, and you're apparently completely unfamiliar with the particulars of the Al Capone case too. He was only successfully prosecuted because the government was able to get the information from his book keepers, an example of how there are too many points of weakness in a conspiracy for it to be a complete secret forever. You however would have us believe a conspiracy powerful enough to reach every form of media etc. and old enough to go back to the beginning of time, is somehow invisible to everyone except you.

I know its not as exciting and exotic as Omerta, but your whole approach is an example of the furtive fallacy.
#13804896
You however would have us believe a conspiracy powerful enough to reach every form of media etc. and old enough to go back to the beginning of time, is somehow invisible to everyone except you.

Really, Smilin?

I'm the only observer who noticed that the banks control the world, and have a liar media to support them?

What about Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard, Edward Bearnays, Marshal Mcluhan, etc.?

What about the thousands of "conspiracy theorists" who get treated to "you have no proof" every single day on every single chat forum?

See, the Capones got caught because "someone had proof." I can assure you that Goldman Sachs have more resources to maintain their omerta than those other more ragtag Chicago gangsters did in their day.

And this omerta is why our politics is all PR and disappointment. Because the banks do whatever they want, and leave their pretty-faced liar politicos to explain why "this decision was absolutely necessary."
#13805720
QatzelOk wrote:I'm the only observer who noticed that the banks control the world, and have a liar media to support them?

Oh, conspiracy theorists always notice things... but somehow the evidence is invisible to the rest of us. Seeing a pattern, where other explanations could explain that pattern, is not evidence of anything.

QatzelOk wrote:I can assure you that Goldman Sachs have more resources to maintain their omerta than those other more ragtag Chicago gangsters did in their day.

Name and provide examples of those resources.
The Popular Vote...

1. Wrt cleaning up pollution; espec re prohibitin[…]

Election 2020

Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't say what I[…]

I watched Gretas address to Congress. There is s[…]

I do not think Gene was a communist. He was a p[…]