Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Pennsylvania The Keystone State

The Associated Press reports on a fascinating case. But I'm afraid their title is a bit misleading.

"Peake told (investigators) that he would kill to defend his country and he was stealing weapons to defend his country,"
Where do you think they got the idea he wanted to "overthrow the government?"

Please leave a comment.


  1. "Where do you think they got the idea he wanted to "overthrow the government?""

    Maybe they are saying that to defend the country, you have to overthrow the government. Glennbeck is obviously ghost writing for the AP.

  2. Actually, the NRA has been foisting the notion of insurrection since at least the late 70's.

  3. And those dastardly devils known as the founding fathers had been doing it since about 1770 or so. So, I guess the NRA is in good company there, unless you disagree with throwing off tyranny.

  4. Anon: One could just as easily argue the South was "throwing off tyranny" when they went to war to preserve their rights to enslave other human beings. Or that Hitler was "throwing off tyranny" when he and his brownshirts used mob violence to take power so they didn't have to hang out with certain religions.

    Sounds like the NRA...

  5. No, we did it when we went to war to preserve our right to be sovereign states.
    In TN, once SC seceded it was put to a referendum. Tennesseans voted overwhelmingly to remain in the Union. Once Lincoln (spit) called for troops, the vote went entirely the other way. We weren't willing to fight for slavery: we were willing to fight against coercion.

  6. TennBud: I'd ask you read the Confederate states' Declarations of Causes of Seceding States. I'll not cite all of them (because all of them are pretty similar), but instead quote from Mississippi:

    "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

    I'd also quote Alexander Stephens, VP of those traitorous Confederate States: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. "

  7. True enough, Jade, the South was throwing off the yoke of tyranny! Thank you for bringing it up.

    See, it was a war of economies. The South, with their tremendous plantations and cheap labor force could (and did) drive prices down worldwide, and the North, though also using slave labor in many places, had smaller farms, and in some cases tariffs based upon their port of exit (from the US). Destroying the South's economy, demanding that they pay an enormous tax in cash for slaves (and I firmly believe they were wrong to keep slaves, but then, so were the slave owners in the North) and other property was an economic hardship the South simply couldn't afford, and were not willing to put up with.

    It was tyranny on the part of the North to attempt to ruin the South's economy. Just like today with the "tax the rich" mantra that comes from the left. Jealousy is a terrible thing.

    As to the feelings on the "Negro" in that time period, look no further than Abraham Lincoln to see that he held rather racist views himself.

    From his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

    Let's not pretend that the overall feeling of the day was that everyone in the North was a perfect angel who abhorred slavery and the South was full of evil, backward rednecks who wanted to enslave balck people because they hated them.

    They simply wanted to continue their (economic and social) existence as it had been, and they wanted to be left alone.

  8. Anon's history is poor as is his reasoning.

    Basically, Anon's argument is that the South would be hurt economically if they couldn't continue to enslave people.

    Similarly, there are many thieves who will be hurt economically if they aren't permitted to steal.

    Similarly, there are many drug dealers who would be hurt economically if we don't allow them to produce and sell dope.

  9. And your reading comprehension is as poor as ... well, everything else you do. But, then we expect nothing less from you, braying Jade.

    The South, like it or not, was an economic force, because--in large part--they had slave labor. They could produce the same products as the North for less, and it drove prices down worldwide. Many in the North were losing ground, financially speaking, because of the South.

    Charging them a cash tax (when many of the plantation owners were cash-poor, because it was often reinvested to the business) would financially ruin them.

    The South wwas willing to fight to keep that from happening.

    It wasn't a war fought for the ideal of being able to continue to enslave people. It was a war fought over an already existing economy that was being threatened.

    I never said that slavery was a moral idea. You are the one making the rather outrageous comparisons to theft and drug dealing (only one of which is morally wrong, like slavery).

    So what else is new?

  10. Anon said, as if everyone thinks the founders were "good company." "And those dastardly devils known as the founding fathers had been doing it since about 1770 or so. So, I guess the NRA is in good company there, unless you disagree with throwing off tyranny."

    Actually, they'd be scorned today as misgynosts and racists. But, the pro-gun argument which relies on anachronistic writings cannot abide such ideas.

  11. Anon: You keep parroting the "lost cause" revisionism that seeks to pretend the war wasn't about slavery.

    The lost cause revisionism came about after the Civil War--it was developed to psychologically assuage Southerners.

    You really should read historians such as Gary Gallagher or Wm. C. Davis on this subject.

  12. No pretense, Jade, because it wan't about slavery. It was the economy, stupid!

    The "revision" you speak of came with the civil rights movement, where we painted the South as evil and out to enslave everyone, and began to ignore the financial aspect of the war.

    I'm not arguing that slavery was right, or that the South, whose economy depended upon it, was somehow morally superior for having slaves--only that the reason for the war was economic in nature, not morally based.

    Many wars are begun over something as simple as money.

    The South did not want their economy ruined. They were not out to take over the North, nor were they out to ruin the North. They wanted to be left alone.

    Lastly, Jade, what makes you think I haven't? In fact, since you are always wrong on everything else, it's only fitting that you are wrong here too. If you can read the 2A and miss its meaning entirely, I'm not surprised you could read something from Gallagher and completely misunderstand it as well. Go back to your crayons.

  13. "Actually, they'd be scorned today as misgynosts and racists."

    Well, don't forget to add animal cruelty and homophobic and probably a few other things that they simply did in their day, because that's what EVERYONE in their day did.

    Judging how they lived their lives in every aspect of their lives by today's standards is neither right nor justifiable.

    In three hundred years, people might look back at us and say things about the way we treated animals, or the environment or whatever "enlightened" thing that gets their rocks off.

    The only thing that they'll be able to say for sure is: That Jadegold fellow was certainly the stupidest being to have ever existed.

  14. "Anon: You keep parroting the "lost cause" revisionism that seeks to pretend the war wasn't about slavery.

    The lost cause revisionism came about after the Civil War--it was developed to psychologically assuage Southerners."

    Uh, yeah. Sure Jade. Whatever.