• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Trump indicted: Espionage Act

Reports surfacing that Putin has fled Moscow for St. Petersburg and the President of Belarus has fled to Turkey with his family. Also rumors that Chechnya is about to enter the fray on the Russian side. **** is getting ugly in a hurry. Putin gonna have to withdraw from Ukraine or lose his country by the looks of it.
 
Reports surfacing that Putin has fled Moscow for St. Petersburg and the President of Belarus has fled to Turkey with his family. Also rumors that Chechnya is about to enter the fray on the Russian side. **** is getting ugly in a hurry. Putin gonna have to withdraw from Ukraine or lose his country by the looks of it.
You serious Clark? Hopefully it's not just scuttlebutt. Tough to believe anything these days.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Thank you for the debate and the laugh you gave me here at the end of it. It is the first time I have ever been called a desperate Yankee. Have a nice day as well you incorrigible Rebel.
If I understand this correctly, you, JMM, and I all had family that fought for the Confederacy, none of them to the best of my knowledge owned slaves, certainly mine didn't.
So, why did they sign up? It certainly wasn't to protect their human property, because they didn't have any. Was slavery a component of the Civil War, of course it was, but I'm not convinced it was the rallying call for the majority that participated in the campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMM
If I understand this correctly, you, JMM, and I all had family that fought for the Confederacy, none of them to the best of my knowledge owned slaves, certainly mine didn't.
So, why did they sign up? It certainly wasn't to protect their human property, because they didn't have any. Was slavery a component of the Civil War, of course it was, but I'm not convinced it was the rallying call for the majority that participated in the campaign.
My great grand fathers and their dads were all farmers. They definitely were not plantation owners. Two were VA cavalry near Yorktown and two VA infantry near Charlottesville.

They all wrote how they were defending their land and fought for it as well as VA. No mention of slavery. It was also interesting to read that they would get time off to go work their crops. They'd report for action whenever they could. They also had several reports of being hospitalized for minor injuries. Definitely fortunate to not be KIA.
 
If I understand this correctly, you, JMM, and I all had family that fought for the Confederacy, none of them to the best of my knowledge owned slaves, certainly mine didn't.
So, why did they sign up? It certainly wasn't to protect their human property, because they didn't have any. Was slavery a component of the Civil War, of course it was, but I'm not convinced it was the rallying call for the majority that participated in the campaign.
Zona, I never made that assertion. Please reread my posts. I completely agree that the poor farm boy wasn't fighting for slavery. He was fighting because he thought he was protecting what little he had. It was the fools that put him there, as I keep saying. The politicians, the wealthy landowners and slaveholders...they are the ones I am convinced were very concerned about slavery.

It is one of the damn shames for me about the whole war. Those kids, most of them poor, like those Scots-Irish mountain people, slavery before the war crushed them. Free labor is going to keep wages down. Look at what unskilled labor coming in mass is doing to this country now. So they go fight a war that if they would have won, wouldn't have improved their lives one bit, most likely. We know losing it sure didn't.
 
Scary time. Jonathan is SPOT on as well. If you believe we live in a just Democracy, you are a Demoncrat.

“Everybody Needs to Back Off!”: The Media and Political Figures Continue to Ignore the Biden Corruption Scandal


This week, former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) went on MSNBC to issue a furious warning to everyone looking into Hunter Biden and the influence peddling scandal: “Everybody needs to back off!

Newly released evidence from the investigation indicates that McCaskill was not the only powerful figure issuing that warning. Two whistleblowers reportedly detailed highly disturbing actions from top officials to slow walk and undermine the investigation.

Many of us have already noted the absence of certain charges in the plea deal given to Hunter Biden. In addition to the lack of any charge as an unregistered foreign agent, there is no evidence that the Justice Department seriously investigated the influence-peddling efforts of the Biden family despite allegations of millions generated from foreign sources.

Now these whistleblowers are reportedly telling Congress that they were actively frustrated in their efforts to investigate as Merrick Garland was insisting that there was no interference or limitations.

This included preventing an effort to search a guest house of President Joe Biden. IRS official Gary Shapley allegedly recalled that Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf agreed that there was “more than enough probable cause for the physical search warrant there, but the question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze.”

Wolf allegedly said that they could never get approval for the search despite the sufficiency of the evidence.

Even more disturbing is the allegation that Delaware US Attorney David Weiss sought to bring charges against the 53-year-old in both the District of Columbia and Southern California last year and was denied both times.

That directly contradicts statements made to Congress by Attorney General Garland.

Democrats and pundits have repeatedly cited the fact that Weiss was a Trump appointee and thus the light plea bargain shows that there was no case to be made. However, these sources are suggesting that Weiss tried and was rebuffed in his effort to prosecute in two different jurisdictions.

There is also an allegation that Wolf gave Hunter’s legal team a “heads-up” that investigators were moving to search his Northern Virginia storage unit and that Wolf again objected to the effort to secure a search warrant.

The only way to establish the truth of any of this would be to call Weiss, Wolf, and others to Congress.

While such efforts are routinely refused by the Justice Department, these allegations (if true) would raise both potentially criminal and impeachable questions. That is an ample basis for Congress to use its oversight authority.

I recently wrote that Garland, by his own measures, has failed as Attorney General in restoring trust in his department. However, this is far more serious than allegations of negligence. It would constitute a knowing effort to delay and obstruct efforts to investigate the Biden family — and to mislead Congress.

The evidence also creates new problems for President Biden, who has repeatedly claimed as a presidential candidate and as president that he had no knowledge of any foreign dealings of his son.

Those statements were long ago proven patently false.

The laptop includes pictures and appointments of Hunter’s foreign business associates with Joe Biden. There is also a recording of Joe Biden discussing a Times report on Dec. 12, 2018, detailing Hunter’s dealings with Ye Jianming, the head of CEFC China Energy Company. He assures his son that “I think you’re clear” after lawyers worked on the New York Times before the story ran.

There is also a recording of his uncle James assuring Hunter that he and his father were going to arrange for “safe harbor” for him as his world began to collapse.

Now, there is a new contradiction. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) read from an alleged July 30, 2017 Whatsapp message from Hunter Biden to one of his Chinese associates, Henry Zhao, the director of Harvest Fund Management and Communist Party official. Zhao was funneling money to Hunter’s firm BHR Partners.

Hunter is quoted as writing:

“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
Again, the authenticity of this message has to be established. However, there remains a striking lack of curiosity among the Democratic members who have opposed every effort to investigate these allegations.

Even the recent disclosure of a trusted FBI source alleging a possible bribery scheme with a corrupt Ukrainian official has not reduced this opposition.

The lack of curiosity of Democrats in Congress is only matched by the media. A year after the New York Post broke the laptop story, I wrote a column marveling at the success of the Bidens in pulling off one of the neatest tricks in political history. I analogized it to how Houdini used to make his 10,000-pound elephant Jennie disappear on a stage in front of a live audience.

The key to the trick is that Houdini knew the audience wanted her to disappear. Jennie never left the stage but Houdini got the audience to invest in the trick by calling volunteers to the stage.

In the same way, the media wanted the Hunter Biden scandal to disappear — they still do. They are invested in the trick.

So, the Democrats and the media will continue to insist that there is a lack of evidence while opposing efforts to establish the evidence behind these allegations. After all, if there is an elephant behind this scandal, it is an indictment of their concerted efforts for over three years.

Of course, it still remains a challenge to hide an elephant if even one audience member goes looking. Polls show that the public overwhelmingly wants to pull back the curtain and see the elephant.
 

It is pretty amazing. Prigozhin has been lambasting Sergei Shoigu as a profiteer, using conflicts in Africa and now the war in Ukraine to enrich himself at the expense of the Wagner mercenaries and the Russian army. Prigozhin is almost certainly right by the way. The turn of events shows why private armies can be a dangerous thing. The incident also points out that a lot of people make a lot of money off war. As I said earlier, if war was not profitable, I seriously doubt the United States is involved in endless wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and would have been out of Afghanistan in 18 months.
 
My great grand fathers and their dads were all farmers. They definitely were not plantation owners. Two were VA cavalry near Yorktown and two VA infantry near Charlottesville.

They all wrote how they were defending their land and fought for it as well as VA. No mention of slavery. It was also interesting to read that they would get time off to go work their crops. They'd report for action whenever they could. They also had several reports of being hospitalized for minor injuries. Definitely fortunate to not be KIA.

The war was over slavery. The rank and file soldiers may have fought for other reasons but the reason the war started was slavery because that's what was important to those in power.
 
The war was over slavery. The rank and file soldiers may have fought for other reasons but the reason the war started was slavery because that's what was important to those in power.

I think you and Diver are confusing what the war was about (slavery) with what started the war (issues other than slavery). Those can be two different things and often are. Again, 17 states had slavery when the Civil War started, there was no legislation before Congress to end slavery, and Lincoln said repeatedly he was not going to end slavery in the states where it existed at the time he took office.
 
I only had one ancestor in America prior to the Civil War and they were in the north. Everybody else arrived in the 1890's from Italy, Sweden, and Germany.
 
I think you and Diver are confusing what the war was about (slavery) with what started the war (issues other than slavery). Those can be two different things and often are. Again, 17 states had slavery when the Civil War started, there was no legislation before Congress to end slavery, and Lincoln said repeatedly he was not going to end slavery in the states where it existed at the time he took office.
It seems like those wanting a simple explanation prefer "slavery" as the way to summarize the war; more detailed analysis provides multiple issues, especially economic ones.

After the war ended, in favor of the federalists, it seems unlikely that the historical message would be "we beat down state's rights and the concerns of Southern farm families".
 
I only had one ancestor in America prior to the Civil War and they were in the north. Everybody else arrived in the 1890's from Italy, Sweden, and Germany.
Yep. Same here. My ancestors arrived fleeing WWI.
 
Zona, I never made that assertion. Please reread my posts. I completely agree that the poor farm boy wasn't fighting for slavery. He was fighting because he thought he was protecting what little he had. It was the fools that put him there, as I keep saying. The politicians, the wealthy landowners and slaveholders...they are the ones I am convinced were very concerned about slavery.

It is one of the damn shames for me about the whole war. Those kids, most of them poor, like those Scots-Irish mountain people, slavery before the war crushed them. Free labor is going to keep wages down. Look at what unskilled labor coming in mass is doing to this country now. So they go fight a war that if they would have won, wouldn't have improved their lives one bit, most likely. We know losing it sure didn't.
The politicians and wealthy landowners are always the root cause in any conflict. I could be completely wrong about this, but what was the mindset of most in 1860 when it came to Blacks? I can remember comments made by adults as I grew up in the '50's that were pretty scurrilous, so I can't imagine the general population 100 years earlier were anymore enlightened. Were they right to have those opinions, of course not, but because they did, I doubt few Union soldiers were fighting to free them, just as I don't believe any Confederate soldiers were fighting to keep them. I've read a lot about the Civil War in my lifetime as kind of a hobby, the internet version of the past 20 years or so, changes the optics. The end of slavery was a byproduct of the war, not the initial cause, and not just my opinion, there's lots of documentation to show that. I suppose an argument could be made as to which version is actually true, but I'll give more credence to historical letters than op-eds. My Dad was first generation Italian born in this country and was considered a second class citizen growing up in the 20's and '30's, which of course wasn't right either, now being Italian is cool. Point being, you can't place 2023 values and apply them to 1930, and certainly not 1860.

I will agree that few benefit from war, my family from Pennsylvania didn't, and those that survived in North Carolina had a much harder life after the war.

Sorry, if I got a little off track, it's always the powerful that control things.

I ain't no fortunate son!
 
Last edited:
The politicians and wealthy landowners are always the root cause in any conflict. I could be completely wrong about this, but what was the mindset of most in 1860 when it came to Blacks? I can remember comments made by adults as I grew up in the '50's that were pretty scurrilous, so I can't imagine the general population 100 years earlier were anymore enlightened.

Yep. The Union signed up Irish immigrants literally as they came off the boat, a lot of whom did not speak English. Does anybody think they "signed up to fight slavery"?

Were they right to have those opinions, of course not, but because they did, I doubt few Union soldiers were fighting to free them, just as I don't believe any Confederate soldiers were fighting to keep them. I've read a lot about the Civil War in my lifetime as kind of a hobby, the internet version of the past 20 years or so, changes the optics. The end of slavery was a byproduct of the war, not the initial cause, and not just my opinion, there's lots of documentation to show that.

Truth.

I suppose an argument could be made as to which version is actually true, but I'll give more credence to historical letters than op-eds. \

100%. Contemporaneous statements, diaries and notes are much more convincing that a hypothesis developed years later and supported with carefully-selected evidence.

My Dad was first generation Italian born in this country and was considered a second class citizen growing up in the 20's and '30's, which of course wasn't right either, now being Italian is cool. Point being, you can't place 2023 values and apply them to 1930, and certainly not 1860.

Well, to be fair, Zona, Italians are a bit ... compromised. ;)

I will agree that few benefit from war, my family from Pennsylvania didn't, and those that survived in North Carolina had a much harder life after the war.

I ain't no fortunate son!

Whatcu talkin' 'bout, Willis?!? You were fortunate enough to get drafted and float along muddy Vietnamese rivers, wearing a uniform to make sure the Viet Cong knew who to shoot at!!
 
The politicians and wealthy landowners are always the root cause in any conflict. I could be completely wrong about this, but what was the mindset of most in 1860 when it came to Blacks? I can remember comments made by adults as I grew up in the '50's that were pretty scurrilous, so I can't imagine the general population 100 years earlier were anymore enlightened. Were they right to have those opinions, of course not, but because they did, I doubt few Union soldiers were fighting to free them, just as I don't believe any Confederate soldiers were fighting to keep them. I've read a lot about the Civil War in my lifetime as kind of a hobby, the internet version of the past 20 years or so, changes the optics. The end of slavery was a byproduct of the war, not the initial cause, and not just my opinion, there's lots of documentation to show that. I suppose an argument could be made as to which version is actually true, but I'll give more credence to historical letters than op-eds. My Dad was first generation Italian born in this country and was considered a second class citizen growing up in the 20's and '30's, which of course wasn't right either, now being Italian is cool. Point being, you can't place 2023 values and apply them to 1930, and certainly not 1860.

I will agree that few benefit from war, my family from Pennsylvania didn't, and those that survived in North Carolina had a much harder life after the war.

I ain't no fortunate son!
The issue with that is the fact that in the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a movement to make the Southern cause look more noble. In fact, I have read things to the idea that is where the term "The Cause" came from. So where we are today could be multiple different optics from what they were thinking during and just after the war.

I just do not believe that if the institution of slavery wasn't there that war gets fought. I will never believe that. It is the roots of what almost every other issue stemed from. Again, this from the people in charge, NOT the poor farm boy doing the fighting and dying.
 
Yep. The Union signed up Irish immigrants literally as they came off the boat, a lot of whom did not speak English. Does anybody think they "signed up to fight slavery"?



Trut
Whatcu talkin' 'bout, Willis?!? You were fortunate enough to get drafted and float along muddy Vietnamese rivers, wearing a uniform to make sure the Viet Cong knew who to shoot at!!

Not true, I enlisted before being drafted! I do admit to having visions at the time of being safely on a flat top instead of a swift boat.

















Whatcu talkin' 'bout, Willis?!? You were fortunate enough to get drafted and float along muddy Vietnamese rivers, wearing a uniform to make sure the Viet Cong knew who to shoot at!!
 
Not true, I enlisted before being drafted! I do admit to having visions at the time of being safely on a flat top instead of a swift boat.

Kudos, my man! Even better.

But you really need to listen to Gen. Tibs and Col. Flog for advice about military strategy.
 
I think you and Diver are confusing what the war was about (slavery) with what started the war (issues other than slavery). Those can be two different things and often are. Again, 17 states had slavery when the Civil War started, there was no legislation before Congress to end slavery, and Lincoln said repeatedly he was not going to end slavery in the states where it existed at the time he took office.

Lincoln wanted to preserve the country. Slavery was the main reason it was splitting. There may not have been legislation pending but it was certainly on the horizon.

Putting slavery down the list of reason was a sales pitch for each side. Most southerners didn't own slaves and wouldn't fight just to make sure wealthy plantation owners stayed wealthy. Northerners weren't going to give their lives to free black people.

Of course there were many reasons. It just bugs me to hear southerners dismiss slavery as a chief reason. It would be like dismissing Oil as a reason for any fighting in the middle east. Or that Ukraine is a corrupt ATM for many powerful people.
 
Lincoln wanted to preserve the country. Slavery was the main reason it was splitting. There may not have been legislation pending but it was certainly on the horizon.

Putting slavery down the list of reason was a sales pitch for each side. Most southerners didn't own slaves and wouldn't fight just to make sure wealthy plantation owners stayed wealthy. Northerners weren't going to give their lives to free black people.

Of course there were many reasons. It just bugs me to hear southerners dismiss slavery as a chief reason. It would be like dismissing Oil as a reason for any fighting in the middle east. Or that Ukraine is a corrupt ATM for many powerful people.
Do you have Southern ancestors who had nothing do with the slave trade or slaves in general but lost their ability to feed their family due to Union soldiers burning down their home places, destroying their crops and going to the extent of burning courthouses so that their heritage was also lost? Go **** yourself and your narrow minded approach to history. Soak it all in, just like with the **** we've been recently handed with respect to COVID and Biden Jr....Soak it all in and continue to spew it to the next generation.
 

It continues to this day, Zona. Yanks sell their homes for millions and are buying up property in VA left and right. If you don't have connections you can't even get decent home repairs because they've driven up prices exponentially. Definitely helps to know who you are working with. I have contractor friends who are raping the **** out of dumbass/obnoxious as **** yanks moving in, but for long standing families we get the regular prices.
 
Do you have Southern ancestors who had nothing do with the slave trade or slaves in general but lost their ability to feed their family due to Union soldiers burning down their home places, destroying their crops and going to the extent of burning courthouses so that their heritage was also lost? Go **** yourself and your narrow minded approach to history. Soak it all in, just like with the **** we've been recently handed with respect to COVID and Biden Jr....Soak it all in and continue to spew it to the next generation.
I guess all the people in Chambersburg, after their homes were burned by Confederate soldiers, and lost their ability to feed their families and so forth, don't count. I wonder about those Union soldiers in Andersonville or Belle Isle who died horrific deaths, I guess they don't matter. What a bunch of horseshit. How many damn times do you have to be told that the assertion is NOT being made that those farm boys were fighting for slavery. The powerful people who put them there and helped to cause it, for sure it was about slavery.
 
I guess all the people in Chambersburg, after their homes were burned by Confederate soldiers, and lost their ability to feed their families and so forth, don't count. I wonder about those Union soldiers in Andersonville or Belle Isle who died horrific deaths, I guess they don't matter. What a bunch of horseshit. How many damn times do you have to be told that the assertion is NOT being made that those farm boys were fighting for slavery. The powerful people who put them there and helped to cause it, for sure it was about slavery.
There was devastation on both sides of the Mason-Dixon, but the vast majority was in the South where little to no help came in rebuilding. Chambersburg is a bit of an outlier as it's as far north as the Confederacy ever made it. And while we all agree that slavery was a component of the war, it wasn't the sole reason that's being parroted today. There are hundreds if not thousands of pieces of literature about the war, and I don't claim to have read all of them, but I have read enough to form an opinion of what took place and why.
 
Top