Althouse: At the Late Morning Café...

April 23, 2019

At the Late Morning Café...

... you are, once again, on your own.

UPDATE: Late morning extends into late evening. Thanks for all the talk!

376 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 376 of 376

Michael K said...: I'm not sure about blue states fighting,

"Peoples' Republic" covers it pretty well.; 4/23/19, 9:06 PM
Roughcoat said...: gilbar and livermoron: I agree.

Except: I don't think a state has the right to subdivide itself into separate states. It seems to me that the creation and admission of new states to the union is solely the preserve of the federal government.; 4/23/19, 9:09 PM
StephenFearby said...: etbass said...
"I keep hearing that the axe is going to fall on the deep staters behind the Russian hoax. I sincerely hope so for the good of our republic. But I haven't seen any arrests, or where a special prosecutor has been appointed, a grand jury has been convened or anything other than the IG's eternal investigation that has been running as long as Mueller's investigation, but still without any results.

Somebody help me. What signs are there of the axe falling?"

Sometimes, when it isn't following you, Google can be your friend:

Washington Examiner, April 9, 2019

'...During a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Justice Department’s budget proposal, Barr said “the Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russian investigation, and I expect that that will be complete probably in May or June, I am told.”'

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-inspector-generals-fisa-abuse-investigation-expected-to-finish-by-may-or-june

Since then I believe I read somewhere they're aiming for May.; 4/23/19, 9:10 PM
Roughcoat said...: Michael K: Thanks for the quote by Sherman.; 4/23/19, 9:11 PM
gilbar said...: Now, the Declaration of Independence states that, if circumstances require...
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Which is way Ulysses S Grant always referred to 1861-1865 as
The War of the Rebellion Against the United States

But,the idea that you could just call it quits and go your separate way: NO; 4/23/19, 9:11 PM
Big Mike said...: @Roughcoat, I'm not at all certain that you're right about the South having "bigger and better" armed forces than the North at the start of the war. Even as late as Chancellorsville many of the Confederate troops were equipped with smoothbore muskets. Northern troops had more cannon and better food and equipment. But the South had a huge edge in trained officers. Besides West Point, which taught both Southerners and Northerners in the antebellum era, the only other military academy in the North was tiny Norwich in Vermont. By contrast there were military academies in Virginia (VMI, still a fine military academy today), the Citadel in South Carolina (ditto), and military academies in Kentucky, Mississippi, and Georgia that perhaps survive and perhaps not -- I don't know. Also Louisiana State began life as a military academy (William T. Sherman taught there). The North had to train up its junior and even mid-level officers from people who had never had military training; the South had plenty of people with military training to draw from.

And soldiers I worked with who made it back from Vietnam told me that there was no faster way to get killed than to have an incompetent lieutenant commanding your platoon.; 4/23/19, 9:12 PM
Etienne said...: Narayanan said...It is, of course, possible to obstruct justice when guilty of no crime.

Yes.

By allowing a terrorist to vote in the next election.

By allowing any felon still in prison to vote, is not justice. You could argue that it is moderately worse than obstruction.

Remember to vote, others are willing to take your place at the ballot box.; 4/23/19, 9:18 PM
gilbar said...: Roughcoat
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html
but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So, Texas could divide itself into 5 states; With the Consent of Congress (whatever Texas Thought); 4/23/19, 9:18 PM
Big Mike said...: Except: I don't think a state has the right to subdivide itself into separate states. It seems to me that the creation and admission of new states to the union is solely the preserve of the federal government.

Sorry, but under Article 4 of the Consitution a state certainly can subdivide itself into multiple, separate states. Article 4 forbids the creation of a new state by subdividing an existing state if the existing state does not consent (Lincoln pulled a bit of legal chicanery by having the Federal government insist that Virginia host the convention to spin off West Virginia in Union-held territory).; 4/23/19, 9:21 PM
stephen cooper said...: VMI and the Citadel might give good military training. But up North people were well trained in shooting and scheming and killing. And those are good things to know if your only goal is to win a civil war.

In the 1860s, there were tens and tens of thousands of Northern young men whose parents and grand parents had fought the Indians, or scraped out a difficult living in the mountains, or had recently immigrated from a Europe where billions of dollars in 19th century money had been spent on perfecting firearms and artillery and cavalry support and defense works. And in the North they knew all about logistics, as boring as logistics might have seemed. And propaganda, and the collection of military intelligence.

The Citadel Boys and the VMI boys were outnumbered and most of them never knew what they were up against and never had a chance. Brave kids, of course, but hopelessly deluded to thinking they could win.

And their leaders let them down by not seeking out an armistice before the soldiers who God had given to their charge died in their hundreds of thousands. I am no big fan of Lincoln, one of the worst human beings ever to have lived, but the Confederate leaders were mostly just as bad and worse.; 4/23/19, 9:26 PM
gilbar said...: Consent... AS WELL AS OF THE CONGRESS

A state certainly can subdivide: If Congress approves
Interestingly; the Constitution says Nothing about the President in all this
So, Next time the democrats regain a majority in Congress
A) Good-bye Fillibuster
B) Hello DC, Porto Rico, Alta California, and a Bunch more Democratic States
C) Good-bye chances of Ever having another Republican President
D) Hello Liberal SCOTUS!; 4/23/19, 9:27 PM
Roughcoat said...: Big Mike:

Not clear on where our disagreement lies. After your third sentence everything you say reinforces my point: namely that, initially, the South's armed forces were superior to those of the North. At the start of hostilities every southern state had well-trained militias; the North did not, at least not on the scale that obtained in the South. In 1861 the U.S. Army was of negligible size, and comprised little more than a frontier constabulary. Most regular army units were deployed on the frontier. As well, most of the rank and file on both sides were equipped with smoothbore firearms. The North's advantage in food stocks was something that evolved over time as the North's logistical system steadily improved due to the efforts of the extraordinary Montgomery Meigs, a bona fide military genius. As for cannon: the South gets the nod on this one too, at least initially. South Carolina even had heavy artillery which it used to bombard Fort Sumter into submission. The North had nothing comparable at the start.; 4/23/19, 9:28 PM
Roughcoat said...: Big Mike:

Sorry right back at you: As gilbar points out, a state certainly cannot subdivide without the consent of Congress.

stephen cooper: I think you might be mentally ill.; 4/23/19, 9:32 PM
gilbar said...: Don't forget that John B Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, sent LOTS of the the existing rifles, canons, etc, down to arsenals in the south; where each was guarded by about ONE Sargent... Thus pre-arming the rebel army.

It's hard to run the country, when the former administration commits Treason.; 4/23/19, 9:33 PM
Roughcoat said...: Precisely.; 4/23/19, 9:34 PM
Francisco D said...: Somebody help me. What signs are there of the axe falling?

There are no signs, as of yet.

When the MSM/DNC complex starts screaming about an overbearing government (which they usually support) then we will know that the conspirators are in trouble.

I am not betting that the guilty will be ever held accountable.; 4/23/19, 9:35 PM
livermoron said...: Roughcoat - Texas has had that right since 1845. Given by Congress. Look it up. Search under 'Texas divisionism'.

I'll accept you apology in the form of cash money.; 4/23/19, 9:37 PM
Roughcoat said...: livermoron: I apologize. But I'm broke. Will you accept my marker? With vig attached?

So . . . why doesn't Texas quit dilly-dallying and create some new states? I'm asking this half-seriously. Like, you know, excise Austin like the liberal cancer it is.; 4/23/19, 9:42 PM
narciso said...: Well let's examine this, Lincoln wanted to keep the union together, and under the same umbrella so the us might have turned out mostly free or mostly serf, now Jim crow was the latter after a short intercession.; 4/23/19, 9:42 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 9:45 PM
stephen cooper said...: narciso - Lincoln was an evil bastard.

Don't ponder on it much.

Look not into the abyss or the abyss will start looking back at you.

Trust me.

I like people, and want them to be happy.

You can't really say that about Lincoln, can you?; 4/23/19, 9:46 PM
Roughcoat said...: I wonder, can Illinois (where I live) divest itself of Cook County? Without Cook County, Illinois would be one of the reddest of red states.; 4/23/19, 9:48 PM
Roughcoat said...: Look not into the abyss or the abyss will start looking back at you.

Oh good grief, Nietzschean bullshit. It figures. He was mentally ill too.; 4/23/19, 9:51 PM
Etienne said...: So anyway...

A long time ago, the French captured a British Major. They took him to be interrogated by a French General, who asked him why the British wear red coats?

"Don't you know it makes an easier target for us to shoot??"

The Major said, in his stern, proud voice, "Sir, we wear red coats, so that if we are shot, the blood won't show, and the men we are leading won't panic."

And from that day on, all French officers have worn brown pants.; 4/23/19, 9:57 PM
iowan2 said...: Etienne said...
I believe it is correct to say: Non-Citizens can not vote in Federal elections, and they do not count in Federal Censuses.

You keep saying Federal elections. There is no such thing. There are all sorts of elections. Local, school, Extension, city, county, state, etc. No Federal.; 4/23/19, 9:57 PM
stephen cooper said...: Lincoln could have negotiated a peace, he wanted war.

He could have worked out Emancipation in New Jersey in the first month he was president.

He didn't. Think about it. This ugly little man could have abolished slavery in New Jersey on his first day in office. He didn't because he was an evil little man, who liked the idea of war.

He could have talked the Virginians and the Texans into abolishing slavery. He wanted a fight, and he didn't bother.

History shows that he was on the right side of the slavery issue but he was on the wrong side of the issue of not letting hundreds of thousands of people die if one can avoid that by doing the right thing.

In the old days, there used to be pictures, in most hotels and inns and churches, of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Death Famine, Pestilence, and so on.

Lincoln was on the side of Death and Famine and Pestilence. And War.

And yes he could have issued that Emancipation Proclamation on the First Day he was President.

You know why he didn't?

Because he didn't care.

Most people don't care about other people.

Don't tell me he was a good man, he wasn't. I am sorry that he died young, and the people who killed him were disgusting cowardly murderers, but he could have been a much better person than he was.

And don't get me started on the 20th century villains whom he inspired.

Narciso, do you know why so many people are unpleasant and selfish?

Because they don't care.

As Poirot used to like to say, there are bad people in this world. He saw a world where people acted decently, and thought incessantly about how such a world would work.; 4/23/19, 9:57 PM
livermoron said...: If you excise Austin you just create a new state with two senators and at least 2 congressmen - all voting for the progressive/socialist party.
This isn't tough to figure out.
Texas is a big, conservative monolith. Some of that goes away if they split up.

No need for marker...just make damn sure you are less adamant in the future about things of which you are ignorant.

I am 100% behind you on your view of stephen cooper, btw.; 4/23/19, 9:58 PM
stephen cooper said...: I was not quoting Nietzsche I was quoting "Family Circus Nietzsche", not the same thing at all!!!!; 4/23/19, 9:59 PM
livermoron said...: Stephen cooper-
your post is nonsense. Show me where in the Constitution it states that the President may amend it at will.

What a bunch of shallow drivel you've put out.; 4/23/19, 10:00 PM
stephen cooper said...: livermoron ---

a friend of a friend of yours wrote the Constitution?

or did you learn this in a book?; 4/23/19, 10:02 PM
livermoron said...: Answer my question first, you ignoramus.; 4/23/19, 10:03 PM
stephen cooper said...: livermoron:

I do not answer rude questions.

Phrase it nicely and I will be glad to help you understand why I think you are wrong and I am right.; 4/23/19, 10:05 PM
walter said...: Byron York The personal cost of the Trump-Russia investigation

"Gordon was the Trump staffer in the meeting as delegates considered the amendment. He did not object to the proposal of tougher sanctions, did not object to the proposal of greater military coordination with NATO, but changed the proposal to provide "lethal defensive weapons" to a promise of "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." (Gordon later told investigators he changed part of the amendment because he felt it was not in line with candidate Trump's position on Ukraine.)

The revised amendment was accepted, and the final platform was tougher on Russia and Ukraine than the original platform draft. It was not "gutted." It was strengthened.

Nevertheless, the media and Democrats ran with the opposite story, and the "gutting" of the platform became part of the collusion narrative. And then the investigations started.

Gordon was called to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was called to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. He was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was called to testify, three times, before Mueller.

Again: He was never accused of any wrongdoing. But each time, Gordon had to hire a lawyer. He won't reveal precisely how big his legal bills were, but says they were in "five figures." His communications business took a big hit."
<
"Remember a few weeks ago when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler sent document requests to 81 people as part of a new investigation into "threats against the rule of law"? Gordon was one of them (although he had given the same documents to multiple congressional committees and to Mueller). For all anyone knows, Democrats might want to call him to testify about the discredited platform story yet again.

And if Gordon were to speak out at length now, Democratic staffers might well pore over every word to see if they could find any inconsistency with his hours of testimony before House, Senate, and special counsel. And that could lead to even more questions. And bills.

So better to lay low. And that leaves everyone worse off. After an investigation cloaked in secrecy, the public needs to know more, not less, about what Mueller did. The people involved should be able to tell their stories without fear of being caught in still more investigation."; 4/23/19, 10:05 PM
wwww said...: North had more railroads, factories and population. Average age of Union officers, Lt. grade & above, was 10 years younger then Confederate officers. South had the advantage of no need to attempt any capture of territory, except for the border slave states. Union had fighting age population advantage. Too many residents of the South were loyal to the Union and, well, escaped slavery when they could. A serious fighting & farming age population problem in the South by 1864 -- they needed soldiers and they needed farmers to supply the population with food.

But we're not living in the 19th century. Present political divisions seen in the USA are generational and, to some extent, gender based. Grandparents aren't going to physically attack their 18-35 year old grandkids. People with political differences live in the same state. In Kansas, pro and anti slavery groups did attack civilians. Lawrence, Kansas was invaded by Bushwackers. But now-a-days rural Texas is not going generate Bushwackers who invade Austin and kill women and children at Mommy & Me classes.

The Civil War was fascinating. Billions of dollars of slave property was at stake. It's not applicable to arguments over, say, the latest news topic of the US day. Employment is high, things are going great especially compared to many points in human history. A war requires young people to fight, and quite frankly, the young American population is less interested in politics and generally much more interested in video games, sports, romances, their professional lives, their children, and their own dramas.

The US population is MUCH older then it was in 1776 or 1861. Older populations are much less violent. Compare the population percentages of 2019 18-25 year olds versus the percentage of 18-25 year olds in 1776. America is much older. That tempers a population. There's a reason you see more violence in states with much younger populations and high unemployment -- neither of which is a condition of modern-day North America.; 4/23/19, 10:06 PM
Roughcoat said...: just make damn sure you are less adamant in the future about things of which you are ignorant.

You're a huckleberry, aren't you now.; 4/23/19, 10:09 PM
narciso said...: I don't see Stephen cooper, Lincoln's goal was not to end slavery but to stop it from spreading, a similar crux to romes social wars it was Seward the abolitionist and a anglophile who kept the Brits from intervening; 4/23/19, 10:09 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 10:09 PM
livermoron said...: Screw you. You have nothing to offer except nonsense. You can't answer my question because it exposes you for the ahistoric asshole you appear to be.

You are truly ignorant. Why would I want a share of that?; 4/23/19, 10:10 PM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: 154 years later, some good news

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/23/man-elderly-woman-widow-dinner/; 4/23/19, 10:11 PM
narciso said...: Where would Stephen Douglas ended up with a world much like we saw between 1880 and 1960,; 4/23/19, 10:13 PM
livermoron said...: Roughcoat, that is good advice for us all. Or do you like it when people tell you how wrong you are when you are absolutely correct?; 4/23/19, 10:16 PM
Etienne said...: iowan2 said...You keep saying Federal elections. There is no such thing.

désolé... I mean to say that elections in the United States are held for government officials at the federal, state, and local levels.; 4/23/19, 10:16 PM
stephen cooper said...: I actually like Lincoln.

An evil bastard, of course, but I can find it in my heart to like nasty dogs and cats who swipe their claws at their owners just because they are in a "bad mood", and of course NONE OF US can have any idea what it was like to share this country with people like Quantrill or Sherman or Andrew Jackson. The fact that someone is an evil bastard does not mean I do not wish them to one day be better than they were: and who can say a more profound and heartfelt prayer for someone else than this" may God allow you to be better than you were!

That was one fucked up place, 19th century America.

Sure Lincoln went a little crazy and totally fucked up his chance at being a Christian peace maker. Most of us would have done even worse.

He had an insane wife, who wasn't even all that good looking, he was sort of half-witted (don't listen to the people who tell you he was well educated, he was a Spergerite fool, lucky in his choice to read and reread the Bible, which is a book most Spergerites avoid like the plague, but he was no Christian and no genius - trust me), and he was addled by the intense people who, back in the day, liked to stir up hatred. How many of the abolitionists really cared about poor people?

Almost none.

Lincoln was a semi-psychotic young man who was coached into fame by people who use other people, and he led his nation into a war that saw millions of families grieving for their loved ones.

And I am the ignoramus, because I know this?

A real leader would have abolished slavery by 1870 in most states without a single death, and would have made this country much less racist in 1880 than it had been a generation earlier. Lincoln was not that real leader. Sad to say, he was an evil little bastard.; 4/23/19, 10:20 PM
stephen cooper said...: livermoron, I like you.

Feel free to tell me what, in that 10"20 comment, was nonsense.

And stop with the vulgarity aimed at other people!!!

I hope you are not in pain. That is the reason most of us say nasty things to other people.

By the way, when I was young, one of my girlfriend's fathers was very happy that I was courting his daughter: in turn, his grandfather was a great pal of one of Lincoln's best friends.

By the way I know lots about the Constitution. If you want, I can discuss the Ciceronian influence on Jefferson, or the great affection my neighbor George Mason had for the writers of the Magna Carta.

Just ask nicely, and stop being rude.; 4/23/19, 10:24 PM
livermoron said...: I asked about the Constitution. Why are you avoiding answering that question? IDGAS about who you think is an evil little bastard. In my book, you fill that bill. Evil because you prefer your own ignorance.; 4/23/19, 10:26 PM
narciso said...: I dont see it Stephen cooper, did he underestimate the material and personal cost of unifying the country, I think he would agree.; 4/23/19, 10:27 PM
narciso said...: Who would have done it better, Douglas brackenridge Robert e Lee, as another humble man said about 1800 years early 'i do not come to bring piece'; 4/23/19, 10:30 PM
Michael K said...: People with political differences live in the same state.

People are self sorting and more than you may realize. Not just retirement age like us. My son is planning to move out of California when he retires. His wife runs a very successful business from home and talks about Texas. My older daughter, who is a Democrat who would not vote for Hillary, has talked about New Mexico. I have a daughter in South Carolina and another who has property in northern Idaho.

Illinois and California are seeing major exodus.; 4/23/19, 10:38 PM
alanc709 said...: Chuck said...
Congratulations!

Trump approval tumbles to new low for 2019 in the wake of Mueller report.

Congratulations, Chuck, you chickenshit traitor of a so-called Lifelong Republican. You must be a dedicated social justice warrior to be glad that a vindication of Trump's claims can be so thoroughly misrepresented by our traitorous media to allow them to claim his disapproval rating his increased. But since the same proponents of the left-wing media largely control the opinion gatherers, what reason do we have to believe this poll is accurate? Of course, since you are a lifelong Huey Long Democrat worshipper, I'm sure that in this instance, you're sincere. Just as we conservatives are sincere in our absolute disgust that a worthless liar like you can claim to be a Republican. To show there's no hard feelings, I'll offer to renew your lifelong subscription to your favorite newspapers, Izvestia and Pravda. I know you're interested in News and Truth, right?; 4/23/19, 10:39 PM
narciso said...: Come on Alan, you've blown the transaxle, you're grinding metal' its pointless to pummel chuck.; 4/23/19, 10:43 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger stephen cooper said...
Lincoln could have negotiated a peace, he wanted war.

I have to disagree with you here. The Confederacy began to form before Lincoln was inaugurated,. in March in those days.

He was not an abolitionist, a fact that causes the current ahistorical left to fulminate. He wanted slavery to be restricted from the western lands that were becoming, or would become, states.; 4/23/19, 10:44 PM
mockturtle said...: Michael K relates: Illinois and California are seeing major exodus.

But they are likely to turn their new states blue. Happened in WA and OR and it's happening in TX, too.; 4/23/19, 10:45 PM
narciso said...: There is lies the rub, certainly some learned lessons but many have not.; 4/23/19, 10:46 PM
alanc709 said...: stephen cooper said...
Lincoln could have negotiated a peace, he wanted war.

You're an idiot. "Peace" was the dissolution of the United States. What part of that don't you understand? Lincoln didn't declare war. He just won it, despite the efforts of people like you living back then who tried every way possible to find a way to lose that war. Maybe you'd have preferred a Stalin in the place of Lincoln. Fools like you usually do.; 4/23/19, 10:47 PM
stephen cooper said...: livermoron --- OK, I will answer. As much as you insult me, I still like you.
Lincoln was a tort lawyer, a criminal lawyer. He was never a constitutional lawyer. He did not understand that the compact between the states was based on natural law, wherein any contract (such as the Constitution of the 18th Century) could be abrogated upon sufficient wrongdoing of the other party, just as any other contract throughout the depths of time could have been abrogated for such a reason. Rather, he was a dimwit who looked at the Constitution as "Articles of Faith" or, to put in a milder register, as something like the Agreements of Presbyterians - something that had its own value above and beyond the value of what the contracting parties put into it.

One can agree or disagree, but when the Southern states said they wanted out of the contract, the proper answer was not Lincoln's answer: )we will fucking kill everyone of you until you agree that the contract is binding..." the proper answer was a more Christian answer.

Here is what the poor little evil bastard should have done. He should have said, I too have sinned, and I have never once tried to outlaw slavery in New Jersey, and Maryland, and in Delaware, and in other states where I have had influence.....

What he said was ---- I disagree with you about the Constitution, and I am going to call together all the demons I can find, the experts on logistics and artillery and gunsmithing, and I am going to do all I can to kill you all until you agree.

Look, the goal of ending slavery was a good goal. It is so sad that a little bastard like Lincoln who never tried to end slavery by peaceful means - NOT EVEN IN NEW JERSEY, for God's sake - would get all flustered and start a war that did not need to be waged to get less results than he could have gotten by just invoking the principles of natural law that underly our Constitution.

I think you are mad at me because you think I support the Confederacy. To the contrary, if I were fighting back in the day, I would have been meaner than Sherman. My point is not that Lincoln chose the wrong side.

My point is that all men are sinners and that Lincoln was a great sinner, and this country was unfortunate that a better man than him was not in charge back in the day.
And yes, I think he was an evil bastard.

Still, his wife was ugly and crazy, so I guess I can't really think of him as anything but a loser in life.

If you want to argue with me about the Constitutional issues, my favorite recent author on such issues is Ronald Rotunda, although I have lots of respect for the writings on the subject of Brian Garner and James Schall.

Thanks for reading, and no offense taken!; 4/23/19, 10:47 PM
narciso said...: Alexander 2nd tried this kind of broad reform, it netted the narod volya which ultimately consumed him.; 4/23/19, 10:48 PM
stephen cooper said...: alanc709 - I would have fought on the Union Side.

And I understand military strategy and tactics, the war would have been shorter if more people like me were on the Union side.; 4/23/19, 10:48 PM
stephen cooper said...: narciso - actually there have been about 200 Romanovs born since 1800, yes about 20 of then were murdered, but the other 180 had a good time in this world.

My best guess is that, if I were really polite and asked God if I could have 200 children, most of them would live good lives, much more than 180 out of 200, But I am the sort of person who God likes, because even God finds it hard to dislike someone who has suffered as much as I have from HIS children, God knows they were not mine.; 4/23/19, 10:51 PM
narciso said...: Take Yamamoto, he was a conscientious man in service of an evil regime, he well knew America would yet prevail yet he broke the seal and rained terror upon his nation, and the poison rent nations from China to Indonesia; 4/23/19, 10:56 PM
narciso said...: The kronos hecatomb ib the middle kingdom lay in the future, along with smaller versions in Korea and Cambodia, the reaction in Indonesia during the year of living dangerously was thus.; 4/23/19, 10:59 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:00 PM
livermoron said...: Dr. K:
The war was inevitable. S. Carolina seceded in December, four months before Ft. Sumter.

Lincoln had a very legalistic view of the Presidency.

Well, he was an abolitionist but was constrained by the Constitution. His Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the 'people in service' in the states currently in rebellion because he believed that that was the only way to legally do so...under his emergency powers. That's also why the EP didn't apply to those areas within the rebelling states which had been reoccupied by the Union forces.

He put saving the union at the top of his goals. Abolition was secondary.; 4/23/19, 11:00 PM
Big Mike said...: Note to both Roughcoat and stephen cooper. Do NOT overlook the importance of trained junior and mid-level officers. At the start of the war both sides had senior officers who trained at West Point (and the South had the additional advantage of Robert E. Lee having been superintendent of West Point, so he had some knowledge of cadets who had been trained under him). But an army needs good leadership at lower levels, and places like VMI (where Stonewall Jackson was an utterly incompetent math teacher but a fine teacher of artillery) and the Citadel and other military academies produced people who knew how to lead men into battle by the bushel. After the disaster at First Manassas McClellan had to vet the officers of volunteer regiments, who were generally elected by their troops, and train them up. Of course once he trained his officers and men he couldn't bring himself to actually use them, but that's another story.

I'm not sure which side had more railroad mileage, but I know which side had more effective railroad mileage, and that was the North. The primary railroads of the North, the New York Central, the B&O, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the Illinois Central used the same gauge track -- the 4' 8 1/2" standard gauge still used everywhere today. The Erie was an oddball, with 6 foot gauge, but train cars and locomotives used on one standard gauge railroad could be used on another and so troop movements could start in any major city on the east coast and reach any other major city without having to change trains. By contrast the South's railroads were a plethora of differing gauges, so troops or goods shipped on one railroad had to change over to the other railroad's train cars if they changed railroads.; 4/23/19, 11:03 PM
narciso said...: A similar thing could be said about rommel, a good soldier, a proud prussian but his job was to subjugate the western powers and north Africa, I dont gave to tell you where that would have ended.; 4/23/19, 11:04 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:11 PM
livermoron said...: Stephen, despite your long-windedness (or logorrhea, whichever you prefer), you still avoided answering my question. A sign your subconscious self knows you are full of crap? Magic 8-ball says 'Yes"!.

I had no thoughts on whose side you are on. ICCL. I just want you to rationalize your ahistoric statements. Play your passive-aggressive games with someone else.; 4/23/19, 11:13 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:14 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:15 PM
StephenFearby said...: Attkisson v. DOJ FBI Update April 23, 2019

1 of the three-judge 4th Circut appeals panel agreed with Sharyl Attkinson. The apparent next step is to request an en banc ruling. Sharyl explains: https://youtu.be/E_IKvWYZbQE

For those who may be interested in this important case, the transcript of the January 2019 oral arguments:

https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/02/new-full-transcript-of-oral-arguments-attkisson-v-doj-fbi-for-govt-computer-intrusions/; 4/23/19, 11:15 PM
Roughcoat said...: Roughcoat, that is good advice for us all. Or do you like it when people tell you how wrong you are when you are absolutely correct?

I don't care when people tell me that I'm wrong, livermoron. Just let it go. It's not a big deal.; 4/23/19, 11:16 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:17 PM
narciso said...: Because Stephen you are using sentiment rather than facts, show me an argument of hie this kinder social revolution would work without war.; 4/23/19, 11:18 PM
Roughcoat said...: Do NOT overlook the importance of trained junior and mid-level officers.

Do you think I'm overlooking that?

Again, I'm not clear as to your point. Are you saying that the North started the war with what, on balance, must be accounted an advantage? If so ... okay. I disagree, but I acknowledge the merits of your arguments.; 4/23/19, 11:22 PM
livermoron said...: Perhaps you are the one who needs to let it go. So, I guess I am YOUR huckleberry.
Thanks for the apology though.; 4/23/19, 11:23 PM
wwww said...: Don't underestimate California. California has the GDP of Canada. Yes, it's way too expensive in San Fran and LA. But likewise it's way too expensive in Stockholm, Paris, Vancouver, and London. We know talent was willing to move to each of those cities. Cal offers Google, video companies, and other elite tech corps. Can attract global talent & many from Ivies are willing to move there.

Chicago & her suburbs are a major GDP source for the USA. Great public schools in New Trier & northern burbs. Other reasons people move to Chicago: Abbott labs and Underwriter Labs and Argonne national labs. Again attracts global talent. Chicago & her burbs are not just significant to North America. It is a world class city.

This is obvious but people working at video game companies in San Fran, LA and Austin are not going to go to war with their grandparents.; 4/23/19, 11:25 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:26 PM
narciso said...: Much was said of a third force in Vietnam, but little came of it,; 4/23/19, 11:28 PM
Roughcoat said...: Michael K: my wife and I are planning to move just across the Illinois border into Indiana within the next 12 months.; 4/23/19, 11:28 PM
narciso said...: Well how do you tear down that system, and injure the victims on both sides.; 4/23/19, 11:29 PM
wwww said...: The Union attracted the German 48'ers, some of whom became officers. They had experience in the European revolutions.

Too much 20th century attention to the Eastern Theatre of the War and overemphasis on Confed. generals ignored the significance of the Western Theatre. Control of New Orleans and the Mississippi was crucial. The South lost control of that port in '62 and the lower Mississippi by '63.; 4/23/19, 11:31 PM
Roughcoat said...: narciso --

I like your comments but I feel obliged to point out that Rommel was a Württemberger, i.e. a southern German, not a Prussian. Which may go a long way to explaining why he was a fundamentally decent man.; 4/23/19, 11:34 PM
Yancey Ward said...: This is what happens when you drink coffee from morning until late at night.; 4/23/19, 11:35 PM
narciso said...: Nitpick, or we can take the example of von stauffenberg an honorable man who serves upon an impossible task; 4/23/19, 11:37 PM
stephen cooper said...: there is only one side God's side ....

look God may seem to not have been all that nice to everyone you know ---- I, for one, know people who have had their children murdered - can you imagine? - I know people who have died in their 40s after decades of unrelenting pain, and as God is my witness I spent years consoling with an old man who died in his 90s and had been basically insane all his life, troubled by bad chemistry, through no fault of his own .......trust me, it is not easy to console such a person, but I did it.

here is how you tear down a bad system.

One kind deed at a time. And by prayer.

Lincoln was a crazy evil man who might as well have been one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
He liked to read the Bible,foolishly picturing himself as one of the just, but he was not a man of prayer.
Almost anyone would have done a better job than him.
He was on the right side but he had an evil heart.
He prayed less than he should have.
It could have been so much better.

Why didn't he issue an Emancipation Proclamation for the slaves of the North as soon as he was elected?
I will tell you why.
He didn't care.; 4/23/19, 11:39 PM
wwww said...: "This is what happens when you drink coffee from morning until late at night."

quite possibly. I drank tea around 5:00 and that was a mistake. Now I've got Civil War songs in my head. Song about Gen. Benjamin Butler from the Civil War period. To the tune of Yankee Doodle:

The rebels swore that New Orleans never should be taken,
But if the Yankees came so near they should not save their bacon.
That's the way they blustered when they thought they were so handy,
But Farragut steamed up one day and gave them Doodle Dandy

Ben. Butler then was ordered down to regulate the city;
He made the rebels walk a chalk, and was not that a pity?
That's the way to serve them out--that's the way to treat them,
They must not go and put on airs after we have beat them.

He made the rebel banks shell out and pay the loyal people,
He made them keep the city clean from pig's sty to church steeple.
That's the way Columbia speaks, let all men believe her;
That's the way Columbia speaks instead of yellow fever.

He sent the saucy women up and made them treat us well
He helped the poor and snubbed the rich; they thought he was the devil.
Bully for Ben. Butler, then, they thought he was so handy;
Bully for Ben Butler then,--Yankee Doodle Dandy.; 4/23/19, 11:39 PM
Roughcoat said...: Perhaps you are the one who needs to let it go.

I shall endeavor to persevere, livermoron.; 4/23/19, 11:40 PM
stephen cooper said...: that was a reply to Narciso at 11:29.; 4/23/19, 11:40 PM
narciso said...: I dont see it. You think he wanted the equivalent of 5 million casualties today; 4/23/19, 11:42 PM
wwww said...: old joke: cop pulls over young man from New York speeding in Georgia. Cop say, "Son, nobody does anything that fast in Georgia." Young man replies, "Sherman did." Cop arrests young man:

Marching through Georgia

Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song;
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along,
Sing it as we used to sing it, fifty thousand strong,
While we were marching through Georgia.

Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.

Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.; 4/23/19, 11:44 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:47 PM
stephen cooper said...: if you are arguing with me you are arguing with my disappointment with Lincoln for not issuing a proclamation outlawing chattel slavery in the first month of his Presidency.

Which under the Constitution he could easily have done.

Or am I missing something?; 4/23/19, 11:54 PM
stephen cooper said...: He didn't do it because he didn't care.; 4/23/19, 11:55 PM
narciso said...: So, just because you issue a statement doesn't mean something happens; 4/23/19, 11:55 PM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:57 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/23/19, 11:59 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/19, 12:02 AM
stephen cooper said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/19, 12:08 AM
narciso said...: No Stephen cooper, if you say Lincoln is evil you have to provide someone who did it the right way.; 4/24/19, 12:11 AM
wwww said...: when someone better and more honest than him should have been president.

Who might have been better? Name one of the Civil War era politicians who had a chance at the nomination.; 4/24/19, 12:20 AM
Gospace said...: Steven Cooper- I have no clue where you get your idiotic ideas from.

Lincoln was inaugurated 4 March 1861. Fort Sumter was fired upon 12 April 1861, just less than 6 weeks later.

South Carolina voted to secede on 20 December 1860. By 1 February 1861 Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all left the Union. All before Lincoln was inaugurated. Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment- which would have perpetuated slavery, in order to preserve the Union. Southern states didn't vote on it- they had already seceded. It's naive in the utmost to think Lincoln could have stopped what had already occurred.

Before Lincoln was even inaugurated, the conditions had been created that ensured there would either be two nations where there was once one, or there would be war. And the South was solely responsible for creating those conditions. War was not declared on the CSA- for the United States never recognized CSA as a separate country, but rather viewed it as a rebellion that needed to be put down by force.

The only thing Lincoln could have done to prevent a war would be to recognize the CSA as a separate nation. Lincoln, like many other people of the era, understood that the United States was founded by the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. Founded as a perpetual union. It's not an accident that the Constitution describes the procedures for new states to enter the union, for old states to be sub-divided, for land to be swapped from one state to another, or two states to merge, for disposition of territories and minor holdings (but not states nor parts thereof), and includes absolutely no instructions whatsoever for a state to leave. If they can leave, then they're not part of a perpetual union as founded.

It's unfortunate the South had to be beaten into submission. I had ancestral relatives fighting for both sides. And many more of them died for the South than the North, including 3 on the first day of Gettysburg. All who fought for the South fought as part of their state army, not the CSA. The CSA never did field much of a Confederate Army. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, not the CSA Army. After that, Joseph Johnston surrendered the Army of Tennessee. The last Confederate General to surrender his command was an American Indian, Brigadier General Stand Watie, who led a mixed force of Cherokee, Creek, Seminole and Osage troops.; 4/24/19, 12:20 AM
Clark said...: @Roughcoat: We moved from Illinois to Porter County, Indiana, four years ago and we are glad we did.; 4/24/19, 12:20 AM
Roughcoat said...: Clark:

Good to know, thanks.; 4/24/19, 12:24 AM
wwww said...: "The only thing Lincoln could have done to prevent a war would be to recognize the CSA as a separate nation."

Yeah but what does he do about the Federal Arsenals in the CSA and the loyal border states? The CSA wasn't going to leave the border states alone; too many secessionists in those states. Lincoln couldn't stop fighting in the border states even if he did recognize the CSA as a separate nation. The Unionists in those states were always going to fight the Secessionists; they wouldn't tolerate being told their states were going into the CSA. There were Unionist slave holders who were officers in the Union army in those states. They fought for the Union.

It wasn't a simple matter to stop the war from coming. I don't think anyone could have done so.; 4/24/19, 12:29 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I agree with wwww on this- no matter what Lincoln did, he couldn't have stopped the Civil War. All he could have done differently was lose it.; 4/24/19, 12:40 AM
Gospace said...: Many in the South thought the inevitable war would be over quickly. That the North wouldn't have it in them to fight for long. Even as late as 1863 many thought the North would tire within another few months. One of my ancestral relatives taken prisoner was interviewed (interrogated?) and his answer was published in newspapers around the country. I think this link will work:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/14024486/the_brooklyn_daily_eagle/?xid=865

I suspect from other readings that right up until the end the South remained delusional about their chances of success.; 4/24/19, 12:46 AM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: Speaking of South Carolina, Charleston just got the on-location filming of a new Netxflix series about The Outer Banks. Um, isn't The Outer Banks a North Carolina locale?

Yes, but Hollywood is still upset about NC's bathrooms.

The irony of the thing is that SC certainly feels the same way (and probably moreso given the recent purpling of NC), but we just never got around to passing a law about it.; 4/24/19, 12:53 AM
livermoron said...: Cooper keeps claiming Lincoln could have constitutionally ended slavery by simply.... what? How?

But at least we know he's really smart, well studied, brave, and an exemplary officer because he told us so.
Sad.; 4/24/19, 1:23 AM
gadfly said...: Reading recent Pew Research stats on immigrants in the U.S. illegally (here). I scratch my head and wonder why we even bother to spend more than ten billion dollars to take inaccurate manual census counts every decade.

The Census Bureau employs about 12,000 permanent employees to operate call centers, a data center in Jeffersonville, Indiana and offices scattered in major cities for some unknown purpose to administer a constitutional clause unneeded in today's world. Every decennial year ending in zero, a million temps send out mailings (to named people at known addresses) to collect useless information that has to violate our present privacy laws. Non-respondents are threatened but never fined and revisit after revisit are made to private residents and public residential facilities to get face-to-face verification of the homeless, the incarcerated, the occupants of hospitals and care centers and those hiding from the law.

So why not hire Pew Research and have them work their magic from massive data bases updated as transactions occur - births, deaths, address changes, etc. It would seem that complying with the strict requirements of the constitution could be accomplished by simply redefining how counts will be conducted. How much cheaper and easier and how much more accurate would a Pew Research census be? Costs would likely be only 10% of the government bureaucracy's best effort and we could eliminate the Census Bureau!

As for the citizenship question, Pew could break that number our from its totals to be used as needed.; 4/24/19, 1:24 AM
etbass said...: I have read quite a bit about Lincoln and the Civil War and I have encountered absolutely no one until tonight who would come even close to the assessment of Lincoln as an “evil little bastard.” Apparently, Stephen Cooper is God Himself.; 4/24/19, 2:02 AM
etbass said...: Born near Hodgenville, Ky, nothing in his birth suggests he was a bastard. He stood well over six feet so little he was not. Evil? A more principled president, I doubt I have ever heard of.

And his wife? How about homely, at worst? Ugly? What an unseemly descriptive for one who seems to know what God alone could know. Shameful, Stephen, I’m really disappointed in you.; 4/24/19, 2:11 AM
Beaneater said...: Narayanan (4/23/19, 8:38 PM) asked for an actual example of obstruction of justice when there is no underlying crime. I am not a lawyer but this does not seem like an impossible or even profoundly unlikely circumstance. Here's a hypothetical in lieu of an actual case. Imagine a father whose young adult child is arrested on drug charges. Now, those charges happen to be false – the young person is as pure as the proverbial driven snow. But the father believes for whatever reason that the charges may be true and sets about trying to exculpate his offspring. Maybe he lies when investigators ask him about his child's activities, or burns his child's (seemingly incriminating) journal. Maybe he calls in a favor with a police officer friend to get the most incompetent member of the force assigned to his child's case. Maybe he asks a doctor buddy to write an opioid prescription in his child's name in order to account for any pills the police might find in the child's possession. (There are probably more realistic things the father could do; I am not a good criminal mind.)

I could easily see how in a case like this the father might be guilty of some sort of obstruction, even though there was no underlying crime. He obstructed the investigation into his child's behavior and attempted to hijack the judicial process.

For this reason, I've never found the "you can't obstruct justice when there's no crime!" line very convincing at all.; 4/24/19, 4:29 AM
stephen cooper said...: etbass - Soon the arguments will be made that the statues of Lincoln must come down.
They will be bad arguments, but they will be made.

You are welcome for my efforts in helping people practice the counterarguments. I don't mind the insults - Lincoln's fate has long been with God, and God is a kind judge.

To millions of Americans, all of them long dead, Lincoln was little different, for good or bad, from one of the four ugly horsemen of the Apocalypse. War is ugly.

The efforts on both sides to avoid civil war and end slavery are well documented, my opinion on those efforts and Lincoln's place in those efforts - whether he was quick to war and slow to end slavery, or whether he was a peace loving man, as God wants us all to be, who loved all his fellow Americans equally, as God still calls all of us to do - is not important. We have different challenges today. Those who were quick to violence, back in the day, set a bad example to each other and to their posterity. We should work out our differences peacefully,; 4/24/19, 4:42 AM
viator said...: SCOTUS Blog on the dispute over the Trump administration’s decision to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census heard yesterday.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the United Nations recommends including a citizenship question. Not only has the United States often asked the question, Kavanaugh stressed, but other countries – including Spain, Germany, Mexico, Canada and Ireland – also ask about citizenship.

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who seemed to be siding with the challengers for most of the case, noted that Congress had been made aware of the decision to include the citizenship question but hadn’t taken any action.

The stakes in the case are high. The federal government uses the data from the census to divide up the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states. After the 2010 census, for example, Texas gained four seats in the House and Florida gained four, while New York – the lead plaintiff in today’s case – and Ohio both lost two. Census data is also used to allocate federal funding for a wide variety of programs: In fiscal year 2016, the federal government distributed over $900 billion through such programs.

Amy Howe's summation: Divided court seems ready to uphold citizenship question on 2020 census; 4/24/19, 5:06 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Dem leadership are currently referring to America as democracy, not a republic. Sea change?; 4/24/19, 5:10 AM
stlcdr said...: Back to the first Chuck post: polls.

Republicans (small R) liken polls to democrats playing and running with scissors. Sometimes the dems squeal with delight when they manage to grab the blunt end. Then the republicans chuckle when they stick themselves. Either way, it’s just meaningless tripe as we have seen, repeatedly.; 4/24/19, 5:48 AM
Rusty said...: Roughcoat said...
"I wonder, can Illinois (where I live) divest itself of Cook County? Without Cook County, Illinois would be one of the reddest of red states."
I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. But realistically. Once the last child graduates My wife and I decided we would take a year to get the house in order and sell out. I don't know where we'll go, but not here.; 4/24/19, 5:58 AM
Birkel said...: Wow.
About 100 comments driven by one jerk typing crazy things and others dragged along.
It was a quick read, at least, skipping so many long winded comments.; 4/24/19, 6:09 AM
Original Mike said...: Wisconsin needs to build a wall on her southern border.; 4/24/19, 6:16 AM
MadBohemian said...: Michael K said: Illinois and California are seeing major exodus

If it wasn’t for kids and grandkids we’d gladly leave.

Roughcoat said...
"I wonder, can Illinois (where I live) divest itself of Cook County? Without Cook County, Illinois would be one of the reddest of red states."

I know some are fans of Chicago as a “world class city”, but if it were to pull a Detroit, rust and crumble to rubble and slide into Lake Michigan I’d go to sleep with a smile on my face. At least I’m in DuPage county and thank God not Cool! Though that’s not as big a difference as it used to be.

I would *LOVE* a Cook County free state!!! Let them tax each other to oblivion thoroughly corrupt their own kids with their horrible school agendas.; 4/24/19, 6:59 AM
MadBohemian said...: That’s “thank God” not “thank God not cool!”.

Geeeez.....; 4/24/19, 7:02 AM
Hagar said...: "A republic, Madam - if you can keep it!"; 4/24/19, 7:28 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: "Why didn't he issue an Emancipation Proclamation for the slaves of the North as soon as he was elected?"

Silly stephen.
If the slaves were "emancipated" at the beginning of the war, the border states secede. The North loses. What happens to the slaves then?

Winning the war was more important then freeing the slaves, because if you don't win the war ...; 4/24/19, 8:00 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "Late morning extends into late evening."

Pretty much the business hours of the pot shops here in Washington State.

I am Laslo.; 4/24/19, 8:03 AM
Roughcoat said...: Rusty @5:58:

Your plan is exactly what we have planned. We decided just this week after meeting with a real estate agent, talking to our financial advisor, and suchlike. We're going to take a year to get our house and associated affairs in order, then move to Indiana in 2020. We really can't go anywhere else because we both work in Chicago. But Indiana is good choice, I think. The counties in Indiana along the Illinois voter are very solidly, overwhelmingly conservative red. It seems that the Illinois refugees settling in those counties are mostly conservative in their politics.; 4/24/19, 8:13 AM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/19, 8:22 AM
AllenS said...: A poll was conducted at my place this morning, and it was 100% approval of the job Trump is doing. Suck it, Politico.; 4/24/19, 8:24 AM
Roughcoat said...: MadBohemian: DuPage County is still in Illinois, which means it is ruled by Madigan & villainous crew, and also Jabba the Pritzker. Which means you're also going to get ass-raped by steadily increasing taxes and all the other onerous legislative initiatives that strike Madigan's fancy. The Dark Lord's forces are on the march and there is no power in Illinois to stop them -- except, maybe, the massive collapse of the state's finances.; 4/24/19, 8:25 AM
Michael K said...: Sorry to get into this but:

The CSA wasn't going to leave the border states alone; too many secessionists in those states.

The war was not about the existing slavery in the South. It was about extending the slavery into the new states which were now territories. The Confederates were determined to extend it into Mexico if they had won.

The thing that saved Lincoln and the Union from defeat was the fall of Atlanta and the campaign by William T Sherman.; 4/24/19, 8:30 AM
Fernandinande said...: Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

That "perpetual union" lasted about 8 years.

Perpetual Union
or, as my Great-Great-Grandfathers called it: Union Forever

Words not in the Constitution: "perpetual" and "forever".; 4/24/19, 8:31 AM
Roughcoat said...: Shame about Chicago. I grew up here and I have a lot of emotional ties to it going back to my beginnings. There are still many things about the city that I love. I won't bore you by enumerating its qualities and charms, which do still exist, some of them in unsullied form. But ... we have to leave it, alas.; 4/24/19, 8:33 AM
Michael K said...: Chicago and New York City are similar. Both are corrupt and hold in thrall a state that, but for their votes, could be prosperous.

The coastal strip of California is similar but the contrast is not as clear.; 4/24/19, 8:33 AM
Roughcoat said...: The thing that saved Lincoln and the Union from defeat was the fall of Atlanta and the campaign by William T Sherman.

Well ... I think Grant and his overall conduct of the war in both the western and eastern theaters might have contributed mightily to the Union's victory ...; 4/24/19, 8:35 AM
Roughcoat said...: Chicago and New York City are similar.

Oh, Chicago is much better -- e.g., more liveable -- than NYC. IMHO.; 4/24/19, 8:36 AM
Howard said...: https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-couple-arrested-locking-toddlers-cages-police/story?id=62591859

State of Jefferson Deplorables; 4/24/19, 8:38 AM
wwww said...: I think Grant and his overall conduct of the war in both the western and eastern theaters might have contributed mightily to the Union's victory

LOL. I hate how people ignore the Western Theatre. As if the 1862 capture of New Orleans and 1863 capture of Vicksburg was no big deal. I blame Gone with the Wind as a central text for how people understand the War of the Rebellion.; 4/24/19, 8:40 AM
MadBohemian said...: The *ONE* thing positive about Illinois, and I mean the one only thing, is that as yet they don’t tax pensions.
I believe it’s when and not if they do, the wife and I wonder to make a decision between kids/gray and financial security/sanity.; 4/24/19, 8:42 AM
MadBohemian said...: believe it’s when and not if they do, the wife and I wonder to make a decision between kids/gray and financial security/sanity.

What the hell is my phone typing???
The wife and I will have to make a decision between kids/grandkids and financial security.; 4/24/19, 8:45 AM
Roughcoat said...: My Irish great-grandfather and all of my Irish great-uncles fought -- and in some cases died -- in the western theater, as soldiers in volunteer regiments raised in 1861 in the Decatur, Illinois area. Which is to say, I do appreciate the contribution Union forces made in the western theater, and have studied operations in that region extensively.; 4/24/19, 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Yikes, the War About Between Among and Within the States (1861-1865) . . . spent years discussing that online. It was my first real experience with the sad truth that any unmoderated forum on the topic will eventually and inevitably devolve into what someone called the Sectarian Unionists vs the Rebel Raiders . . . And boy do I have the e-scars!

I give the CSA a 'C+' for effort; there's no real historical precedent for a group trying to create, on the fly, a modern functioning state to protect such a degenerate and unsustainable way of life. There was so much talent, skill, energy, and bravery in those folks . . . They were Americans after all.

Rommel, BTW, was Swabian specifically IIRC. (Yikes, Kraut Big Mistake II . . . see above.)

Narr
Kraut on my pa's side, Cornfed on my ma's; 4/24/19, 8:54 AM
Roughcoat said...: I hope to be watching from the Indiana sidelines when the corrupt Illinois state government and the corrupt public service unions (teacher's unions, etc.) go to war with each other to decide whether and how much pensions will be taxed.; 4/24/19, 8:54 AM
mockturtle said...: Michael K asserts: The thing that saved Lincoln and the Union from defeat was the fall of Atlanta and the campaign by William T Sherman.

That would be like saying Hiroshima saved the US from defeat in the Pacific. But certainly both greatly expedited the victory. The tipping points.; 4/24/19, 8:55 AM
Michael K said...: I do appreciate the contribution Union forces made in the western theater, and have studied operations in that region extensively.

Two of my great great uncles were in a group of volunteers called "The LaSalle Boys" who were all from Peru-LaSalle. I have visited the graves of some of my family in LaSalle. There is a civilian cemetery and a military cemetery. WE're going again in May.

They were in the 55th Illinois Volunteer Infantry. Fought at Shiloh and Vicksberg.; 4/24/19, 8:57 AM
wwww said...: Family friends of my parents left Chicago burbs for Florida when the husband got tired of shovelling snow off the roof. I get why people would want to leave because of weather and traffic and expenses. But Chicago is glorious for it's economic powerhouse contributions to GDP, tech, science, art, architecture, botanical gardens, and the food.

I would move to the northern Chicago burbs but wouldn't consider living in the NYC area for livability reasons.; 4/24/19, 8:57 AM
mockturtle said...: Rommel, BTW, was Swabian specifically IIRC.

True and he was snubbed by fellow officers because, unlike them, he had no 'von' in front of his name. Able general, upright person, Rommel.; 4/24/19, 8:58 AM
Michael K said...: That would be like saying Hiroshima saved the US from defeat in the Pacific.

No, if you have studied the Civil War, as I have, you know that, without the victory at Atlanta, McClellan might well have won the 1864 election. Lincoln was quite pessimistic about that election until Atlanta. Grant's casualties in 1864 were horrendous.; 4/24/19, 8:59 AM
Roughcoat said...: Anonymous:

Re Rommel: Swabia, Württemberg -- same/same essentially.

Note: "Like many cultural regions of Europe, Swabia's borders are not clearly defined. However, today it is normally thought of as comprising the former Swabian Circle, or equivalently the former state of Württemberg...."

The point being, he was southern German, which is a different and, generally speaking, a far better German than your basic Prussian.; 4/24/19, 9:00 AM
wwww said...: You can get the civil war pensions of your ancestors if you're interested from the national archives for 35$. Great source of family history. I have relatives who served in the war.; 4/24/19, 9:04 AM
Roughcoat said...: Grant is my personal hero, flaws and all.

Michael K, I honor the service and sacrifices of your great great uncles. Two of my great uncles (only one "great," I come from a long-lived family) are buried in unmarked graves near the Chicamauga battlefield.; 4/24/19, 9:06 AM
Michael K said...: Chicago and New York City are similar.

Oh, Chicago is much better -- e.g., more liveable -- than NYC. IMHO.

I am influenced by the changes since I grew up in South Shore, one of the most delightful neighborhoods you could experience. It is now a hellhole that the Tribune ran an article about how the blacks are leaving because of the crime and violence.

My sister moved to Beverly, as so many Irish did, and she hears gunshots many evenings. North Michigan is no longer on my list. Cops had 500 kids there last Saturday, rioting and shoplifting.; 4/24/19, 9:06 AM
mockturtle said...: No, if you have studied the Civil War, as I have, you know that, without the victory at Atlanta, McClellan might well have won the 1864 election. Lincoln was quite pessimistic about that election until Atlanta. Grant's casualties in 1864 were horrendous.

I'll yield to your superior knowledge, Mike.; 4/24/19, 9:07 AM
Roughcoat said...: My great grandmother collected the pensions of her KIA brothers right up to the late 1940s, when she passed old and full of years. I didn't know you can still collect on them. I was told the payments had stopped. I have indeed obtained the Civil War records of my great grandfather and great uncles from the archives. I'm going to look into the pensions, just because I'm curious.; 4/24/19, 9:09 AM
Michael K said...: I'll yield to your superior knowledge, Mike.

I don't mean to make that much of it but I began studying it in college and have a library. We can talk about the 1864 election. "Little Mac" was strongly in favor of an armistice and the North was very war weary. I have never been a great fan of Grant but that was when trench warfare began. It was a preview of WWI without the machine gun.; 4/24/19, 9:12 AM
mockturtle said...: Michael, I wasn't being snide in my remark. My knowledge of the Civil War is far from comprehensive.; 4/24/19, 9:14 AM
mockturtle said...: But I'll take you on with the history of feudal Japan. ;-); 4/24/19, 9:15 AM
Roughcoat said...: Michael K: South Shore was one of the first wonderful Chicago neighborhoods to be destroyed by, among other things, blockbusting sales techniques.

The Northwest side and parts of the Southwest side (e.g., Mt. Greenwood) are still good. But, yes, the dangers are increasing.; 4/24/19, 9:20 AM
Michael K said...: But I'll take you on with the history of feudal Japan. ;-)

I read" Shogun", if that qualifies.

The New Chicago Mayor is not happy about Saturday night.

Rumors are the Lightgroot phoned in her displeasure the other day following the 500 over-exuberant youth further destroying Chicago's reputation as a tourist destination. That was why there was a sudden "overtime initiative" practically begging for anyone and everyone to work their RDO today.

Units had to reach out to everyone who was off and get a list together within hours so downtown could put together a list of personnel who would be available. Amusingly, HQ told everyone they'd be working in their Districts of Assignment....at first, but you could potentially (almost 100% certainly) be deployed elsewhere (meaning downtown) should wilding break out.

Chicago cops could be more cynical, I suppose, but probably not.; 4/24/19, 9:22 AM
Roughcoat said...: Mockturtle: feudal Japan, very cool. Don't know much about it. But it strikes me as the real game of thrones.; 4/24/19, 9:23 AM
wwww said...: I believe ancestry.com has the civil war pension numbers up on their site. You can find the pension number once you have the soldier's name and regiment info. Good luck - Great source for family history.; 4/24/19, 9:25 AM
Michael K said...: Roughcoat, I don't recall that much "block busting" but I was gone to college after 1956. I do know that black kids would walk down the alleys and break off tree limbs from cherry trees in our back yard, There was quite a lot of vandalism. My father was attacked on the front porch of our house. He managed to get the front door open and the dog chased them away, That wasn't block busting.; 4/24/19, 9:26 AM
mockturtle said...: I read" Shogun", if that qualifies.

:-D No, but it does [somewhat] portray the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate, which was the last, but reigned until the mid 19th century.

My mother loved American history but I've always been more interested in European and Asian history.; 4/24/19, 9:34 AM
Roughcoat said...: wwww: Thanks! I'll check it out.

Michael K: Yes, you are correct -- not blockbusting; terrorism, rather.

I spent a little bit of time in your hood back in the day, when I dated a gorgeous Polish girl from the area. I met on her on a holiday weekend on the Irish Riveria (specifically, Long Beach, Indiana). This was in 1967. The neighborhood was still intact but collapsing in on itself. I suppose her family moved out shortly after. Black criminality and related social pathologies have destroyed so much of the city.; 4/24/19, 9:36 AM
Roughcoat said...: Michael K: Maybe I'm confusing South Shore with Marquette Park, which in the mid-late 1990s turned rather suddenly from an a pleasant Irish-Lithuanian neighborhood into a violent inner city black neighborhood. Most of the change happened in the space of about 1 year, maybe even less. I saw it first hand, as I used to hang out with Irish friends at the Irish pubs in the 63rd/South Kedzie area. One day a friend and I drove around the Marquetter Park neighborhood on the south side of the park. Virtually every other house had a "for sale" sign on its front lawn. We stopped counting them when we reach 400. True story.; 4/24/19, 9:42 AM
Michael K said...: My Polish girlfriend, from south of South Shore, went to Purdue and got a BS ChemE. I was in California and she married a classmate who I knew from high school (Leo High). They moved to California where we socialized for years. She worked in the aviation industry, on the Gemini spacecraft among others.

That was a wonderful area in the 40s and 50s.; 4/24/19, 9:42 AM
mockturtle said...: Mockturtle: feudal Japan, very cool. Don't know much about it. But it strikes me as the real game of thrones.

Having only seen a few episodes of GoT, I couldn't say. But the parallels with feudal Europe are remarkable.; 4/24/19, 9:44 AM
Michael K said...: I can remember taking the street car up Hasted Street to go to the Auto Show in about 1952. When it got to about 63rd, the motorman pulled up the folding steps and made a run for it for ten blocks or so. That Irish area on Saturday night was no place for a nice peaceful boy. That was sort of "Back of the Yards" where the Daleys were from. One of the Daley boys went to Leo with me.; 4/24/19, 9:46 AM
MadBohemian said...: Screw Chicago and Illinois politics/government.

It’s sunny and I just planted flowers on our top floor balcony. By God it looks beautiful!
If it’s too early and “something happens to something “, geraniums are a buck and a half and I’ll just replace them.
Hummingbird feeder and grape jelly for orioles out along with the usual bird food.
I am officially ready for spring.; 4/24/19, 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Game of Thrones is just another instance of the truth of someone's observation that the secret of science fiction/fantasy is . . . history.

Nothing GRRM has made up (as far as human behaviour) can't be matched or exceeded in the historical record.

Narr
I do enjoy the show, mostly; 4/24/19, 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Game of Thrones is just another instance of the truth of someone's observation that the secret of science fiction/fantasy is . . . history.

Nothing GRRM has made up (as far as human behaviour) can't be matched or exceeded in the historical record.

Narr
I do enjoy the show, mostly; 4/24/19, 10:07 AM
Michael K said...: 14 blossoms on one of our cactuses this morning,. 9 on another,.; 4/24/19, 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Roughcoat--right about Swabia-Wuerttemberg.

Prussia has the distinction of being the only modern state that has been officially abolished.

Narr
My peeps from Hamburg and Bokel-bei-Stubben; 4/24/19, 10:21 AM
livermoron said...: scooper said this:
Why didn't he issue an Emancipation Proclamation for the slaves of the North as soon as he was elected

This just goes to show how profoundly ignorant and misguided scooper is. After election, Lincoln had no power to free the slaves anywhere because slavery was a constitutional institution. This goes back to my original question that he never answered: What constitutional power could he use to change the CONUS? There is no codicil allowing the president to just amend the constitution at whim...or even after long deliberation.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in those areas of the country IN REBELLION. Lincoln used the emergency powers the constitution grants the president to accomplish this. The EP did nothing to end slavery in Delaware or Kentucky because they were not in rebellion and were subject to the constitutional protections of their 'peculiar institution'. Those slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

This is basic stuff. Scooper's idiotic ideas are based on very flawed information. Too little brain power coupled with an overblown ego is our pal scooper.; 4/24/19, 10:50 AM
JackWayne said...: The problem with the Civil War is the same problem carried forward to today: No American is serious about living as a constitutionalist. A constitutionalist would be calling for a convention first instead of war first. If a convention fails to be held or fails to resolve the constitutional crisis, then war is inevitable. But at least an alternative to war was considered. From the “right” to the “left” both sides seem to be resolved that force is the proper way to resolve our current crisis. I can only dream of the day that sheeple will mature politically and realize that a constitution is not written on stone tablets and is not sacred. It is meant to be altered at the will of the people for better or worse until we get a somewhat lasting constitution. And yes, we have a pathetic Constitution right now. Why else are we in a constitutional crisis?; 4/24/19, 11:51 AM
Fen said...: Secession by any state was regarded as unlawful and a great civil war was fought to preserve the union and uphold the concept of the illegitimacy of secession

What about a revolution against the Crown of England? Was that also regarded as unlawful by the people who regarded secession unlawful? What's the difference?

and thereby preserve their peculiar institution of chattel slavery and racial apartheid well into the future.

No, that's not why they fought. Southerners fought what they termed the War of Northern Aggression. They honestly believed differences could be solved peacefully, they even gave the North a wide latitude of time to abandon Federal Forts in southern territory. The North chose instead to reinforce and resupply Fort Sumter.

We can argue all day whether allowing you to set up a sniper position looking into my bedroom window is an act of aggression that allows me to fire upon you. Fine. But don't tar the South with this tired old "slavery" crap. Plantations were the 1%. Southern boys didn't give a rats ass about it, and they certainly didn't leave their families, bringing their own horses and firearms, to defend it.; 4/24/19, 12:57 PM
Fen said...: "The thing that saved Lincoln and the Union from defeat was the fall of Atlanta and the campaign by William T Sherman."

What saved Lincoln was his Generals from the mid-west. If your read A Stillness At Appomattox by Bruce Catton, you will find battle after battle where the Union Troops are in disarray, of low morale (bounty jumpers made life hell for the honorable ones) and in full retreat, if not rout.

Then ride in these officers from the midwest who turn everything around. Literally riding through the retreat and rallying them back onto the line. Over and over again.; 4/24/19, 1:02 PM
Michael McNeil said...: Are you saying that the North started the war with what, on balance, must be accounted an advantage? If so ... okay. I disagree, but I acknowledge the merits of your arguments.

There are no merits to the side of the argument holding that “the North started the war” because… the North didn't start the war! Indeed, Lincoln had promised that he (the North) would not be the one to commence hostilities. Then the South began the war with its attack on Ft. Sumter.; 4/24/19, 11:41 PM
Michael McNeil said...: It wasn't Hiroshima that brought World War II in the Pacific to a close but Nagasaki. If there had been only a single atomic bombing, that that bomb was the one which obliterated Hiroshima, the war with high probability would not have ended (as it did) in almost immediate Japanese surrender. If the Nagasaki bomb had been deployed first, on the other hand, the war might (with greater probability) have soon ended in just that way our timeline saw.

This is because:

1) The Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium (fission) bomb. Uranium for a fission bomb must be painfully and enormously-laboriously separated from inert isotopes of the element, which process really cannot occur quickly. While:

2) The Nagasaki bomb, contrariwise, was a Plutonium (fission) bomb. Plutonium is manufactured in nuclear reactors; the more reactors you build the more plutonium you can make.

After the Hiroshima blast, Japanese nuclear scientists no doubt informed the Japanese government of 1), observing that fissionable uranium was so difficult to separate that it was quite likely that the U.S. had no more (or at most only a few more) such uranium bombs. Which conclusion as it happens was quite correct: there were no more uranium bombs in America's inventory and wouldn't be for months.

A reasonable conclusion for the determined Japanese war cabinet might be that the Nation could take such very occasional blows — just as it was already taking the existing conventional incendiary bombing campaign that was massacring hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Anyway, whatever occurred in the Japanese cabinet, following the Hiroshima attack the Japanese did not surrender.

Post the Nagasaki strike, however, the fact that the weapon observably was a plutonium device shifted the Japanese nuclear scientists' narrative over to scenario 2) — according to which America might possess basically an unending succession of such plutonium bombs — which as a consequence arguably could in a relatively short time completely obliterate the Japanese nation.

It was very important for greatest psychological effect that the atomic bombings which took place have the uranium bomb hit first followed by the plutonium bomb. Fortunately, that's the way it was done, and all those lives lost weren't wasted (the way, arguably, all the tens of thousands of lives lost in the incendiary bombing of e.g. Tokyo were wasted — because the war did not come to an end!).

The upshot in this case? A few days after the Nagasaki hammer fell, the Japanese government unconditionally surrendered.; 4/25/19, 12:12 AM