Live Feed, Patriots at the Capitol

[jamil]

I’m talking high brow topics. There will obviously be plenty that lack the intelligence to understand.

You know that's on the list of racist terms, right?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The people of the United States collectively paid for that; it belonged to The United States. It never belonged to the people of the CSA. There is not a legitimate scenario where the CSA was within their rights to fire on Fort Sumter. The US had a right to occupy their own facility, and they had a right to re-supply it. I'd say they even had a right to include arms, ammo and troops as part of re-supplying, even though the US had agreed only to resupply food and non-military supplies. They have a right to defend their property.

That shot on Ft Sumter was the first act of aggression that began the war. Of course there are many books written from the side of those aggressors that cherry pick facts to justify what happened. The crux of the war was indeed about slavery. The southern aristocracy exploited poor people and their own pride, prejudice and fear, to gaslight them into fighting to preserve their aristocracy.

How do you figure? The people of the CSA were people of the USA and had been taxed abusively which was the chief complaint leading to secession. The tariffs of the time, the principal source of federal income, had been designed solely for the benefit of northern factory owners. Arguing that the seceding states did not then not at a hypothetical future time own a stake in federal property that they contributed to paying for is analogous with arguing in a divorce one partner is entitled to everything and the other nothing

 

[jamil]

How do you figure? The people of the CSA were people of the USA and had been taxed abusively which was the chief complaint leading to secession. The tariffs of the time, the principal source of federal income, had been designed solely for the benefit of northern factory owners. Arguing that the seceding states did not then not at a hypothetical future time own a stake in federal property that they contributed to paying for is analogous with arguing in a divorce one partner is entitled to everything and the other nothing

They paid the taxes, yes. They had a stake in it yes. Only *a* stake. The property belonged to the United States. At no time after becoming federal property did Fort Sumter become part of South Carolina, which seceded. No US federal lands should ever have been considered part of CSA.

 

[IndyDave1776]

They paid the taxes, yes. They had a stake in it yes. Only *a* stake. The property belonged to the United States. At no time after becoming federal property did Fort Sumter become part of South Carolina, which seceded. No US federal lands should ever have been considered part of CSA.

Likewise they also had a stake in similar properties in the North.

 

[IndyBeerman]

They paid the taxes, yes. They had a stake in it yes. Only *a* stake. The property belonged to the United States. At no time after becoming federal property did Fort Sumter become part of South Carolina, which seceded. No US federal lands should ever have been considered part of CSA.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Likewise they also had a stake in similar properties in the North.

IndyDave, at no point did any state that before/after they seceded, have any such stake in similar federal properties in the North, it was FEDERAL PROPERTY.

And if if there a minute chance that they had any minuscule chance of a stake, they gave up any and all rights the second they seceded from the union.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[BigRed]

The waters and harbor surrounding Sumter were not federal property.

 

[BigRed]

The people of the United States collectively paid for that; it belonged to The United States. It never belonged to the people of the CSA. There is not a legitimate scenario where the CSA was within their rights to fire on Fort Sumter. The US had a right to occupy their own facility, and they had a right to re-supply it. I'd say they even had a right to include arms, ammo and troops as part of re-supplying, even though the US had agreed only to resupply food and non-military supplies. They have a right to defend their property.

That shot on Ft Sumter was the first act of aggression that began the war. Of course there are many books written from the side of those aggressors that cherry pick facts to justify what happened. The crux of the war was indeed about slavery. The southern aristocracy exploited poor people and their own pride, prejudice and fear, to gaslight them into fighting to preserve their aristocracy.

The aggressor is not the first to fire a gun. The aggressor is the first to cause need for firing of the gun.

https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

 

[jamil]

Likewise they also had a stake in similar properties in the North.

That belonged to the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America. The CSA had no legitimate claim to US property.

The aggressor is not the first to fire a gun. The aggressor is the first to cause need for firing of the gun.

https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

That's what ideologues say when they're trying to defend the indefensible. Stephens was an idiot.

I’m not a great fan of Lincoln. But it has nothing to do with his handling of Fort Sumter. Refusing to surrender US property to a hostile state is not an act of aggression. The real act of aggression was Pickens demanding the US surrender its property in the first place. The particular attempt to resupply Fort Sumter which twisted Beauregard’s panties wasn’t even primarily with weapons and arms. It was mostly food and staples to resupply the fort. But even if it were fighting troops, arms and ammo, the US had every right to properly supply its military fort.

I don’t get it the unrelenting support Libertarians have for the confederacy. I dunno. Maybe they're a sort of wet dream or something that Libertarians have. You guys are usually consistent on property rights. But you guys tend to **** all over that on this subject. The South was not the good guys. The North wasn’t all that grand either. I blame the handling of the aftermath for the treatment of Blacks. The North won the war but it lost the peace.

The whole thing was a calamity of ****** actions done by ******, ****** people all around on both sides. The South was ****. The North was ****. It was just all ****. The only good thing to come of it was the end of slavery. And the way it was won cost America way more than the blood of brothers fighting brothers.

 

[BigRed]

Slavery ended in numerous countries without a war.

600,000+ dead in the war of Northern aggression? I lay that right on the head of that tyrannical piece of **** called Lincoln.

 

[yote hunter]

I’m not sure how all of you feel but in my eyes this deal at the capital set us the A2 back , it made us look bad and got nothing accomplished what so ever. And now the left will alway have this to use against us. I sure wish it would have just been a peaceful protest and let them see we are better then Antifa and BLM.

 

[jamil]

Slavery ended in numerous countries without a war.

600,000+ dead in the war of Northern aggression? I lay that right on the head of that tyrannical piece of **** called Lincoln.

No. Well. Not that Lincoln was not a tyrannical piece of ****. But I think you're giving him way too much credit. The reason the US did not give up slavery without war was that the Southern Aristocracy did not want to give it up. It was like apple pie. Who in their right mind would give up apple pie?

 

[BigRed]

Many would (and do) disagree.

 

[jamil]

I’m not sure how all of you feel but in my eyes this deal at the capital set us the A2 back , it made us look bad and got nothing accomplished what so ever. And now the left will alway have this to use against us. I sure wish it would have just been a peaceful protest and let them see we are better then Antifa and BLM.

This gave the Left the ability to further the idea that all of the right, including Republicans, are thugs, terrorists and white nationalists. The fringe has said that for years. Now the idea has gone mainstream. The barbed wire and fencing and troops around DC are all just political theater to show people that it's there to prevent Republicans from killing democrats.

 

[jamil]

Many would (and do) disagree.

Sure. Pretty much the ideologues.

 

[KG1]

This gave the Left the ability to further the idea that all of the right, including Republicans, are thugs, terrorists and white nationalists. The fringe has said that for years. Now the idea has gone mainstream. The barbed wire and fencing and troops around DC are all just political theater to show people that it's there to prevent Republicans from killing democrats.

It took the focus off the BLM/Antifia crowd at a time when there was some ground being gained before the Capitol incident.

The Democrats were finally even forced due to bad polling results to begrudgingly acknowledge that the BLM/Antifa "protests" might be over the line.

 

[qwerty]

The conservative-leaning social-media network Parler referred violent content from its platform to the FBI more than 50 times in the weeks before the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, the company said Thursday, following criticism that it failed to adequately police threats ahead of the deadly attack.

Parler Says It Informed FBI of Violent Content Before Capitol Riot

The conservative-leaning social-media network is telling a House committee it has been unfairly targeted by big tech companies.

www.wsj.com

For those without Drivers Licenses: https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/25/parler-alerted-feds-to-violent-content-ahead-of-january-6-riot/

The FBI ignoring tips.....sounds about right.

 

[kickbacked]

An app that requires your drivers license, giving information to the government...

hard pass.

 

[BigRed]

The conservative-leaning social-media network Parler referred violent content from its platform to the FBI more than 50 times in the weeks before the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, the company said Thursday, following criticism that it failed to adequately police threats ahead of the deadly attack.

Parler Says It Informed FBI of Violent Content Before Capitol Riot

The conservative-leaning social-media network is telling a House committee it has been unfairly targeted by big tech companies.

www.wsj.com

The FBI ignoring tips.....sounds about right.

The FBI was corrupted LONG ago. Nothing to see here.

 

[nonobaddog]

An app that requires your drivers license, giving information to the government...

hard pass.

Not to worry - the government already has information.

 

[spencer rifle]

I didn't want to get involved in this, but some of you forced my hand.
All the "taxation" and "state's rights" is crap. Historically documented crap.
If you want to know their motivations AT THE TIME, you don't go to some Lost Causer or modern apologist. You go to the original documents - the Articles of Secession.
And they universally said the cause was slavery. All of them. Sometimes phrased as "our peculiar institution." With a few red herrings thrown in.
Read it. Understand.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

ETA: This does not mean that the North fought to free the slaves initially. That came later. It was originally about preserving the Union. But Slavery was why the South seceded.