Oh well....that BREXIT OUTRAGE!!! bus didn't last long.....
The Home Office has apologised after it mistakenly sent out up to a hundred letters to EU nationals living in the UK ordering them to leave the country or face deportation.
One of the letters was publicised on social media by a Finnish academic who believed she was about to be forced to leave, prompting the government to admit that it had sent out around a hundred letters to immigrants threatening them with deportation. It could not confirm how many went to EU nationals, but said that all recipients were from within the European Economic Area.
She will cling to grim death to the word "indirect". To be fair this does need to be fudged. For practical reasons that we benefit from, it has to be EU law applied according to ECJ judgments. But extraterritorial jurisdictions are a big problem that you can't airily wave away.
Jurisdiction is a lot like pregnancy, it's a binary state, the court has it or it doesn't have it.
(In)direct jurisdiction is like being a little bit pregnant.
That's not true at all. Indirect will have relevance in a tiny fraction of cases that direct does. Right now the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter on the vast bulk of UK law. An indirect influence situation after Brexit will be the tiny minority of cases where the contract/agreement was written under EU law. Indirect is far closer to no jurisdiction than it is to direct jurisdiction.
But the term used by government spinners this morning was direct jurisdiction.
I don't know what you are referring to. The paper itself says direct jurisdiction will end.
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
As a member we have a veto
Not under QMV
QMV was something that we promoted within the EU as part of the single market.
Pre bloc voting. I won't criticise people for not anticipating how that has developed. But when the situation changes you need to assess whether the current arrangements still work.
In this case they didn't - if there had been a reform to introduce double majorities (Eurozone and non-Eurozone) it could have been solved. In fact most of the issues with the EU could have been relatively easily fixed but because of Cameron's incompetence and the EU's inflexibility we have ended up leaving.
QMV is one of those things that has grown in significance over time. At first use it was probably fairly innocuous, but I am reminded of Henry IV ceding the purse strings to Parliament which in about 1400 was one thing, given largely the State equalled the royal household, funded from royal estates, but was another, and used to far more devastating effect in the 17th Century when warfare had become so much more involved and expensive and Charles I was over a barrel his ancestor had probably never remotely imagined.
Bottom line is govts have been giving away the effective voting rights of their citizens for decades, and did not seem particularly concerned about it, until the Sunderland result was announced early on June 24th last year.
Everyone's been much more interested in the subject since.
Oh well....that BREXIT OUTRAGE!!! bus didn't last long.....
The Home Office has apologised after it mistakenly sent out up to a hundred letters to EU nationals living in the UK ordering them to leave the country or face deportation.
One of the letters was publicised on social media by a Finnish academic who believed she was about to be forced to leave, prompting the government to admit that it had sent out around a hundred letters to immigrants threatening them with deportation. It could not confirm how many went to EU nationals, but said that all recipients were from within the European Economic Area.
Oh well....that BREXIT OUTRAGE!!! bus didn't last long.....
The Home Office has apologised after it mistakenly sent out up to a hundred letters to EU nationals living in the UK ordering them to leave the country or face deportation.
One of the letters was publicised on social media by a Finnish academic who believed she was about to be forced to leave, prompting the government to admit that it had sent out around a hundred letters to immigrants threatening them with deportation. It could not confirm how many went to EU nationals, but said that all recipients were from within the European Economic Area.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Oh well....that BREXIT OUTRAGE!!! bus didn't last long.....
The Home Office has apologised after it mistakenly sent out up to a hundred letters to EU nationals living in the UK ordering them to leave the country or face deportation.
One of the letters was publicised on social media by a Finnish academic who believed she was about to be forced to leave, prompting the government to admit that it had sent out around a hundred letters to immigrants threatening them with deportation. It could not confirm how many went to EU nationals, but said that all recipients were from within the European Economic Area.
Why is it everytime the government releases a paper on our exit from the EU Remainers pretend that there's some major climbdown or disaster going on?
You'll have to ask Dominic Raab, he started it.
How old are you? Five?
Plus David Davis promised us the row of the summer and I'm impatient.
In two days' time it will be the 375th anniversary of Charles raising his standard at Nottingham to mark the start of the Civil War.
Perhaps Davis is waiting for that?
If so he's associating with the worst imaginable omens - a stubborn Uitlander with no clue what he wants ganging up on a larger, wealthier and more powerful block to the south to show that he can levy taxes when and where he damn well pleases.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
The right to maintain and extend the institution of plantation slavery is basically it.
A keyword search finds 'tax' mentioned once and 'slave' 83 times.... Tax is mentioned by South Carolina in the context of complaining about how slaves are taxed.
Oh well....that BREXIT OUTRAGE!!! bus didn't last long.....
The Home Office has apologised after it mistakenly sent out up to a hundred letters to EU nationals living in the UK ordering them to leave the country or face deportation.
One of the letters was publicised on social media by a Finnish academic who believed she was about to be forced to leave, prompting the government to admit that it had sent out around a hundred letters to immigrants threatening them with deportation. It could not confirm how many went to EU nationals, but said that all recipients were from within the European Economic Area.
Stuff like this is why the Home Secretary’s job is traditionally the most insecure in the Cabinet.
I’d love to see the process by which these letters can be printed without a senior manager individually reviewing the case, printing the letter and signing it themselves.
Letters like this shouldn’t even be in the automated printing system in the first place, let alone be able to be sent in error. Mrs Rudd owes the people concerned a personal apology and should make a statement in the House of Commons immediately after the recess.
Well, having actually read the government's paper, it seems to be very sensible.
There's a lot of waffle in just 12 pages during which it repeats again and again platitudes that all law ultimately is domestic, the UK is subject to international law, there will need to be governmental level arbitration as there is with any international treaty and that individuals and organisations need legal recourse for the implementation of the treaties. The last is what this paper is nominally about but typically the "position" paper makes no specific proposals about for this could be achieved. The ECJ is referred to in the double negative - no treaties have used it before, the ECJ is not necessarily the solution etc.
Interesting - I don't personally think that's the case, more likely to be genuine incompetence, but it's actually an opinion I've heard from a lot of people in France. Definitely seems to be the prevailing view, that the UK is basically doing all it can to delay negotiations, backtrack on everything, and has no desire to actually brexit.
Why has Macron become so unpopular so quickly in France ?
Number of reasons I think. He was going on about being a jupiterian president, referring to the roman god, aloof and distant from petty daily politics. Yet he keeps contradicting and overriding his ministers and PM and it's giving the impression that the whole operation is a bit amateur. He's tried to get his wife an official role which has caused some backlash. Mostly though I think it's because he was never that popular in the first place - he did extremely well on a personal level to get elected but now that MLP is irrelevant, and Melenchon is the true opposition leader, the temporary anti-FN vote for him has fallen away.
Still I am surprised at how quickly he has fallen. Guess he shares more similarities with Trump than he would like to admit!
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
The right to maintain and extend the institution of plantation slavery is basically it.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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.
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
..."where the dispute concerns EU law", and it could be referred to UK courts where the dispute will concern UK law. Europhiles are deliberately obscuring the truth to play politics. They are pretending moving to the normal functioning of international law between sovereign countries is European courts have special power over the UK. It's not true.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Where an agreement has been made in EU law, obviously EU law and EU courts should govern it. Just as agreements and contracts made under American law or Japanese law would be ultimately arbitrated by American and Japanese courts.
That is absolutely not the case; which country's law governs a contract, and which country's courts should hear disputes, are two separate questions. It is not at all uncommon for the two not to coincide.
I only want to block one individual who effectively spams on here. It was a polite request and responses like this say more about the people making them than they do about me.
..."where the dispute concerns EU law", and it could be referred to UK courts where the dispute will concern UK law. Europhiles are deliberately obscuring the truth to play politics. They are pretending moving to the normal functioning of international law between sovereign countries is European courts have special power over the UK. It's not true.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Where an agreement has been made in EU law, obviously EU law and EU courts should govern it. Just as agreements and contracts made under American law or Japanese law would be ultimately arbitrated by American and Japanese courts.
That is absolutely not the case; which country's law governs a contract, and which country's courts should hear disputes, are two separate questions. It is not at all uncommon for the two not to coincide.
When I say "ultimately" I'm talking about the history of case law that ultimately informs it, and who made that case law. For example, if a UK court is interpreting an American contract, they would have to base their views on the precedent decisions of American courts. So an American court has ultimately arbitrated it.
But that's not what the EU is really about. If you go beyond the rhetoric to look at what the EU is, it's a large bureaucracy that primarily spends its money on agriculture subsidies and whose most important regulations are a broken monetary union.
First they came for the Gina Miller photographer, and I did not speak out - Because I was a Remainer
Then they were ashamed to be British because of the Irene Clennell case, and I did not speak out - Because I was a Remainer
Then the fake news came for the story of Dr Homberg from Finland, and I did not speak out - because I was a Remainer
Faux Outrageux is contagious, and can lead to involuntary blindness. Avoid carriers like the plague
What is fake about the Finnish academic? She received a deportation letter, and had to get lawyers and MP involved to get it withdrawn.
The faux outrageux was whipped up by the case being considered a result of "Brexit Britain" when it was, in fact, an administrative fuck up by an ardent remainer
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
I only want to block one individual who effectively spams on here. It was a polite request and responses like this say more about the people making them than they do about me.
You have to take the rough with the smooth sometimes. There is at least one poster here who I regard as an utter troll and I just ignore anything he posts even if it is in response to one of my comments.
The danger of plugins like Edmunds script is that you can wind up creating a little echo-chamber where you only view opinions you agree with. The other problem is what do you do when someone you have blocked makes comments about you that you find repellant or attributes things to you that you never said?
But that's not what the EU is really about. If you go beyond the rhetoric to look at what the EU is, it's a large bureaucracy that primarily spends its money on agriculture subsidies and whose most important regulations are a broken monetary union.
It's a relatively small bureaucracy that enables a continental scale single market of which we have been a prime mover.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Wasn't the Confederacy more to do with taxes?
No.
Read the states declarations of succession. It was about slavery.
If there are cases where joining the EU helps a country deal with its overwhelming chronic desire to, let's say, annex Austria and claim the Sudetenland, good for the EU, but it isn't what the EU is about or for, and it has no visible relevance to the UK. Furthermore correlation between the existence of the EU and the absence, to date, of WW3 by no means implies a causative link in either direction.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
Really ? How then do you account for the Southern States' own declared reasons for rebelling ?
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
..."where the dispute concerns EU law", and it could be referred to UK courts where the dispute will concern UK law. Europhiles are deliberately obscuring the truth to play politics. They are pretending moving to the normal functioning of international law between sovereign countries is European courts have special power over the UK. It's not true.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Where an agreement has been made in EU law, obviously EU law and EU courts should govern it. Just as agreements and contracts made under American law or Japanese law would be ultimately arbitrated by American and Japanese courts.
That is absolutely not the case; which country's law governs a contract, and which country's courts should hear disputes, are two separate questions. It is not at all uncommon for the two not to coincide.
When I say "ultimately" I'm talking about the history of case law that ultimately informs it, and who made that case law. For example, if a UK court is interpreting an American contract, they would have to base their views on the precedent decisions of American courts. So an American court has ultimately arbitrated it.
True up to a point (but not a great example, because US decisions have persuasive authority even as to English law, and v.v.), but not relevant. The live issue is the Daily Maily "take back control" one, and that is about jurisdiction. People will get excited about the ECJ telling our brave boys on the judicial bench what they cannot do, but not about the ultimate sources of any law on the basis of which English judges make decisions.
It is a hard border along some stretches and a soft border along other stretches. Just as the UK-EU border can be a soft border along the stretch with Northern Ireland and a hard border across ports to the continent.
I think you are mistaking an unfenced border for a soft border. Most borders the world over are unfenced, even between countries with very poor relations, because fencing a border is very expensive and not usually worth the cost. The Russian-Finnish border is almost wholly unfenced but is very much a hard border.
The US-Canadian border is indeed a hard border and is harder now than it once was. It used to be possible to cross just with a verbal declaration of citizenship (by Americans and Canadians) backed up with one's birth certificate if spot-checked. Now Americans and Canadians need passports to cross the border (bizarrely, as a Green Card holder I can cross the US/Canadian border with just that, although I always take and offer my passport as the agents like to have something they can stamp). Some, but not all, border states and provinces, offer "Enhanced Driver's Licenses" which show citizenship, and there is a "frequent-crosser" programme, Nexus, as well. These concessions are in lieu of passports, but you still have to apply for them and prove your eligibility.
The UK-Irish border is currently as soft as it gets. There are no customs checks (as there are on the Norway-Sweden border) and there are no ID checks on or in the vicinity of the land border (there are for those arriving by air or sea from the UK to the Republic of Ireland). UK and Irish citizens do not need to carry a passport or any form of ID to cross the land border. Notionally all third-country nationals do, but there's no actual enforcement mechanism for that.
How much of that do you expect to remain after Brexit? Currently the UK-Irish border is quite a lot softer than the US-Canadian border was before 9/11. After Brexit, I can't see it being softer than that pre-9/11 US-Canadian border and probably it will approach the current hardness of it, with the only major difference being (assuming the Ireland Act 1949 and its Irish equivalent remain) that UK and Irish citizens will retain the right to settle and work without restriction in each others' countries.
Just the fact that the border actually runs through built-up areas in a few places (I'm presuming that photo is from the border at Stanstead, Quebec and Derry Line, Vermont), doesn't mean it's not enforced there. The local residents have a few concessions: Canadians can enter the shared library through the US without inspection so long as they return directly to Canada on leaving, and the border patrols don't care about the buildings where the house is in one country and the back garden in another so long as the residents don't try to jump their garden fences. But there is very much a border patrol presence from both countries there and they do patrol and enforce the border.
If he had, he would probably have been shown the electronic sensors, aircraft surveillance and regular border patrols that operate along such remote parts of the border.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
Really ? How then do you account for the Southern States' own declared reasons for rebelling ?
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
Since the tariff in question wasn't passed until after secession, and could not have been passed without it, I can't see that your case stands up.
Moreover, of the 11 states that seceded, two cited it as a subsidiary issue. All cited slavery as a main one. As did Stephens. Or Davis, who advocated secession if there was an Abolitionist Congress in 1858.
History was not in this case written by the victors. The South genuinely believed in the rightness of slavery and were proud to think they were fighting to defend it. They made no secret of it.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
Really ? How then do you account for the Southern States' own declared reasons for rebelling ?
Fake 150 year old news.
Quite - though it might be more accurate to call it fake history. And there are those that still appear to believe the Lost Cause mythology.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Ii is indeed shocking that our Home Office is able to issue at least 100 letters to law-abiding residents threatening them with deportation. I wonder how many people have actually upped sticks and left our country in haste? And in any other walk of the life the CEO, Tory MP Amber Rudd, would have made a statement by now.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Ii is indeed shocking that our Home Office is able to issue at least 100 letters to law-abiding residents threatening them with deportation. I wonder how many people have actually upped sticks and left our country in haste? And in any other walk of the life the CEO, Tory MP Amber Rudd, would have made a statement by now.
It is a shocking error, and those who received the letter are entitled to have felt distressed. I just thank the Lord that Amber Rudd is a hardcore Remainer, else the site would have gone into meltdown, although to be fair that point seemed to be overlooked
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
So the Southern States seceded due to a tariff imposed after the Southern States had seceded and only because the secession of the Southern States ensured there were enough votes to pass the tariff?
When did the Confederacy develop their Tardis and why didn't they use it at other points in the conflict?
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Indeed we will have to get used to these deportations in Brexit Britain. The Home Office error wasn't the deportation without explanation or appeal, which they have every right to do and do all the time to non-EU citizens. The Home Office error was ignoring their targets' rights as EU citizens that will no longer apply after Brexit. That's the truth - maybe shocking to some but denied by many others here on PB.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Indeed we will have to get used to these deportations in Brexit Britain. The Home Office error wasn't the deportation without explanation or appeal, which they have every right to do and do all the time to non-EU citizens. The Home Office error was ignoring their targets' rights as EU citizens that will no longer apply after Brexit. That's the truth - maybe shocking to some but denied by many others here on PB.
The home office cant even deport convicted rapists, I wouldn't worry too much
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
Since the tariff in question wasn't passed until after secession, and could not have been passed without it, I can't see that your case stands up.
Moreover, of the 11 states that seceded, two cited it as a subsidiary issue. All cited slavery as a main one. As did Stephens. Or Davis, who advocated secession if there was an Abolitionist Congress in 1858.
History was not in this case written by the victors. The South genuinely believed in the rightness of slavery and were proud to think they were fighting to defend it. They made no secret of it.
The real fire lighter event was probably the US Mexican War and the acquisition of all those new territories that forced the issue of whether those new acquisitions and existing 'territories' would be 'slave' or 'non-slave' once they became states. Any remaining option for a status quo disappeared at that point.
I wonder if the Mexican government should offer to pay for Trumps wall if he is happy to build it along the pre-war line and give back California, Nevada, Texas et al?
I see Old Iron Pubes is in Redcar today. I do admire her fortitude in visiting a town where the majority of residents would dance on her grave given the chance. Redcar means Redcar.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Ii is indeed shocking that our Home Office is able to issue at least 100 letters to law-abiding residents threatening them with deportation. I wonder how many people have actually upped sticks and left our country in haste? And in any other walk of the life the CEO, Tory MP Amber Rudd, would have made a statement by now.
It is a shocking error, and those who received the letter are entitled to have felt distressed. I just thank the Lord that Amber Rudd is a hardcore Remainer, else the site would have gone into meltdown, although to be fair that point seemed to be overlooked
I'd refer to Stockholm syndrome but that would suggest that a current Leave supporter had succumbed to a nasty foreign phenomenon.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
So the Southern States seceded due to a tariff imposed after the Southern States had seceded and only because the secession of the Southern States ensured there were enough votes to pass the tariff?
When did the Confederacy develop their Tardis and why didn't they use it at other points in the conflict?
The other faintly amusing thing about this discussion is that there was indeed one contemporary American who did blame secession at least partly on the tariff question. He was a bloke called Abraham Lincoln, who appears not to have been terribly anxious to encourage awkward questions about the muddles and failures of his policies on slavery. When last I checked he was fairly prominent on the winning side, although I understand he died just before the ending of the conflict.
So if history really was rewritten by the victors - then the tariff would have featured more prominently as a cause.
Edited extra bit: someone sure does love giving me spam flags. I even got one for this link, which is just a free, short parody of the start of Fallout 4.
I can kind of see why posts about my books etc get flagged, but this is just a blog post. It's free comedy, if you want it. There's no sale, not even any adverts on the page.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Ii is indeed shocking that our Home Office is able to issue at least 100 letters to law-abiding residents threatening them with deportation. I wonder how many people have actually upped sticks and left our country in haste? And in any other walk of the life the CEO, Tory MP Amber Rudd, would have made a statement by now.
It is a shocking error, and those who received the letter are entitled to have felt distressed. I just thank the Lord that Amber Rudd is a hardcore Remainer, else the site would have gone into meltdown, although to be fair that point seemed to be overlooked
I'd refer to Stockholm syndrome but that would suggest that a current Leave supporter had succumbed to a nasty foreign phenomenon.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Indeed we will have to get used to these deportations in Brexit Britain. The Home Office error wasn't the deportation without explanation or appeal, which they have every right to do and do all the time to non-EU citizens. The Home Office error was ignoring their targets' rights as EU citizens that will no longer apply after Brexit. That's the truth - maybe shocking to some but denied by many others here on PB.
The home office cant even deport convicted rapists, I wouldn't worry too much
That's what I said downthread. People who are prepared to game the system are more likely to get leave to remain than people who just want to research travel in 17C England and are threatened with imprisonment before being deported. It's disingenuous to say this is faux outrage and has nothing to do with Brexit. It happens all the time and will happen a lot more now.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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.
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
The real fire lighter event was probably the US Mexican War and the acquisition of all those new territories that forced the issue of whether those new acquisitions and existing 'territories' would be 'slave' or 'non-slave' once they became states. Any remaining option for a status quo disappeared at that point.
I wonder if the Mexican government should offer to pay for Trumps wall if he is happy to build it along the pre-war line and give back California, Nevada, Texas et al?
That may have been a factor. It also of course led to a change in the mindset of many participants, the likes of Grant, Davis, etc who fought as officers and came to believe war was easy, quick and effective as a way of getting what they wanted.
But also try the Dred Scott case, which ripped up half a century of compromises on both sides and aroused huge passions on both sides.
The real fire lighter event was probably the US Mexican War and the acquisition of all those new territories that forced the issue of whether those new acquisitions and existing 'territories' would be 'slave' or 'non-slave' once they became states. Any remaining option for a status quo disappeared at that point.
I wonder if the Mexican government should offer to pay for Trumps wall if he is happy to build it along the pre-war line and give back California, Nevada, Texas et al?
Too late, Mexico's already made its first downpayment on current terms.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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.
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
They don't.
Most were pretty unhappy about secession, and especially unhappy at the way the wealthy locked up power. They were most unhappy of all at the way they were conscripted to fight but the owners of plantations with more than 10(?) slaves were exempted, or a tax could be paid to be released from the army. The phrase 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight' was popular.
Most of them did however support slavery, interestingly. They appear to have liked feeling superior to someone, and of course straightforward racism was a factor.
Home Office says it was wrong to threaten Finnish academic (and 30+ other people with deprtation and ;is looking into how things went wrong!'
Being on the front foot to suspect dastardly motives from people you don't like, jump to a conclusion then tell the world is a common trait between racist old men in the pub and Hardcore Remainers
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
Pardon? It’s the Breaking News of the BBC. 'Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in UK, saying they were liable for “detention”' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
Yes it was the main topic of discussion on here this morning, framed as an example of the type of sinister deportations we will have to get used to in Brexit Britain... the usual suspects were posting & tweeting their outrageux, leftie politicians were volunteering their services... then came the shocking truth!
Indeed we will have to get used to these deportations in Brexit Britain. The Home Office error wasn't the deportation without explanation or appeal, which they have every right to do and do all the time to non-EU citizens. The Home Office error was ignoring their targets' rights as EU citizens that will no longer apply after Brexit. That's the truth - maybe shocking to some but denied by many others here on PB.
The home office cant even deport convicted rapists, I wouldn't worry too much
That's what I said downthread. People who are prepared to game the system are more likely to get leave to remain than people who just want to research travel in 17C England and are threatened with imprisonment before being deported. It's disingenuous to say this is faux outrage and has nothing to do with Brexit. It happens all the time and will happen a lot more now.
If it happens all the time, how is it anything to do with Brexit?!
Dr Homberg sure seemed to raise awareness of her impending deportation, enough to have MPs lobbying for her, when she was never going to get deported in the first place, so hard to see how your point stands really,
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
Ah ok. The insinuation that caused the outrageux was that she was being deported because of Brexit, which was patently false.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
They don't.
Most were pretty unhappy about secession, and especially unhappy at the way the wealthy locked up power. They were most unhappy of all at the way they were conscripted to fight but the owners of plantations with more than 10(?) slaves were exempted, or a tax could be paid to be released from the army. The phrase 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight' was popular.
Most of them did however support slavery, interestingly. They appear to have liked feeling superior to someone, and of course straightforward racism was a factor.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
And if it had been some more elderly person worried about their status but without the intellectual capabilities that studying 17th century travel modes in England evidently requires, then they might have ended up being deported.
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
The real fire lighter event was probably the US Mexican War and the acquisition of all those new territories that forced the issue of whether those new acquisitions and existing 'territories' would be 'slave' or 'non-slave' once they became states. Any remaining option for a status quo disappeared at that point.
I wonder if the Mexican government should offer to pay for Trumps wall if he is happy to build it along the pre-war line and give back California, Nevada, Texas et al?
It's funny how the Texan rebellion against Mexico coincided with the Mexican government outlawing slavery.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
They don't.
Most were pretty unhappy about secession, and especially unhappy at the way the wealthy locked up power. They were most unhappy of all at the way they were conscripted to fight but the owners of plantations with more than 10(?) slaves were exempted, or a tax could be paid to be released from the army. The phrase 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight' was popular.
Most of them did however support slavery, interestingly. They appear to have liked feeling superior to someone, and of course straightforward racism was a factor.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
Well apart from West Virginia forming and seceding from the secessionist states.
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
They don't.
Most were pretty unhappy about secession, and especially unhappy at the way the wealthy locked up power. They were most unhappy of all at the way they were conscripted to fight but the owners of plantations with more than 10(?) slaves were exempted, or a tax could be paid to be released from the army. The phrase 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight' was popular.
Most of them did however support slavery, interestingly. They appear to have liked feeling superior to someone, and of course straightforward racism was a factor.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
Well apart from West Virginia forming and seceding from the secessionist states.
True, the border states had to pick sides, pretty near thing for Maryland which essentially sat on its hands. Odd to see the direction West Virginia has now travelled compared with its mother state.
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
I think nationalism could be considered a factor. Bear in mind, most Southerners saw their state as their country (which is why I am ambivalent about calling Lee a traitor). They didn't like secession but they liked being invaded even less.
Incidentally I was reading a comment that Lee is not comparable to Washington or Jefferson because Washington and Jefferson were not traitors. I was reminded of Harrington's comment:
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
The matter seems very pertinent for Washington and Lee college. Are there any markets on whether it will change its name?
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
Vice-President Stephens of the Confederacy would have agreed with you as well:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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.
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
Letters from Union soldiers are fascinating, I have no idea of the ratio but there is basically a mix of those who are fighting for the abstract concept of the Constitution and couldn't give two shits about slavery and those who see the evil of slavery as the sole and only point of the war, a chance to wipe the stain from the national . Most interesting are those who start ambivalent about slavery but through contact with Southern slaves and their conditions become zealous abolitionist converts.
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
And if it had been some more elderly person worried about their status but without the intellectual capabilities that studying 17th century travel modes in England evidently requires, then they might have ended up being deported.
Don't you think the Home Office would have realised they sent the letter in error under those circumstances then? The other 100 people wouldn't have either?
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
Do we know that Dr Homberg submitted the wrong paperwork? AFAIK the paperwork was fine but the UKBA decided that she didn't meet their criteria. Application for leave to remain certainly wasn't unnecessary for someone who wanted to secure their residency in the face of Brexit. The UKBA were entitled to reject her application but they should not have attempted to deport her as she is protected for the time being by her EU citizenship. So if she applies and is successful she has residency beyond Brexit and if she is refused she stays in limbo.
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Can't see him sitting on a horse for 19 hours directing a battle.
You will notice I carefully didn't say 'can't see him staying in the saddle for 19 hours'...
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
I think nationalism could be considered a factor. Bear in mind, most Southerners saw their state as their country (which is why I am ambivalent about calling Lee a traitor). They didn't like secession but they liked being invaded even less.
Incidentally I was reading a comment that Lee is not comparable to Washington or Jefferson because Washington and Jefferson were not traitors. I was reminded of Harrington's comment:
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
The matter seems very pertinent for Washington and Lee college. Are there any markets on whether it will change its name?
Lee is really interesting I think. He was offered command of the Union army and rejected it because he felt his loyalty, despite his opposition to secession, lay with his state first.
It seems strange when you visit Arlington national cemetery to think that was his family home before he hopped off south to join the Confederacy and it got confiscated
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Juncker of Orange is planning to land at Torbay in February 2019.
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Juncker of Orange is planning to land at Torbay in February 2019.
Didn't know there was a landing strip big enough for a private jet at Torbay.
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Another of those successful invasions of which there have been none since 1066
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
And if it had been some more elderly person worried about their status but without the intellectual capabilities that studying 17th century travel modes in England evidently requires, then they might have ended up being deported.
Don't you think the Home Office would have realised they sent the letter in error under those circumstances then? The other 100 people wouldn't have either?
If you get a Home Office letter telling you to leave the country, don't you think there's a chance that a law-abiding citizen who prefers to defer to authority might just comply?
Mr. Rawzer, depends whether you count 'invasions' that have popular support in the country (Sir Roger Mortimer's return would be one of that kind).
Its a bit like the 'written by the victors' meme from earlier I suspect - if they are successful they tend to be accepted into the narrative of the throne of a thousand years - Williams invasion involved ships, troops and battles cf Chaz 2. I reckon I can come up with half a dozen not counting Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Viking and Normans
I think contemporaneous sources are the only way to get a true sense of what the war was fought over. For the South at the level of the politicians, in my mind, the slavery issue was inseparable from the economic issues, deliberately overlaid with freedom and states' rights issues as a post hoc justification.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
They don't.
Most were pretty unhappy about secession, and especially unhappy at the way the wealthy locked up power. They were most unhappy of all at the way they were conscripted to fight but the owners of plantations with more than 10(?) slaves were exempted, or a tax could be paid to be released from the army. The phrase 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight' was popular.
Most of them did however support slavery, interestingly. They appear to have liked feeling superior to someone, and of course straightforward racism was a factor.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
Well apart from West Virginia forming and seceding from the secessionist states.
There were pockets of strong pro-Union sentiment across the south, most notably in Appalachia, especially in eastern Tennessee, which was effectively put under occupation by the Confederate States Army. Over 100,000 southerners served in the United States Army during the civil war.
OTOH there were also pockets of pro-Confederate, or at least anti-war sentiment in the north, including, interestingly, in northern Appalachia, which perhaps points to an Appalachian contrarian-ness as much as true to support for one side or the other.
The war was particularly unpopular in New York City, resulting in the draft riots there. There was also a township in upstate New York that "seceded" and declared itself part of the CSA although no-one seems to have taken this very seriously. It voted to "rejoin" the Union in 1946!
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Another of those successful invasions of which there have been none since 1066
It was a liberation not an invasion.
We needed help to be rid of those nasty Jacobites.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
I think nationalism could be considered a factor. Bear in mind, most Southerners saw their state as their country (which is why I am ambivalent about calling Lee a traitor). They didn't like secession but they liked being invaded even less.
Incidentally I was reading a comment that Lee is not comparable to Washington or Jefferson because Washington and Jefferson were not traitors. I was reminded of Harrington's comment:
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
The matter seems very pertinent for Washington and Lee college. Are there any markets on whether it will change its name?
That's why I used the example of Governor Niall Brown of Tennessee - he opposed slavery and opposed secession but fought for his state when the Union invaded.
But it is hard to tell right from wrong in a civil war. They only way to come out ahead us to support both sides
The war was particularly unpopular in New York City, resulting in the draft riots there. There was also a township in upstate New York that "seceded" and declared itself part of the CSA although no-one seems to have taken this very seriously. It voted to "rejoin" the Union in 1946!
Never heard of that before. Town Line, it would seem? What a really quite remarkably stupid and pointless thing to do.
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Juncker of Orange is planning to land at Torbay in February 2019.
Didn't know there was a landing strip big enough for a private jet at Torbay.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
I think nationalism could be considered a factor. Bear in mind, most Southerners saw their state as their country (which is why I am ambivalent about calling Lee a traitor). They didn't like secession but they liked being invaded even less.
Incidentally I was reading a comment that Lee is not comparable to Washington or Jefferson because Washington and Jefferson were not traitors. I was reminded of Harrington's comment:
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
The matter seems very pertinent for Washington and Lee college. Are there any markets on whether it will change its name?
Lee is really interesting I think. He was offered command of the Union army and rejected it because he felt his loyalty, despite his opposition to secession, lay with his state first.
It seems strange when you visit Arlington national cemetery to think that was his family home before he hopped off south to join the Confederacy and it got confiscated
As an aside, I note that expertise in 17th century England would be very useful right now. Working out how exactly the nation in the past split into two bitterly opposed factions, fought relentlessly for decades and was slowly reconciled would be valuable right now.
Are you suggesting we have another two or three decades of this nonsense until a Second Glorious Revolution ?
A Dutch upstart invades and conquers us?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
Another of those successful invasions of which there have been none since 1066
It was a liberation not an invasion.
We needed help to be rid of those nasty Jacobites.
invasions are always a liberation from someones point of view
Mr. Rawzer, depends whether you count 'invasions' that have popular support in the country (Sir Roger Mortimer's return would be one of that kind).
Its a bit like the 'written by the victors' meme from earlier I suspect - if they are successful they tend to be accepted into the narrative of the throne of a thousand years - Williams invasion involved ships, troops and battles cf Chaz 2. I reckon I can come up with half a dozen not counting Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Viking and Normans
i had to read that twice before I understood what it was saying. 'Bottles of Chiraz too' made sense but seemed very improbable.
Were they wrong to go down this route, or should they have maintained the roughly 11% of seats they had in the decision making process of the UK at the time? I would suggest they had no real veto, they knew it, and decided going their own way was best for them. I imagine the vast majority of their great grand children agree with them.
Indeed. By a vast majority they agree that being a member of the EU and Eurozone is a superior way for a European nation to defend its interests in the modern world than being tied to the last vestige of the British Empire that is the United Kingdom. Let's hope we have the wisdom to learn from their example.
That's not my point as you well know.
Extending my own point slightly, it could turn out that Irish independence from the UK in the 20th century is the biggest single factor in scuppering UK independence from the EU in the 21st century.
If we didn't have the Irish border to worry about, the EU would have much less leverage in negotiations, and the idea of a political neo-Commonwealth 'Anglosphere' would be much more credible.
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
There actually I must disagree. If it hadn't been for Brexit, she wouldn't have applied unnecessarily for leave to remain, wouldn't have put in the wrong paperwork, wouldn't have been rejected and wouldn't have been sent the letter by mistake.
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
And if it had been some more elderly person worried about their status but without the intellectual capabilities that studying 17th century travel modes in England evidently requires, then they might have ended up being deported.
Don't you think the Home Office would have realised they sent the letter in error under those circumstances then? The other 100 people wouldn't have either?
They sent the letter in error and we have confidence that they would realise it unprompted? Even a home office led by a hardcore Remainer would struggle surely.
Not sure. The south stayed pretty solid given almost the entire war was fought across their states and their economy was reduced to rubble (literally by Sherman and by the disappearance of vast numbers of their young men to the army and their labouring class upping sticks because they didnt much like staying around once they didnt have to).
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
I think nationalism could be considered a factor. Bear in mind, most Southerners saw their state as their country (which is why I am ambivalent about calling Lee a traitor). They didn't like secession but they liked being invaded even less.
Incidentally I was reading a comment that Lee is not comparable to Washington or Jefferson because Washington and Jefferson were not traitors. I was reminded of Harrington's comment:
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
The matter seems very pertinent for Washington and Lee college. Are there any markets on whether it will change its name?
Lee is really interesting I think. He was offered command of the Union army and rejected it because he felt his loyalty, despite his opposition to secession, lay with his state first.
It seems strange when you visit Arlington national cemetery to think that was his family home before he hopped off south to join the Confederacy and it got confiscated
There are things to admire about him I think - not least a couple of examples of truly supreme generalship (as well as at least one almighty screw up)
But yes thats why I am torn on the statue thing. The case, if there is one, to remove it is not because its Lee, its because it has been forced into becoming a symbol of something repulsive that is in the now rather than just a historical artefact.
Comments
The Home Office has apologised after it mistakenly sent out up to a hundred letters to EU nationals living in the UK ordering them to leave the country or face deportation.
One of the letters was publicised on social media by a Finnish academic who believed she was about to be forced to leave, prompting the government to admit that it had sent out around a hundred letters to immigrants threatening them with deportation. It could not confirm how many went to EU nationals, but said that all recipients were from within the European Economic Area.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/23/home-office-apologises-for-letters-threatening-to-deport-eu-nationals?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Bottom line is govts have been giving away the effective voting rights of their citizens for decades, and did not seem particularly concerned about it, until the Sunderland result was announced early on June 24th last year.
Everyone's been much more interested in the subject since.
What's the difference between a Home Office official and a moron?
One is somebody with an IQ of under fifty who is incapable of carrying out the simplest task correctly.
The other is a word from the Greek, frequently used to describe officials at the Home Office.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
The right to maintain and extend the institution of plantation slavery is basically it.
Perhaps Davis is waiting for that?
If so he's associating with the worst imaginable omens - a stubborn Uitlander with no clue what he wants ganging up on a larger, wealthier and more powerful block to the south to show that he can levy taxes when and where he damn well pleases.
And losing, of course...
Tax is mentioned by South Carolina in the context of complaining about how slaves are taxed.
I’d love to see the process by which these letters can be printed without a senior manager individually reviewing the case, printing the letter and signing it themselves.
Letters like this shouldn’t even be in the automated printing system in the first place, let alone be able to be sent in error. Mrs Rudd owes the people concerned a personal apology and should make a statement in the House of Commons immediately after the recess.
Still I am surprised at how quickly he has fallen. Guess he shares more similarities with Trump than he would like to admit!
Signs of recession?
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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.
Copy of the full speech is here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130822142313/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
While there may be underlying causes distinct from slavery - the shifting of economic power to the north, the growing centralisation of Federal power in Washington, maybe even the tax laws - I cannot think of a single historian who suggests the South's obsession with retaining slavery was not the primary and overwhelming cause of the war.
It would be like suggesting that Hitler was motivated by seeking better weather for his holiday home rather than by nationalistic and racial aggrandisement.
Edited because somebody removed my block quote for some reason
Then they were ashamed to be British because of the Irene Clennell case, and I did not speak out - Because I was a Remainer
Then the fake news came for the story of Dr Homberg from Finland, and I did not speak out - because I was a Remainer
Faux Outrageux is contagious, and can lead to involuntary blindness. Avoid carriers like the plague
Wiki talks about it in neutral terms here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
Let's just say that there are good people on both sides of the argument. But the victors in the Civil War (who were also the people who imposed the unfair Morrill Tariff on the South) will tell you that it had nothing to do with the War at all ... oh no definitely not. It was all to do with slavery and horrible Southern stuff.
History written by the victors again.
The danger of plugins like Edmunds script is that you can wind up creating a little echo-chamber where you only view opinions you agree with. The other problem is what do you do when someone you have blocked makes comments about you that you find repellant or attributes things to you that you never said?
https://twitter.com/FT/status/900309167684112384
The KLF have entered the building:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41022272
Read the states declarations of succession. It was about slavery.
Remember the UKIP candidate and the "Nazi Salute"?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/for-the-record/dwina-gibb-family-apology-6209529
How then do you account for the Southern States' own declared reasons for rebelling ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671
The US-Canadian border is indeed a hard border and is harder now than it once was. It used to be possible to cross just with a verbal declaration of citizenship (by Americans and Canadians) backed up with one's birth certificate if spot-checked. Now Americans and Canadians need passports to cross the border (bizarrely, as a Green Card holder I can cross the US/Canadian border with just that, although I always take and offer my passport as the agents like to have something they can stamp). Some, but not all, border states and provinces, offer "Enhanced Driver's Licenses" which show citizenship, and there is a "frequent-crosser" programme, Nexus, as well. These concessions are in lieu of passports, but you still have to apply for them and prove your eligibility.
The UK-Irish border is currently as soft as it gets. There are no customs checks (as there are on the Norway-Sweden border) and there are no ID checks on or in the vicinity of the land border (there are for those arriving by air or sea from the UK to the Republic of Ireland). UK and Irish citizens do not need to carry a passport or any form of ID to cross the land border. Notionally all third-country nationals do, but there's no actual enforcement mechanism for that.
How much of that do you expect to remain after Brexit? Currently the UK-Irish border is quite a lot softer than the US-Canadian border was before 9/11. After Brexit, I can't see it being softer than that pre-9/11 US-Canadian border and probably it will approach the current hardness of it, with the only major difference being (assuming the Ireland Act 1949 and its Irish equivalent remain) that UK and Irish citizens will retain the right to settle and work without restriction in each others' countries.
Just the fact that the border actually runs through built-up areas in a few places (I'm presuming that photo is from the border at Stanstead, Quebec and Derry Line, Vermont), doesn't mean it's not enforced there. The local residents have a few concessions: Canadians can enter the shared library through the US without inspection so long as they return directly to Canada on leaving, and the border patrols don't care about the buildings where the house is in one country and the back garden in another so long as the residents don't try to jump their garden fences. But there is very much a border patrol presence from both countries there and they do patrol and enforce the border. If he had, he would probably have been shown the electronic sensors, aircraft surveillance and regular border patrols that operate along such remote parts of the border.
Moreover, of the 11 states that seceded, two cited it as a subsidiary issue. All cited slavery as a main one. As did Stephens. Or Davis, who advocated secession if there was an Abolitionist Congress in 1858.
History was not in this case written by the victors. The South genuinely believed in the rightness of slavery and were proud to think they were fighting to defend it. They made no secret of it.
When did the Confederacy develop their Tardis and why didn't they use it at other points in the conflict?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/88420/irish-prime-minister-goads-theresa-may-over-us-canada
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rochdale-grooming-gang-jail-deported-13057964
I wonder if the Mexican government should offer to pay for Trumps wall if he is happy to build it along the pre-war line and give back California, Nevada, Texas et al?
When last I checked he was fairly prominent on the winning side, although I understand he died just before the ending of the conflict.
So if history really was rewritten by the victors - then the tariff would have featured more prominently as a cause.
Edited extra bit: someone sure does love giving me spam flags. I even got one for this link, which is just a free, short parody of the start of Fallout 4.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/fallout-4-diary-of-deceiver-part-1.html
I can kind of see why posts about my books etc get flagged, but this is just a blog post. It's free comedy, if you want it. There's no sale, not even any adverts on the page.
However, I think it quite likely that, at the foot soldier level, issues of states' rights (i.e. not being pushed around by the North) and duty to community probably played a far more significant motivating role than at the political level. I wonder if family letters from the period would support that.
https://twitter.com/davidluhnow/status/900332231469797377
But also try the Dred Scott case, which ripped up half a century of compromises on both sides and aroused huge passions on both sides.
https://twitter.com/DerenicByrd/status/899393114485309440
Most were pretty unhappy about secession, and especially unhappy at the way the wealthy locked up power. They were most unhappy of all at the way they were conscripted to fight but the owners of plantations with more than 10(?) slaves were exempted, or a tax could be paid to be released from the army. The phrase 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight' was popular.
Most of them did however support slavery, interestingly. They appear to have liked feeling superior to someone, and of course straightforward racism was a factor.
Dr Homberg sure seemed to raise awareness of her impending deportation, enough to have MPs lobbying for her, when she was never going to get deported in the first place, so hard to see how your point stands really,
All in all, it was nothing to do with Brexit, and trying to score points over it is as futile as the Gina Miller blacking up lies
And its "outrageux"
So although with hindsight it is a bit of a storm in a teacup, it clearly is linked to Brexit.
A devils brew of threats to their way of life probably permeated pretty deep
"Our homes, our firesides, our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake"
Incidentally I was reading a comment that Lee is not comparable to Washington or Jefferson because Washington and Jefferson were not traitors. I was reminded of Harrington's comment:
Treason doth never prosper - why, what's the reason?
If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.
The matter seems very pertinent for Washington and Lee college. Are there any markets on whether it will change its name?
Nick Clegg's got Dutch heritage, he could be the new William of Orange.
The DUP would support that.
You will notice I carefully didn't say 'can't see him staying in the saddle for 19 hours'...
It seems strange when you visit Arlington national cemetery to think that was his family home before he hopped off south to join the Confederacy and it got confiscated
OTOH there were also pockets of pro-Confederate, or at least anti-war sentiment in the north, including, interestingly, in northern Appalachia, which perhaps points to an Appalachian contrarian-ness as much as true to support for one side or the other.
The war was particularly unpopular in New York City, resulting in the draft riots there. There was also a township in upstate New York that "seceded" and declared itself part of the CSA although no-one seems to have taken this very seriously. It voted to "rejoin" the Union in 1946!
We needed help to be rid of those nasty Jacobites.
But it is hard to tell right from wrong in a civil war. They only way to come out ahead us to support both sides
Quite funny though.
What is fairly repulsive is the iconography centering on him, constructed after his death:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/22/the-day-white-virginia-stopped-admiring-gen-robert-e-lee-and-started-worshipping-him/
If we didn't have the Irish border to worry about, the EU would have much less leverage in negotiations, and the idea of a political neo-Commonwealth 'Anglosphere' would be much more credible.
But yes thats why I am torn on the statue thing. The case, if there is one, to remove it is not because its Lee, its because it has been forced into becoming a symbol of something repulsive that is in the now rather than just a historical artefact.