Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
From Jonathan Alger
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #201
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-24-2020 10:06 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='Purple' pid='16876648' dateline='1593039517']
The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

Quote:In the case of the baker that is the federal government overruling a state government when it comes to enforcing compliance with the Constitution.

Yep. My point was in response to mturn's belief that the First Amendment ends at Congress making no laws to abridge free speech. If the Supreme Court had believed that, they would not even hear cases like the baker's. They clearly recognize the federal government's role in guaranteeing free speech. And, it wasn't because it was a state government denying a First Amendment right. The same ruling would have been made against a corporation trying to shove its political correctness down the throat of a small businessman like the baker.

Quote:Those who bring challenges against those social media / tech companies will likely lose.

I disagree with that, mostly because I have always been a glass half full optimist, and what big tech is getting away with is an egregious wrong that must be corrected. If those who challenge big tech lose, it will only be because of the huge piles of money Silicon Valley floods all over K Street. That possibility certainly exists.

However, there have been challenges already. A few have been settled, like Steven Crowder's, probably because such suits are just a nuisance and distraction to big tech, so they would rather settle a $10 million lawsuit rather than spend the energy and resources to defend it. $10 million is lunch money to the likes of Herr Suckitberg and Jackoff Dorsey.

Quote:That is not to say that those social media / tech companies cannot be forced to pay a political price for their actions. The US government trust busted Microsoft over far more tenuous reasons than could be made for splitting up Facebook and Google in particular. Being in the tech sector and knowing intimately what Google is up to in several areas I can say without much hesitation that I view the company's moral and ethical direction as steeply down and it has been in that direction for a solid 4-6 years now. They are manipulating content and how or even whether it is shown with a bias. They are wringing the AdSense publisher network like a financial sponge and low balling their rates. They are starting to wring even APIs and public good services like Maps like a financial sponge. Increasingly within Google I see short term financial decisions being made with little regard to the end user or long term ethics. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but evidence to the contrary from where I'm sitting is nowhere to be found.

I agree with all of that! I am a publisher, a "patriot publisher," as I refer to myself. I am an ex-Army officer and I have a deep love for this country of ours. Some here consider me little more than a dangerous jingoist, but I'm not.

I am all too familiar with the shenanigans of Google. Adsense was once my biggest advertiser. My site was once generating five figures a month in ad revenue from a dozen or so advertisers, one of which was Adsense. And, the growth trajectory was due north. That was 2016. I supported Candidate Trump from the now-famous escalator ride. He and his staff were readers of my blog, and still are, even though I publish only an article a week now, compared to the seven or eight articles I published daily back then. Trump tweeted one of my articles to the world in February, 2016, which drew the derision of MSM talking heads like George Stephanopoulos. We were rocking until the election and Donald Trump shocked the world.

The left and their Silicon Valley soldiers had been asleep at the wheel and underestimated the power of the right-wing blogosphere and the seismic paradigm shift that saw news and commentary market share bleed from the mainstream media to the blogoshphere and sites like mine.

After the 2016 presidential election, Silicon Valley vowed they were going to shut down the right-wing blogosphere. They have largely succeeded. My once five-figure monthly income is now a few hundred dollars. Luckily, I have investments that are helping us survive. Many patriot publishers were not so fortunate. Undercapitalized to weather the storm, they have gone out of business. I am shadow-banned on Twitter, Facebook has deleted all six of my pages, including my main page which had over 300,000 followers, and Google deleted my Adsense account and ensures that my site does not appear anywhere near the first page of searches.

I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America. Who knows where it will end, but in the meantime I get up every day and fight as hard as I can for what I believe in.

Go, Dukes!

Silicon valley didn't pick on you specifically. It's part of an overall strategy to squeeze out all the little guys. You allude to it in the first part of the post and then make it seem that your market space is the only one under attack.

In reality, the big platforms like Facebook and Google are colluding to only show content from their "preferred publishers" (High profit). That cuts those of you who are living on slim margins. You are not profitable enough for them, so you got cut out. Until they can figure out how to take over the market from their preferred publishers (and they will) there is an uneasy relationship with those providers. Definitely an uneven playing field.

Internet humor sites are getting decimated (College Humor, Cracked, etc..) I was accused of being immature above, so maybe this adds to the body of proof.
06-25-2020 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Purple Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,279
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 183
I Root For: JMU
Location: Earth
Post: #202
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-25-2020 12:28 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 10:06 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='Purple' pid='16876648' dateline='1593039517']
The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

Quote:In the case of the baker that is the federal government overruling a state government when it comes to enforcing compliance with the Constitution.

Yep. My point was in response to mturn's belief that the First Amendment ends at Congress making no laws to abridge free speech. If the Supreme Court had believed that, they would not even hear cases like the baker's. They clearly recognize the federal government's role in guaranteeing free speech. And, it wasn't because it was a state government denying a First Amendment right. The same ruling would have been made against a corporation trying to shove its political correctness down the throat of a small businessman like the baker.

Quote:Those who bring challenges against those social media / tech companies will likely lose.

I disagree with that, mostly because I have always been a glass half full optimist, and what big tech is getting away with is an egregious wrong that must be corrected. If those who challenge big tech lose, it will only be because of the huge piles of money Silicon Valley floods all over K Street. That possibility certainly exists.

However, there have been challenges already. A few have been settled, like Steven Crowder's, probably because such suits are just a nuisance and distraction to big tech, so they would rather settle a $10 million lawsuit rather than spend the energy and resources to defend it. $10 million is lunch money to the likes of Herr Suckitberg and Jackoff Dorsey.

Quote:That is not to say that those social media / tech companies cannot be forced to pay a political price for their actions. The US government trust busted Microsoft over far more tenuous reasons than could be made for splitting up Facebook and Google in particular. Being in the tech sector and knowing intimately what Google is up to in several areas I can say without much hesitation that I view the company's moral and ethical direction as steeply down and it has been in that direction for a solid 4-6 years now. They are manipulating content and how or even whether it is shown with a bias. They are wringing the AdSense publisher network like a financial sponge and low balling their rates. They are starting to wring even APIs and public good services like Maps like a financial sponge. Increasingly within Google I see short term financial decisions being made with little regard to the end user or long term ethics. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but evidence to the contrary from where I'm sitting is nowhere to be found.

I agree with all of that! I am a publisher, a "patriot publisher," as I refer to myself. I am an ex-Army officer and I have a deep love for this country of ours. Some here consider me little more than a dangerous jingoist, but I'm not.

I am all too familiar with the shenanigans of Google. Adsense was once my biggest advertiser. My site was once generating five figures a month in ad revenue from a dozen or so advertisers, one of which was Adsense. And, the growth trajectory was due north. That was 2016. I supported Candidate Trump from the now-famous escalator ride. He and his staff were readers of my blog, and still are, even though I publish only an article a week now, compared to the seven or eight articles I published daily back then. Trump tweeted one of my articles to the world in February, 2016, which drew the derision of MSM talking heads like George Stephanopoulos. We were rocking until the election and Donald Trump shocked the world.

The left and their Silicon Valley soldiers had been asleep at the wheel and underestimated the power of the right-wing blogosphere and the seismic paradigm shift that saw news and commentary market share bleed from the mainstream media to the blogoshphere and sites like mine.

After the 2016 presidential election, Silicon Valley vowed they were going to shut down the right-wing blogosphere. They have largely succeeded. My once five-figure monthly income is now a few hundred dollars. Luckily, I have investments that are helping us survive. Many patriot publishers were not so fortunate. Undercapitalized to weather the storm, they have gone out of business. I am shadow-banned on Twitter, Facebook has deleted all six of my pages, including my main page which had over 300,000 followers, and Google deleted my Adsense account and ensures that my site does not appear anywhere near the first page of searches.

I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America. Who knows where it will end, but in the meantime I get up every day and fight as hard as I can for what I believe in.

Go, Dukes!

Silicon valley didn't pick on you specifically. It's part of an overall strategy to squeeze out all the little guys. You allude to it in the first part of the post and then make it seem that your market space is the only one under attack.

In reality, the big platforms like Facebook and Google are colluding to only show content from their "preferred publishers" (High profit). That cuts those of you who are living on slim margins. You are not profitable enough for them, so you got cut out. Until they can figure out how to take over the market from their preferred publishers (and they will) there is an uneasy relationship with those providers. Definitely an uneven playing field.

That is not at all true. Didn't you see my last paragraph?.... I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America.

As for it being all about profit, wrong again. These Silicon Valley assclowns have profit pouring from every orifice. This is ideological. After the 2016 election they said they were going to shut us down and they did it.
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2020 09:45 PM by Purple.)
06-25-2020 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Polish Hammer Offline
King of all Dukes
*

Posts: 14,836
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 159
I Root For: Kent State/James Madison
Location:
Post: #203
RE: From Jonathan Alger
Interesting to see President Alger seeking change after being called out personally and handed a list of demands.

https://twitter.com/JMUNAACP/status/1275...81958?s=20
06-26-2020 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #204
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-25-2020 09:44 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 12:28 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 10:06 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='Purple' pid='16876648' dateline='1593039517']
The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

Quote:In the case of the baker that is the federal government overruling a state government when it comes to enforcing compliance with the Constitution.

Yep. My point was in response to mturn's belief that the First Amendment ends at Congress making no laws to abridge free speech. If the Supreme Court had believed that, they would not even hear cases like the baker's. They clearly recognize the federal government's role in guaranteeing free speech. And, it wasn't because it was a state government denying a First Amendment right. The same ruling would have been made against a corporation trying to shove its political correctness down the throat of a small businessman like the baker.

Quote:Those who bring challenges against those social media / tech companies will likely lose.

I disagree with that, mostly because I have always been a glass half full optimist, and what big tech is getting away with is an egregious wrong that must be corrected. If those who challenge big tech lose, it will only be because of the huge piles of money Silicon Valley floods all over K Street. That possibility certainly exists.

However, there have been challenges already. A few have been settled, like Steven Crowder's, probably because such suits are just a nuisance and distraction to big tech, so they would rather settle a $10 million lawsuit rather than spend the energy and resources to defend it. $10 million is lunch money to the likes of Herr Suckitberg and Jackoff Dorsey.

Quote:That is not to say that those social media / tech companies cannot be forced to pay a political price for their actions. The US government trust busted Microsoft over far more tenuous reasons than could be made for splitting up Facebook and Google in particular. Being in the tech sector and knowing intimately what Google is up to in several areas I can say without much hesitation that I view the company's moral and ethical direction as steeply down and it has been in that direction for a solid 4-6 years now. They are manipulating content and how or even whether it is shown with a bias. They are wringing the AdSense publisher network like a financial sponge and low balling their rates. They are starting to wring even APIs and public good services like Maps like a financial sponge. Increasingly within Google I see short term financial decisions being made with little regard to the end user or long term ethics. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but evidence to the contrary from where I'm sitting is nowhere to be found.

I agree with all of that! I am a publisher, a "patriot publisher," as I refer to myself. I am an ex-Army officer and I have a deep love for this country of ours. Some here consider me little more than a dangerous jingoist, but I'm not.

I am all too familiar with the shenanigans of Google. Adsense was once my biggest advertiser. My site was once generating five figures a month in ad revenue from a dozen or so advertisers, one of which was Adsense. And, the growth trajectory was due north. That was 2016. I supported Candidate Trump from the now-famous escalator ride. He and his staff were readers of my blog, and still are, even though I publish only an article a week now, compared to the seven or eight articles I published daily back then. Trump tweeted one of my articles to the world in February, 2016, which drew the derision of MSM talking heads like George Stephanopoulos. We were rocking until the election and Donald Trump shocked the world.

The left and their Silicon Valley soldiers had been asleep at the wheel and underestimated the power of the right-wing blogosphere and the seismic paradigm shift that saw news and commentary market share bleed from the mainstream media to the blogoshphere and sites like mine.

After the 2016 presidential election, Silicon Valley vowed they were going to shut down the right-wing blogosphere. They have largely succeeded. My once five-figure monthly income is now a few hundred dollars. Luckily, I have investments that are helping us survive. Many patriot publishers were not so fortunate. Undercapitalized to weather the storm, they have gone out of business. I am shadow-banned on Twitter, Facebook has deleted all six of my pages, including my main page which had over 300,000 followers, and Google deleted my Adsense account and ensures that my site does not appear anywhere near the first page of searches.

I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America. Who knows where it will end, but in the meantime I get up every day and fight as hard as I can for what I believe in.

Go, Dukes!

Silicon valley didn't pick on you specifically. It's part of an overall strategy to squeeze out all the little guys. You allude to it in the first part of the post and then make it seem that your market space is the only one under attack.

In reality, the big platforms like Facebook and Google are colluding to only show content from their "preferred publishers" (High profit). That cuts those of you who are living on slim margins. You are not profitable enough for them, so you got cut out. Until they can figure out how to take over the market from their preferred publishers (and they will) there is an uneasy relationship with those providers. Definitely an uneven playing field.

That is not at all true. Didn't you see my last paragraph?.... I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America.

As for it being all about profit, wrong again. These Silicon Valley assclowns have profit pouring from every orifice. This is ideological. After the 2016 election they said they were going to shut us down and they did it.

Purple – sorry you feel persecuted.
Your niche is a subset of an overall platform strategy to exercise their capitalist muscles and maximize profits. Do you really believe that because Zuckerberg has “profit pouring from every orifice” he doesn’t want more? When criticized for not policing Russian trolls and others he told Fox News "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online"

How do you explain the thousands of people laid off from internet humor publishers in the last year? Is there an ideological war against comedy?

While I’m at it, what do you think of the Texas secession, confederate constitution and VP commentary documents I posted above? Still believe slavery wasn’t the over-riding cause of the civil war?
06-26-2020 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JacksonHall Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,132
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 9
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #205
RE: From Jonathan Alger
06-26-2020 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Purple Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,279
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 183
I Root For: JMU
Location: Earth
Post: #206
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-26-2020 09:44 AM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 09:44 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 12:28 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 10:06 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-24-2020 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='Purple' pid='16876648' dateline='1593039517']
The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

Quote:In the case of the baker that is the federal government overruling a state government when it comes to enforcing compliance with the Constitution.

Yep. My point was in response to mturn's belief that the First Amendment ends at Congress making no laws to abridge free speech. If the Supreme Court had believed that, they would not even hear cases like the baker's. They clearly recognize the federal government's role in guaranteeing free speech. And, it wasn't because it was a state government denying a First Amendment right. The same ruling would have been made against a corporation trying to shove its political correctness down the throat of a small businessman like the baker.

Quote:Those who bring challenges against those social media / tech companies will likely lose.

I disagree with that, mostly because I have always been a glass half full optimist, and what big tech is getting away with is an egregious wrong that must be corrected. If those who challenge big tech lose, it will only be because of the huge piles of money Silicon Valley floods all over K Street. That possibility certainly exists.

However, there have been challenges already. A few have been settled, like Steven Crowder's, probably because such suits are just a nuisance and distraction to big tech, so they would rather settle a $10 million lawsuit rather than spend the energy and resources to defend it. $10 million is lunch money to the likes of Herr Suckitberg and Jackoff Dorsey.

Quote:That is not to say that those social media / tech companies cannot be forced to pay a political price for their actions. The US government trust busted Microsoft over far more tenuous reasons than could be made for splitting up Facebook and Google in particular. Being in the tech sector and knowing intimately what Google is up to in several areas I can say without much hesitation that I view the company's moral and ethical direction as steeply down and it has been in that direction for a solid 4-6 years now. They are manipulating content and how or even whether it is shown with a bias. They are wringing the AdSense publisher network like a financial sponge and low balling their rates. They are starting to wring even APIs and public good services like Maps like a financial sponge. Increasingly within Google I see short term financial decisions being made with little regard to the end user or long term ethics. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but evidence to the contrary from where I'm sitting is nowhere to be found.

I agree with all of that! I am a publisher, a "patriot publisher," as I refer to myself. I am an ex-Army officer and I have a deep love for this country of ours. Some here consider me little more than a dangerous jingoist, but I'm not.

I am all too familiar with the shenanigans of Google. Adsense was once my biggest advertiser. My site was once generating five figures a month in ad revenue from a dozen or so advertisers, one of which was Adsense. And, the growth trajectory was due north. That was 2016. I supported Candidate Trump from the now-famous escalator ride. He and his staff were readers of my blog, and still are, even though I publish only an article a week now, compared to the seven or eight articles I published daily back then. Trump tweeted one of my articles to the world in February, 2016, which drew the derision of MSM talking heads like George Stephanopoulos. We were rocking until the election and Donald Trump shocked the world.

The left and their Silicon Valley soldiers had been asleep at the wheel and underestimated the power of the right-wing blogosphere and the seismic paradigm shift that saw news and commentary market share bleed from the mainstream media to the blogoshphere and sites like mine.

After the 2016 presidential election, Silicon Valley vowed they were going to shut down the right-wing blogosphere. They have largely succeeded. My once five-figure monthly income is now a few hundred dollars. Luckily, I have investments that are helping us survive. Many patriot publishers were not so fortunate. Undercapitalized to weather the storm, they have gone out of business. I am shadow-banned on Twitter, Facebook has deleted all six of my pages, including my main page which had over 300,000 followers, and Google deleted my Adsense account and ensures that my site does not appear anywhere near the first page of searches.

I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America. Who knows where it will end, but in the meantime I get up every day and fight as hard as I can for what I believe in.

Go, Dukes!

Silicon valley didn't pick on you specifically. It's part of an overall strategy to squeeze out all the little guys. You allude to it in the first part of the post and then make it seem that your market space is the only one under attack.

In reality, the big platforms like Facebook and Google are colluding to only show content from their "preferred publishers" (High profit). That cuts those of you who are living on slim margins. You are not profitable enough for them, so you got cut out. Until they can figure out how to take over the market from their preferred publishers (and they will) there is an uneasy relationship with those providers. Definitely an uneven playing field.

That is not at all true. Didn't you see my last paragraph?.... I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America.

As for it being all about profit, wrong again. These Silicon Valley assclowns have profit pouring from every orifice. This is ideological. After the 2016 election they said they were going to shut us down and they did it.

Purple – sorry you feel persecuted.
Your niche is a subset of an overall platform strategy to exercise their capitalist muscles and maximize profits. Do you really believe that because Zuckerberg has “profit pouring from every orifice” he doesn’t want more? When criticized for not policing Russian trolls and others he told Fox News "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online"

How do you explain the thousands of people laid off from internet humor publishers in the last year? Is there an ideological war against comedy?

While I’m at it, what do you think of the Texas secession, confederate constitution and VP commentary documents I posted above? Still believe slavery wasn’t the over-riding cause of the civil war?

My site was incredibly profitable and the growth trajectory was fantastic in November, 2016. I was making Facebook, Google, and Twitter lots of money. Their reasons for choking off my social media traffic was NOT profit-motivated! It was ideological. Whistleblowers have come forward to confirm this. They are hiding behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a cover which will hopefully be removed in the near future.

What Big Tech has done to humorists has absolutely nothing to do with what they have done to publishers like me. Your point is senseless and arrogant. It is like you losing your job due to COVID and me declaring that you lost your job because you are incompetent. You know why you lost your job. I don't. So, wouldn't my declaration be erroneous and arrogant? I KNOW what has happened to my site's traffic and revenue and I know why! Your declarations to the contrary are arrogant and meaningless.

As to the true cause of the Civil War, I have explained my position on that. If you want to stick with the revisionist history, be my guest. As I emphasized from the outset, slavery didn't have nothing to do with the Civil War. It was a factor. However, slavery was a dying institution already by 1861. Combined with legal prohibitions and restrictions and technological advancements, especially McCormick's reaper, slavery was dying on the vine. What wasn't dying was the north's continued exploitation of the south, especially via tariffs. The south was providing most of the federal revenue, of which the north was the overwhelming beneficiary, it being used to improve northern infrastructure. And, the south, outnumbered in Congress, was defenseless to stop it.

In a 2013 article in The Daily Progress, David John Motta echoed my position almost exactly on the true cause of the Civil War (I would have just posted the link, but you have to fill out a survey or subscribe, so following is the text)....

"Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act. For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.

In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry’s consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry’s producers who benefit in profits.

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track were laid. At their best, these tracks benefited the North. Many rail lines had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90 percent of the federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.

Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.

Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.

Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free, according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British Empire 27 years earlier, thanks to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.

The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states’ rights. The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to three. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 were not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank ... in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.’ He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries such as Lincoln’s favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. The statement was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It might have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price."


You may also find this enlightening, but only if you want to read true history, not the revisionist crap you have been fed your entire life. The victor writes the history, but that doesn't make it true!.... Everything You Know About the Civil War is Wrong

And, to answer your question regarding what I think of Texas secession, I really don't have an opinion on it, other than agreeing with Thomas Jefferson who believed that each state entered the union voluntarily and should be allowed to leave the same way.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 01:59 PM by Purple.)
06-26-2020 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bcp_jmu Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,601
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 172
I Root For: James Madison!!
Location:
Post: #207
RE: From Jonathan Alger
Here you go Rockville:

[Image: slide-4_orig.jpg]

From:
Lanier Middle School History
http://lanierush.weebly.com/causes-of-th...l-war.html
06-26-2020 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Purple Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,279
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 183
I Root For: JMU
Location: Earth
Post: #208
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-26-2020 03:06 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Here you go Rockville:

[Image: slide-4_orig.jpg]

From:
Lanier Middle School History
http://lanierush.weebly.com/causes-of-th...l-war.html

Good job, bcp! Nice find. I couldn't have said it better. I am amazed and proud to know that middle schoolers are being taught the right history.
06-26-2020 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #209
From Jonathan Alger
P and bcp- please read the source documents and educate yourselves. Please put in the effort. It’s not hard. Google is your friend.

In one evening you could read 15-20 source documents by confederates explicitly naming slavery and the “superiority of the white race” as the primary factor for secession.

It doesn’t matter what the USA’s initial intentions were in bringing down the rebellion. The net is the confederacy formed to preserve slavery.

Read the source material. csa constitution, secession statements, Confederate leaders (especially VP) writings and quotes. There’s much more in contemporary newspapers. I hope you will. I’ve provided some of the information for you here but there is much more. Good luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-26-2020 09:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,438
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2022
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #210
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-26-2020 09:51 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  P and bcp- please read the source documents and educate yourselves. Please put in the effort. It’s not hard. Google is your friend.

In one evening you could read 15-20 source documents by confederates explicitly naming slavery and the “superiority of the white race” as the primary factor for secession.

It doesn’t matter what the USA’s initial intentions were in bringing down the rebellion. The net is the confederacy formed to preserve slavery.

Read the source material. csa constitution, secession statements, Confederate leaders (especially VP) writings and quotes. There’s much more in contemporary newspapers. I hope you will. I’ve provided some of the information for you here but there is much more. Good luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be specific if you're going to help him. Go read Jefferson Davis' speech commemorating the birth of the Confederacy. It's pretty vile.
06-26-2020 09:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #211
From Jonathan Alger
(06-26-2020 09:59 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 09:51 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  P and bcp- please read the source documents and educate yourselves. Please put in the effort. It’s not hard. Google is your friend.

In one evening you could read 15-20 source documents by confederates explicitly naming slavery and the “superiority of the white race” as the primary factor for secession.

It doesn’t matter what the USA’s initial intentions were in bringing down the rebellion. The net is the confederacy formed to preserve slavery.

Read the source material. csa constitution, secession statements, Confederate leaders (especially VP) writings and quotes. There’s much more in contemporary newspapers. I hope you will. I’ve provided some of the information for you here but there is much more. Good luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be specific if you're going to help him. Go read Jefferson Davis' speech commemorating the birth of the Confederacy. It's pretty vile.


I posted the Texas secession document, the csa constitution and csa vp Stephens commentary.

They are all on this thread. No research required. Please read them.

Then follow up with a quick google of gts recommendation and other contemporary docs. It’s so much easier than going to Madison Memorial Library to write term papers in the day.

I don’t even care if it changes your mind. Please read the sources. They will stay with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-26-2020 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JacksonHall Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,132
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 9
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #212
RE: From Jonathan Alger
Slavery was an American issue not a southern issue. Let's stop beating down men who made a stand to defend their home states in a war that cost 600,000 lives and point to the real cowards that failed to deal with the issue - the founding politicians including James Madison. Which is why I seriously said don't cherry pick. If your going to judge and rewrite people's names out of our of history because slavery happened to be something they were dealing with at the time of their lifespan, then go all the way. Rename the university.
Since you're so into research, read this:

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstan...d-slavery/
06-27-2020 06:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #213
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-27-2020 06:51 AM)JacksonHall Wrote:  Slavery was an American issue not a southern issue. Let's stop beating down men who made a stand to defend their home states in a war that cost 600,000 lives and point to the real cowards that failed to deal with the issue - the founding politicians including James Madison. Which is why I seriously said don't cherry pick. If your going to judge and rewrite people's names out of our of history because slavery happened to be something they were dealing with at the time of their lifespan, then go all the way. Rename the university.
Since you're so into research, read this:

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstan...d-slavery/

Thanks. I read your article. In fact, I visited the Tredegar Iron Works just before the Corona shut us all down.

- This is not source material. It is analysis.
- while I understand that other characters in history made mistakes, the focus of this discussion is on the honoring of confederate rebels. Let's focus on one thing at a time.
- I conceded earlier that there were/are racists all over the country.
- I will concede now that enslaved labor was a part of the national economy.
- I do not believe any of that justifies glorifying slavery, the subjugation and denigration of African-Americans or the people who became traitors to the USA with statues, buildings, roads or any other public honor.
- I do not want to write Ashby, Jackson, Maury or any confederate leader out of history. I firmly believe we should be teaching the history of the horrors of slavery and the people who started a war to not only protect it but spread it.

I hope you’ve had the opportunity to read the material I referenced and previously posted. I look forward to your views on the source material posted below.

Repeated here for your convenience:

VP Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech praising the new confederate constitution:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."


Texas secession declaration:
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that [of] a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons--We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

Some additional source material.
While the confederate constitution is a near copy of the US constitution, there are notable discrepancies primarily:

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

I hope I have made your research easier for you JH. I hope P and bcp will take the time to read this all as well. I’ve provided my thoughts on your research on secondary historical analysis.

Please provide your comments on the historical sources above.
06-27-2020 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Purple Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,279
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 183
I Root For: JMU
Location: Earth
Post: #214
RE: From Jonathan Alger
I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened. I'm not sure if you read any of the material I provided, but it is filled with FACTS about the real history.

You believe that the South went to war over slavery, yet Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, a promise he kept. So, why would the South secede and go to war over nothing if slavery was indeed the cause of the war? They wouldn't. They didn't!

Honest Abe: “I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them,” Lincoln's first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

Lincoln also promised to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which returned runaway slaves to their owners.

Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter. Was Sumter a slave-trading post? No. It's mission was to collect taxes (tariffs and duties).

Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War and not over slavery. It was to continue to rape the South economically to benefit the North. The South paid 80% of the taxes and received little of the benefit. Without 80% of its tax revenue, the US government would have been crippled. Even though Lincoln's advisors advised against going to war with the South, Lincoln believed he had no choice. He had lots of choices, but none nearly as good as the continued raping of the South. THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Lincoln didn't care about slaves. He cared about money. He would be called a racist today. He was NOT "The Great Emancipator!"
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2020 09:13 PM by Purple.)
06-27-2020 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Centdukesfan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,499
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Dukes, bud
Location:
Post: #215
From Jonathan Alger
Princeton changes the name of their Woodrow Wilson school of public policy
06-28-2020 07:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Longhorn Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,394
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 97
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #216
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-27-2020 05:22 PM)Purple Wrote:  I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened.
Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter.

WTF? 03-lmfao

OMG

Seriously P, put down the sauce. You’re embarrassing yourself.
06-28-2020 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #217
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-27-2020 05:22 PM)Purple Wrote:  I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened. I'm not sure if you read any of the material I provided, but it is filled with FACTS about the real history.

You believe that the South went to war over slavery, yet Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, a promise he kept. So, why would the South secede and go to war over nothing if slavery was indeed the cause of the war? They wouldn't. They didn't!

Honest Abe: “I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them,” Lincoln's first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

Lincoln also promised to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which returned runaway slaves to their owners.

Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter. Was Sumter a slave-trading post? No. It's mission was to collect taxes (tariffs and duties).

Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War and not over slavery. It was to continue to rape the South economically to benefit the North. The South paid 80% of the taxes and received little of the benefit. Without 80% of its tax revenue, the US government would have been crippled. Even though Lincoln's advisors advised against going to war with the South, Lincoln believed he had no choice. He had lots of choices, but none nearly as good as the continued raping of the South. THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Lincoln didn't care about slaves. He cared about money. He would be called a racist today. He was NOT "The Great Emancipator!"

Purple – The south seceded and started the civil war to protect and extend slavery.

I could go through your historical analysis references and refute each one with facts from historical source documents. Primary historical source documents do not change what happened, they are what happened. These documents were written by the actual confederate leaders. Not by Mr. DeLorenzo, an economist. He’s one of the first if not the first to spread the lies about the south paying 80% of the tariffs. Check the historical records for the late 1850s and you will find that the port of NY paid about 2/3s of the total tariffs. Boston was a distant second and New Orleans an even more distant 3rd. When called out on this DiLorenzo changed his tune, but it was too late. The lie was out and spreading.

For your reference:
Primary sources include documents or artifacts created by a witness to or participant in an event. They can be firsthand testimony or evidence created during the time period that you are studying.

Primary sources may include diaries, letters, interviews, oral histories, photographs, newspaper articles, government documents, poems, novels, plays, and music. The collection and analysis of primary sources is central to historical research.
These are used as footnotes in reputable histories.

Secondary sources analyze a scholarly question and often use primary sources as evidence.

The information you referenced is at best tertiary sourced and really analysis, not source.

JH has a history degree. Maybe he can explain the difference to you offline.

It’s like cable “news”. Very little of it is news. The vast majority is opinion. For example, Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson represent two sides of the political spectrum. Both will present a small piece of news and then provide a great deal of opinion. So much so, that both of them have argued in court that what they say should not be considered news.

You have read the historical equivalent of Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson and taken it to be true. I’m sorry, it’s not.

I will provide you with factual rebuttals for a few of your neo-confederate apologist statements. I hope you take the time to learn the difference.

The most easily disproved statement you made was concerning Fort Sumter. It was US troops who were fired upon by confederates. Not US troops firing on Fort Sumter. Yes, confederates fired the first shots and without the courtesy of a declaration of war, started a war with the United States. Just like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

Fort Sumter was built to protect the Charleston harbor. As of 1861, it was not completed and manned by a very small detachment. At times one soldier. It was not, and is wholly unsuited to be a tariff collection site. Tariffs were collected at the port itself. Fort Sumter is an island way out in the harbor.

You are right that Lincoln committed to keeping slavery where it already existed. His platform was to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories. The confederates decided to define that as their primary cause showing how committed they were to the continuation and spread of the evil. The words that came directly from the confederates themselves make it abundantly clear that slavery and white supremacy was their main issue.

Your time lines need to be revisited. Seven confederate states had already seceded by the time Lincoln was inaugurated. They didn’t even give him time to do anything. And then South Carolina started the war as shown above, forcing the hand of 4 other states.

Much of your reference comes from someone you call David John Motta. I can only assume you mean David John Moratta. He is a financial advisor and not a trained historian.

Moratta references (the only reference I can see) “Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffe” (sic - Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler) who are in fact economists. Their work is about civil wars in general and I do not see a reference to the American civil war specifically. I read their paper in an economics journal. Then I read the reviews from other economists and true historians. It was not well received by either community.

You have been duped by Jim Crow and neo-confederate writers (like DeLorenzo and Moratta - both writing 125+ years after the fact) who have fed you a line of BS. I’m sorry that happened.

I hope that one day you look back on your support of honoring people who said:
“…upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition…”
And
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

it makes me sad that anyone, but particularly someone educated at JMU holds these views and is so unwilling to do the most rudimentary research to support their position. I hope someday the lightbulb goes off for you and you have a change of heart.

You have clearly stated who you are and what you believe. I hope some day upon reflection, you can see your way clear to change. Good luck.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2020 03:28 PM by Rockville Duke.)
06-28-2020 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #218
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-26-2020 09:31 PM)Purple Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 03:06 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Here you go Rockville:

[Image: slide-4_orig.jpg]

From:
Lanier Middle School History
http://lanierush.weebly.com/causes-of-th...l-war.html

Good job, bcp! Nice find. I couldn't have said it better. I am amazed and proud to know that middle schoolers are being taught the right history.

Thanks bcp - for in fact showing middle schoolers are being taught the "right" history.

What you conveniently left out of your post of an unfortunately ordered rubric for 12 year olds was the lesson posted directly above it:

"The primary catalyst for secession was slavery, especially Southern political leaders' resistance to attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Another explanation for secession, and the subsequent formation of the Confederacy, was white Southern nationalism. The primary reason for the North to reject secession was to preserve the Union, a cause based on American nationalism."

Thanks for providing the link to make it so easy to do some research and find this. This supports my arguments very well.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2020 12:32 PM by Rockville Duke.)
06-28-2020 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bulldogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,559
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 20
I Root For: JMU
Location: Hawaii
Post: #219
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-28-2020 12:09 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 05:22 PM)Purple Wrote:  I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened. I'm not sure if you read any of the material I provided, but it is filled with FACTS about the real history.

You believe that the South went to war over slavery, yet Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, a promise he kept. So, why would the South secede and go to war over nothing if slavery was indeed the cause of the war? They wouldn't. They didn't!

Honest Abe: “I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them,” Lincoln's first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

Lincoln also promised to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which returned runaway slaves to their owners.

Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter. Was Sumter a slave-trading post? No. It's mission was to collect taxes (tariffs and duties).

Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War and not over slavery. It was to continue to rape the South economically to benefit the North. The South paid 80% of the taxes and received little of the benefit. Without 80% of its tax revenue, the US government would have been crippled. Even though Lincoln's advisors advised against going to war with the South, Lincoln believed he had no choice. He had lots of choices, but none nearly as good as the continued raping of the South. THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Lincoln didn't care about slaves. He cared about money. He would be called a racist today. He was NOT "The Great Emancipator!"

Purple – The south seceded and started the civil war to protect and extend slavery.

I could go through your historical analysis references and refute each one with facts from historical source documents. Primary historical source documents do not change what happened, they are what happened. These documents were written by the actual confederate leaders. Not by Mr. DeLorenzo, an economist. He’s one of the first if not the first to spread the lies about the south paying 80% of the tariffs. Check the historical records for the late 1850s and you will find that the port of NY paid about 2/3s of the total tariffs. Boston was a distant second and New Orleans an even more distant 3rd. When called out on this DiLorenzo changed his tune, but it was too late. The lie was out and spreading.

For your reference:
Primary sources include documents or artifacts created by a witness to or participant in an event. They can be firsthand testimony or evidence created during the time period that you are studying.

Primary sources may include diaries, letters, interviews, oral histories, photographs, newspaper articles, government documents, poems, novels, plays, and music. The collection and analysis of primary sources is central to historical research.
These are used as footnotes in reputable histories.

Secondary sources analyze a scholarly question and often use primary sources as evidence.

The information you referenced is at best tertiary sourced and really analysis, not source.

JH has a history degree. Maybe he can explain the difference to you offline.


I'm not sure where you get the perception that only people with history degrees are qualified to comment on history, but that is like saying only professional truck drivers should be allowed to drive.


Quote:The most easily disproved statement you made was concerning Fort Sumter. It was US troops who were fired upon by confederates. Not US troops firing on Fort Sumter.

Yes, poor choice of words by me. What I meant was that the it was the North that invaded the South in the Battle of Fort Sumter. The North was the aggressor, Lincoln determined to resupply his starving troops at Sumter, who he ordered to stay in place. Lincoln had abandoned all other formerly federal installations in the South except Florida's Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. South Carolina ordered Anderson to leave, but he refused, having been ordered to stay.

I believe it was a mistake for the South to fire on Sumter. They could have waited a few days and starved Anderson out or forced Lincoln to fire the oh-so-important first shot.

The South (or actually the state militia of South Carolina) fired the FIRST shot, but Major Anderson, commanding the Union troops at Sumter, returned plenty of fire.

Quote:Fort Sumter was built to protect the Charleston harbor. As of 1861, it was not completed and manned by a very small detachment. At times one soldier. It was not, and is wholly unsuited to be a tariff collection site. Tariffs were collected at the port itself. Fort Sumter is an island way out in the harbor.

Sumter was built to protect Charleston Harbor, but its purpose by the mid-1850s was protection of the tariff-collection operation in Charleston.

Quote:You are right that Lincoln committed to keeping slavery where it already existed.

And, yet you ignore this. Please answer the question I asked earlier. Lincoln had promised to not interfere in slavery in the South. So, please tell me why the South seceded. You insist that slavery was the cause, yet Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, and he kept his promise.

Quote:it makes me sad that anyone, but particularly someone educated at JMU holds these views and is so unwilling to do the most rudimentary research to support their position. I hope someday the lightbulb goes off for you and you have a change of heart.

You have clearly stated who you are and what you believe. I hope some day upon reflection, you can see your way clear to change. Good luck.

Likewise.
06-28-2020 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rockville Duke Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 135
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Rockville, MD
Post: #220
RE: From Jonathan Alger
(06-28-2020 07:32 PM)bulldogg Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 12:09 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 05:22 PM)Purple Wrote:  I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened. I'm not sure if you read any of the material I provided, but it is filled with FACTS about the real history.

You believe that the South went to war over slavery, yet Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, a promise he kept. So, why would the South secede and go to war over nothing if slavery was indeed the cause of the war? They wouldn't. They didn't!

Honest Abe: “I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them,” Lincoln's first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

Lincoln also promised to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which returned runaway slaves to their owners.

Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter. Was Sumter a slave-trading post? No. It's mission was to collect taxes (tariffs and duties).

Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War and not over slavery. It was to continue to rape the South economically to benefit the North. The South paid 80% of the taxes and received little of the benefit. Without 80% of its tax revenue, the US government would have been crippled. Even though Lincoln's advisors advised against going to war with the South, Lincoln believed he had no choice. He had lots of choices, but none nearly as good as the continued raping of the South. THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Lincoln didn't care about slaves. He cared about money. He would be called a racist today. He was NOT "The Great Emancipator!"

Purple – The south seceded and started the civil war to protect and extend slavery.

I could go through your historical analysis references and refute each one with facts from historical source documents. Primary historical source documents do not change what happened, they are what happened. These documents were written by the actual confederate leaders. Not by Mr. DeLorenzo, an economist. He’s one of the first if not the first to spread the lies about the south paying 80% of the tariffs. Check the historical records for the late 1850s and you will find that the port of NY paid about 2/3s of the total tariffs. Boston was a distant second and New Orleans an even more distant 3rd. When called out on this DiLorenzo changed his tune, but it was too late. The lie was out and spreading.

For your reference:
Primary sources include documents or artifacts created by a witness to or participant in an event. They can be firsthand testimony or evidence created during the time period that you are studying.

Primary sources may include diaries, letters, interviews, oral histories, photographs, newspaper articles, government documents, poems, novels, plays, and music. The collection and analysis of primary sources is central to historical research.
These are used as footnotes in reputable histories.

Secondary sources analyze a scholarly question and often use primary sources as evidence.

The information you referenced is at best tertiary sourced and really analysis, not source.

JH has a history degree. Maybe he can explain the difference to you offline.


I'm not sure where you get the perception that only people with history degrees are qualified to comment on history, but that is like saying only professional truck drivers should be allowed to drive.


Quote:The most easily disproved statement you made was concerning Fort Sumter. It was US troops who were fired upon by confederates. Not US troops firing on Fort Sumter.

Yes, poor choice of words by me. What I meant was that the it was the North that invaded the South in the Battle of Fort Sumter. The North was the aggressor, Lincoln determined to resupply his starving troops at Sumter, who he ordered to stay in place. Lincoln had abandoned all other formerly federal installations in the South except Florida's Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. South Carolina ordered Anderson to leave, but he refused, having been ordered to stay.

I believe it was a mistake for the South to fire on Sumter. They could have waited a few days and starved Anderson out or forced Lincoln to fire the oh-so-important first shot.

The South (or actually the state militia of South Carolina) fired the FIRST shot, but Major Anderson, commanding the Union troops at Sumter, returned plenty of fire.

Quote:Fort Sumter was built to protect the Charleston harbor. As of 1861, it was not completed and manned by a very small detachment. At times one soldier. It was not, and is wholly unsuited to be a tariff collection site. Tariffs were collected at the port itself. Fort Sumter is an island way out in the harbor.

Sumter was built to protect Charleston Harbor, but its purpose by the mid-1850s was protection of the tariff-collection operation in Charleston.

Quote:You are right that Lincoln committed to keeping slavery where it already existed.

And, yet you ignore this. Please answer the question I asked earlier. Lincoln had promised to not interfere in slavery in the South. So, please tell me why the South seceded. You insist that slavery was the cause, yet Lincoln promised not to touch slavery, and he kept his promise.

Quote:it makes me sad that anyone, but particularly someone educated at JMU holds these views and is so unwilling to do the most rudimentary research to support their position. I hope someday the lightbulb goes off for you and you have a change of heart.

You have clearly stated who you are and what you believe. I hope some day upon reflection, you can see your way clear to change. Good luck.

Likewise.

Purple - not only did you selectively edit my post and ignore some pertinent parts...You forgot to log off your second account as Bulldog where your previous post was "I like this Purple guy"

Kinda like sending me to your website for reference material. It really should be humorous, but it's not.
06-28-2020 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.