Monday, January 23, 2017

**** The Biggest Disingenuous Statement ****

The "new" ununited people of the United States.

Watching you (et al) on FOX NEWS, I'm wondering what's up with the frequent drum beat concerning our presently divided country – the nebulous, near constant hand-wringing? Historically, we "Americans" – whether as British colonial subjects, or as USA citizen-residents before the American Civil War, and certainly our post American Civil War brothers and sisters who guided us to present days are a divided people. We are now and always have been a right-center-left politically divided people, and some folks have been and are ready to fight.

Those 1770-era rebels (George Washington, Paul Revere, Daniel Morgan and the bands of insurgents they influenced and commanded) likely represented less than a 30% minority of then North American British colonial general population; whereas, more than 20% of these British colonists – the loyalists and Tories – remained supportive of King George, desiring continued allegiance to their roots and the British Crown. And the loyalist and Tories were treated so well by resident rebels during and following the American Revolution by life, liberty, and personal property seizures.  I guess drawn-quartered-and-hung or tar-and-feathers on loyalist humans is not cruel. Indeed, perhaps a majority of people living on present USA lands had no strong opinion on rebellion or British loyalty. These folks simply wanted to be left alone – to proceed with happiness, liberty, and a better life – concerned more in making an acceptable living and protecting their family and property.

In the immediate post Revolutionary War period, thousands of new rebels called “Shaysites” participated in an armed revolt called Shays' Rebellion, with intentions to overthrow unacceptable government, unfair taxation, and general bad conduct of a fledgling United States federal government. General Washington and other prominent New Englanders were called up to assist in putting down Daniel Shays' Rebellion.  Look it up.

Do this: Execute a Google search on “Whiskey Rebellion” – a significant 1791 armed taxation revolt eventually put down under the leadership of President George Washington.

Why was the first-term presidency of Thomas Jefferson decided in the U.S. House of Representatives? Seems there was a tiny bit of political division between Americans in that year 1800.

And in 1804, the Alexander Hamilton-Aaron Burr political factions were vastly united, were they not? An ongoing “civil conversation” decided by a single pistol shot in an illegal duel – where is this incorrect? A sitting Vice President of the United States Burr accused of murder – nothing to see, not a bit of political division discovered here.

The General Andrew Jackson presidency was certainly a period that marshaled USA political calm and unity. Ha! Native Americans might disagree.

Those years a decade or two before the American Civil War period presented citizens with strongly united leadership – vast unity – right! Then the election of President Lincoln and those many good and happy years in a “united USA” following 1860.  Move on, nothing to see here either.

Correct me:  We the USA people were uniformly united in the several years before and during the two world wars, Korea, Vietnam – and even the seemingly endless conflicts underway today. Please start telling the truth as it really is, and generally has been throughout colonial and U.S. American history. Perhaps the most remarkable USA general population characteristic is rather constant and strong division among our peoples. For crying out loud, confront untrue positions by such whining commentator opinion, the pseudo experts on FOX NEWS (and the unwatchable dishonest major media) who claim present USA political division is somehow an unknown anomaly. Bret, perhaps you would be so kind to pass these truths to some of your more vocal, untruthful, irresponsible, and demonstrably misleading colleagues (that teller of liberal tales Shepard Smith to name just one).

Best regards,

Dave Paul
German Flatts, Herkimer County, NY  

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Just how much of a donkey's behind can
Chucky Schumer be anyway?

Charles E. "Chuck" Schumer, 
the liberal Democrat U.S. Senator from New York.

Chuck Schumer's rambling words could make any self-respecting donkey regurgitate.  Wondering if anyone else noted the grand irony exposed in Schumer's bit part at President Trump's First Inauguration Ceremony by invoking words in the private letter of Major Sullivan Ballou, late of the 2nd Infantry Regiment of Rhode Island Volunteers, as Major Ballou wrote his beloved wife Sarah. The hero Major Ballou was mortally-wounded-in-action on July 21, 1861 a few days after penning his heartfelt and patriotic personal letter, a casualty during the American Civil War First Battle of Bull Run (a/k/a the Battle of First Manassas).

Like many liberal Democrats during the American Civil War years, those period low-life seditious war-resistor northern Democrats forever properly labeled "Copperheads" wanted the union restored to pre-war status under historic slavery rights.  Seems liberalism and slavery comport as well then as now.  Charles Schumer's liberal political bent agrees well with Civil War era liberal Democrats -- The Copperheads.

Leftist Copperheads encouraged Union soldier desertions, formed conspiracies, took blood money from southern loyalist sympathizers, and openly resisted the draft -- collectively, these acts should have led to sedition convictions.  Mr. Schumer's liberal political views would almost certainly be rejected by the war hero Major Sullivan Ballou. This leftist New York senator is now and most certainly would have been unfit to wipe the sweat from the patriot Major Sullivan Ballou's brow.


Click Copperheads to better understand Civil War liberal Democrat ideas and purpose.

Click Major Ballou  to learn more of the Civil War hero Major Sullivan Ballou.