The Hillary Thread II

[Forty Two]

Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say
Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.
Friday night, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) called on federal officials “to conduct a full and complete investigation of this incident and undertake remedies to ensure that this never happens again.”
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/rus ... spartandhp

The Russians are hacking everything! Then again maybe it's more reasonable that that code has been bought and sold on the Darknet. I won't be surprised to hear of more "Russian" hacking in the future.

I think this came from the Washington Post and has already been retracted.

[Forty Two]

This just in! It was all about hate and racism after all
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/us/lo ... index.html

LOL - wow can that article be any more partisan propaganda?

First of all ,the idea that the Civil War was about "states rights" and not specifically slavery is not a controversial view. It's accurate.

The bit where the writer says that back in the 1860s the American people were being asked to believe that what had just happened didn't happen is the usual myth that the people of the Union states were non-racist egalitarians who were horrified by slavery. The reality was that most everyone back then was very racist, and the opposition to slavery was not based on egalitarianism or racial equality, but on economics. Slavery undercut wages.

Lincoln, for example, would not have gone to war to destroy slavery. He said “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery" and “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” . And, it was a common view, even in the north, that whites were superior and should be superior - “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

The notion of why slavery should not be expanded was expressed in Lincoln's statement - “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

The article goes on to say that the articles of secession go on to say slavery was "the" cause of secession. That's just flat out not true. The Articles of Secession and related documents of the southern states certainly refer to slavery, but they never say that slavery was the cause. And, other issues -- federal failure to provide defense to the southern states, northern states domination because of manufacturing and industry in the north, and other issues of states rights are mentioned. Slavery is, of course mentioned, in the context of, say, failure of the northern states to enforce the fugiive slave act making the "compact" unviable, but in all cases the Articles of Secession state multiple reasons, not just slavery. Slavery is one of the examples. I'm not suggesting a minor one -- it was a concern because one of the things the south was nervous about were the abolitionists in the Republican Party, and they thought that abolition was a way in which their states right to govern themselves would be infringed.

The antebellum days had a much weaker federal government and much more independence among the states. And, the southern states were not keen on ceding power to Washington DC. This is not some "myth" as the article seeks to portray.

The "historian" quoted in the article misstates what Trump said, and takes the statements out of context, and calls them bullhorn racist comments. Like when he claims Trump called "Mexican immigrants rapists." He did not. That's a misstatement of what Trump said. Trump said that Mexico is sending rapists and other criminals, referring to illegal aliens crossing the border (not "Mexican immigrants"). The fact is, there are a lot of criminals crossing the border from Mexico, and Trump's assertion is that Mexico was "sending" them. He's referring to Mexico dumping criminals at the border. One may argue either way as to the extent of that problem, but the fact is that Trump never said Mexican immigrants were rapists.

This whole article is just designed to smear people who aren't towing the writer's approved party line as racists. Trump voters are racists. If you're a Trump voter, you're a racist, and even if you're not consciously racist, if you support Trump, you're a racist. So, don't support Trump so people won't think you're a racist.

[Brian Peacock]

So the civil war was not about slavery?

[Forty Two]

So the civil war was not about slavery?

Partly, obviously. But, the historical debate is whether it was chiefly about slavery, or about other issues. Frankly, if slavery were the only issue, I think the history is clear that there wouldn't have been a civil war. This was not a situation where the union states were trying to abolish slavery and the southern states said "no way" and seceded. There were economic, social and political issues wrapped together leading up to secession. Slavery was certainly part of it, because the northern states sought to have new states be admitted as free states and the south wanted new states to be admitted as slave allowing states. And there were issues with the fugitive slave act, so slavery was a big part of the issues of the day.

The issue with the article is that it seeks to paint a picture of the war as clearly about slavery only as "the" reason for secession of the southern states, and that the "myth" was that after the war the southern racist slavers were trying to falsely say that the war was caused by other issues. Then they compare that "lost cause" myth with the Trump supporters today and draw a comparison: the trump supporters today are racists like the post-war southerners wanting to pretend that it wasn't all about slavery and racism.

[Brian Peacock]

What issues raised by the Southern States not related to, or impacted upon by slavery and the threat of its abolition? Did Southern slaves vote to remain slaves in support of their Southern masters? When you say the Civil War was 'partly' about slavery you neglect to acknowledge that it was 'in large part' and not merely some part, or some little part as implied.

It seems that many in the US still have some difficulty facing up to the legacy of slavery and its impact, which still plays out today in contemporary US culture and politics.

[Jason]

Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say
Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.
Friday night, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) called on federal officials “to conduct a full and complete investigation of this incident and undertake remedies to ensure that this never happens again.”
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/rus ... spartandhp

The Russians are hacking everything! Then again maybe it's more reasonable that that code has been bought and sold on the Darknet. I won't be surprised to hear of more "Russian" hacking in the future.

I think this came from the Washington Post and has already been retracted.

Facts force Washington Post to backtrack on report that Russia hacked US power grid
On Friday, Burlington Electric, a Vermont-based power company, raised an alarm after finding malware code on a company laptop. Referring to undisclosed officials, the Washington Post then ran a damning headline, saying that “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility” which posed a risk “to US electrical grid security.”

Yet it turns out that the laptop that was penetrated wasn’t even attached to the power network, according to a statement from Burlington Electric. “We detected suspicious internet traffic in a single Burlington Electric Department computer not connected to our organization’s grid systems,” the message reads.

No evidence of a Russian trace has been released either. Eventually, the Washington Post issued a correction to its article. “An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the US electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far,” the statement said. The headline, blatantly accusing “Russian hackers” of breaching the US power grid, remains, though.
https://www.rt.com/usa/372448-washingto ... n-hackers/

Pity, I rather liked the story. I don't think it worked the way they wanted it to.

[Forty Two]

It's funny how the media try to spin a failure of the current administration to protect against a major power hacking the US power system into a statement on the guy who isn't President yet.....

[Jason]

The utility was not hacked. The code was of Russian origin but it has been in existence for a while and there was no determination made where it came from. In fact, the company statement says that very clearly.

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/ ... ign=buffer

[Jason]

Trump wants more info on Russia, spokesman says

WASHINGTON — Incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer is defending cryptic comments by President-elect Donald Trump that he knows “things that other people don’t know” when it comes to allegations of Russian hacking.

Spicer tells Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” that Trump is getting national security briefings “on a daily basis” and “there doesn’t seem to be conclusive evidence” Russians were behind the hacking of Democratic emails during the election.

Spicer also dismissed on Monday a report released by the FBI and Homeland Security Department supporting the accusations against Russia, calling it a “how-to” manual on basic cybersecurity for Democrats.

In an interview on NBC’s “Today Show,” Spicer said President Barack Obama only punished Russia after Democrat Hillary Clinton lost the election and that the recent sanctions were politically motivated.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/world/1428 ... esman-says

[Forty Two]

What issues raised by the Southern States not related to, or impacted upon by slavery and the threat of its abolition?

Taxation, state vs. federal power, military defense, election of Lincoln, etc. Slavery was, of course, a major issue, because, as I said, the slave states wanted to expand it into the newer states as they formed, and the northern states did not (not because they viewed blacks as equals, but because of the economics).

Did Southern slaves vote to remain slaves in support of their Southern masters? When you say the Civil War was 'partly' about slavery you neglect to acknowledge that it was 'in large part' and not merely some part, or some little part as implied.

I didn't imply it was a "little" part, I said it was an important part. It just wasn't "the" only reason, which is what the article I was talking about said.

It seems that many in the US still have some difficulty facing up to the legacy of slavery and its impact, which still plays out today in contemporary US culture and politics.

That's not accurate. We face up to it, and most people have the view that the Civil War was "fought over slavery," in the sense that the south had slaves, which the US wanted to abolish and the south refused so we went to war to stop them. That's not what happened. It's not that noble. The reality is less noble

[Forty Two]

The utility was not hacked. The code was of Russian origin but it has been in existence for a while and there was no determination made where it came from. In fact, the company statement says that very clearly.

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/ ... ign=buffer

I understand that. I just thought it funny that when the WaPo THOUGHT they were reporting on a hack of the power system by the Russians, they didn't dedicate much space to the current administration's responsibility for security of that system.

[L'Emmerdeur]

First of all ,the idea that the Civil War was about "states rights" and not specifically slavery is not a controversial view. It's accurate.

The issue of "states' rights" arose because the slave-holding states objected to the election of Lincoln, and feared for the future of the peculiar institution of slavery. Attempting to depict states' rights as a separate issue is intellectually dishonest. From Mississippi's Declaration of Causes:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The bit where the writer says that back in the 1860s the American people were being asked to believe that what had just happened didn't happen is the usual myth that the people of the Union states were non-racist egalitarians who were horrified by slavery. The reality was that most everyone back then was very racist, and the opposition to slavery was not based on egalitarianism or racial equality, but on economics. Slavery undercut wages.

From a presentist perspective, many abolitionists were racist, but that does not negate the fact that the vast majority of their arguments against slavery were ethical, and not economic. They truly believed that slavery was wrong. See The Liberator.

For the entire generation of people that grew up in the years that led to the Civil War, WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON was the voice of Abolitionism. Originally a supporter of colonization, Garrison changed his position and became the leader of the emerging anti-slavery movement. His publication, THE LIBERATOR, reached thousands of individuals worldwide. His ceaseless, uncompromising position on the moral outrage that was slavery made him loved and hated by many Americans.

Lincoln, for example, would not have gone to war to destroy slavery. He said “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery" and “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” . And, it was a common view, even in the north, that whites were superior and should be superior - “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

You are correct that Lincoln would not have gone to war to destroy slavery, and he didn't. Lincoln didn't start the war however, the Confederates did, and their expressed purpose was to preserve slavery from the threat that they believed Lincoln's election posed to it.

The notion of why slavery should not be expanded was expressed in Lincoln's statement - “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

The article goes on to say that the articles of secession go on to say slavery was "the" cause of secession. That's just flat out not true. The Articles of Secession and related documents of the southern states certainly refer to slavery, but they never say that slavery was the cause. And, other issues -- federal failure to provide defense to the southern states, northern states domination because of manufacturing and industry in the north, and other issues of states rights are mentioned. Slavery is, of course mentioned, in the context of, say, failure of the northern states to enforce the fugiive slave act making the "compact" unviable, but in all cases the Articles of Secession state multiple reasons, not just slavery. Slavery is one of the examples. I'm not suggesting a minor one -- it was a concern because one of the things the south was nervous about were the abolitionists in the Republican Party, and they thought that abolition was a way in which their states right to govern themselves would be infringed.

Four states produced documents known as "Declarations of Causes." In contrast to the ordinances of succession, which in most cases were intended merely as legal statements of secession, and didn't actually describe the reasons for secession in any detail, the Declarations of Causes were more explicit. In the graphic below, the relative proportions of the topics discussed in the documents is shown (source).

The antebellum days had a much weaker federal government and much more independence among the states. And, the southern states were not keen on ceding power to Washington DC. This is not some "myth" as the article seeks to portray.

If the Confederates had not attacked, there would not have been a war. The attack on Fort Sumter took place about a month after Lincoln was inaugurated. What power was the federal government actually taking, or even threatening to take, that you believe prompted the attack?

In any event, the article's description of American Civil War historiography is essentially accurate. The Lost Causers dominated the narrative for a long time after the war, but that situation began to change in the latter half of the 20th century, and now the Lost Cause narrative is largely discredited.

[Hermit]

First of all ,the idea that the Civil War was about "states rights" and not specifically slavery is not a controversial view. It's accurate.

...if you don't mind spin. It so happens that all the other issues you mentioned - be they economical, social or political - are inextricably and centrally linked with slavery. Not even Lincoln's letter to the editor of the New York Tribune or the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was not published until 20 months after the civil war broke out can fudge over this.

A more balanced view would be to say that the civil war was caused primarily by the slave issue, but this issue did not morph into an emancipation of slaves issue until well after the first seven slave states had declared their secession and proclaimed their new Confederate government in February 1861.

To clarify my own position: No, I do not think that racism, sexism and bigotry were the main factors for Trump's victory. His ascension primarily comes down to the Democratic Party having abandoned the working and middle classes in favour of Wall Street. One significant turning point came when Bill Clinton deregulated the banking sector by ratifying the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which effectively nixed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. Bill knew that he was stabbing his support base in the back, but with hubris that came back to haunt the Democrats last year he asked: "Where else can they go?" They got the answer now: The can go to some narcissistic, ignorant, megalomaniacal, psychopathic man-child whose competence lies in declaring bankrupties, grabbing them by the pussy and telling the unwashed masses what they want to hear.

That said, the neonazis, KKK members, MRAs, religious fundamentalists and just about all other reprehensible dregs of US society are practically creaming their jeans at the prospect of what the Trump presidency will enable them to do, and I think there are good reasons for their confidence.

[JimC]

[Forty Two]

L'Emmerdeur - I don't disagree with your recitation above, generally speaking. I've not suggested slavery wasn't an issue. I've not suggested it wasn't a major issue. I took issue with the absolutist statement in the article under discussion.

To answer your question, the South attacked Ft. Sumter because it was a Union fort in South Carolina, which had seceded from the union, and rather than leave South Carolina, Lincoln opted to resupply the fort with a naval force. The south, which wanted the fort turned over to the South Carolina, was nonplussed by the reprovisioning attempt on the fort, so they attempted to take it by force.

Also, a power the federal government was attempting to take after secession was the right of the states to secede, for one thing. The states seceded from the union under the auspices of the notion that the Constitution was a voluntary compact among independent states and each state had the right to remove itself from that compact.