Saturday, October 19, 2013

Charlie Rangel Botches A History Reference So Badly, It Even Shocks A CNN Anchor

By, Chris Rossini

During the faux shutdown crisis, Rep. Charlie Rangel delivered a whopper of an argument that even caused a CNN anchor to say "What are you talking about?"

Rangel said (my emphasis):
"This is all about a handful of people, who got elected as Republicans that want to bring down our government. You can see it in the streets. You can see where they're coming from. And the same way they fought as Confederates, they want to bring down the government and reform it."
From start to finish (with the finish being the worst of it) this is a total train wreck.

First of all, Republicans did not want to "bring down our government". Republicans love a huge sprawling government. They just want it to look slightly different than the Democrats version.

Second, no one was "in the streets"...In fact, no one outside of the media even cared about the faux shutdown. And in the end, the 17% who were "furloughed" ended up with a paid vacation! A vacation that even "libertarian Republican" Justin Amash voted for!

But it was Rangel's last sentence that really went over the edge. The CNN anchor had a problem with it, but for a very different reason than why I (and everyone else) should have a problem with it.

The CNN anchor wondered how on Earth this congressman could compare Tea Party members to Confederates, whereas I wondered how he could say Confederates wanted "to bring down the government and reform it."

The Southern states seceded from the U.S. They created their own government, with their own Constitution. On April 29th, 1861 Jefferson Davis, who was elected President of the South stated:
...we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone.
The South had no interest in "bringing down" the North and "reforming" it! They wanted to peacefully secede, and wanted to be left alone.

Unfortunately, Lincoln & the North would not leave them alone.

You see, the South's new Constitution created what was essentially a free trade zone, in contrast to the high-tax, protective zone in the North. (Hopefully you've learned by now that if there's one thing the United States will not stand for, it's free trade). The South outlawed all protective tariffs.

The North flipped their lids!

The South was about to become a much more attractive place for the rest of the world to conduct business with. This had to be stopped!!

On Mar. 18, 1861 The Philadelphia Press called for a blockade of all Southern ports.

On Mar. 22 & 23, 1861 The New York Times stated:
“At once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states…A state of war would almost be preferable to the passive action the government had been following.”
Sounds like our modern-day neocons, doesn't it?

On Apr. 2, 1861 The Newark Daily Advertiser said that the South had: “taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade” and that they “might be willing to go…toward free trade with the European powers” which “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North” as “commerce will be largely diverted to the Southern cities.” This, they insisted, must be avoided at all cost by “the closing of the [Southern] ports” by military force, if necessary.

That's a little different then Charlie Rangel's version of the story, isn't it?

But then again, he can get away with it because he knows where CNN's viewership was educated.

If this is the first time that you're hearing something other that what was in your "Social Studies" book, it's time to break out of the shell that was made for you. I strongly recommend the following from Tom DiLorenzo: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.

Follow @ChrisRossini on Twitter


  1. *Waits for the usual idiot trolls to come in and mindlessly scream: "racism....neoconfederate....slavery...."*

    1. Why deny that the southern states were fighting to preserve slavery?

    2. Ding...Ding...Ding...

      Who had Jerry Wolfgang in the bet?

    3. see the emancipation proclamation where it spells out that slavery was fine if you were loyal to DC.

    4. Why allege that the northern states were fighting to end it? Go back and read Lincoln's first inaugural address, for starters.

    5. Ah, thanks Jerry. I was waiting for one of one of those idiotic comments to come through. I knew I could count on you saying something stupid. Now, while you're at it go and watch this ( video. You certainly can relate. :-)

  2. I would add that the confederates were in opposition to the Republican Party of that time.

    1. Exactly. That's why up until Wallace split off some of Humphrey's votes in 1968, and McGovern sealed the deal four years later, the south was solidly Democratic. Rangel was around back then so he should certainly remember the history.

      So Charlie, were you Sovietizing the Democratic party's racist past, or are you just senile?

  3. Rangel is almost as full of crap as Jesse and Al.

  4. The Federal govt is not "the North." The Federal Govt is the United States of America. The slave states declared war on the United States. They did not declare war on the United States because of a tariff. They declared war on the United States because slavery was prohibited in the new territories. Look up Fort Sumter

    1. Jerry, those Tom DiLorenzo books were written for people just like you!

      Here's your chance.

    2. After 7 states had seceded, Lincoln gave his first inaugural address.

      Lincoln stated emphatically that he had " 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."

      Lincoln promised that there would be no use of force against the South, unless it proved necessary for him to fulfill his obligation to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places" belonging to the federal government, and to collect legal duties and imposts.

      Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.

      The south was clearly concerned with protecting its loathsome institution of slavery but slavery was not what was motivating the north.

      Query: Absent secession, was the north about to do away with slavery in the south?

      Libertarians never defend the internal policies of the south per se, merely proposing alternatives to a horrible war. On the other hand, the statists have a genuine emotional attachment to the warmongering genocidal Lincoln and the northern army.

    3. Where are the southern states declarations of war? What about Fort Sumter? A customs collection point which the US govt was told by S Carolina to get the hell out and refused, tried to reinforce it and was fired on. Slavery had been prohibited in the free territories for years so why did the southern states wait so long? Check out the proposed 1861 13th amendment by Thomas Corwin which would have guaranteed slavery for ever. Also see the Morrill Tariiff.

    4. Poor, deluded Jerry.

    5. did you read the article? did you ever read anything other than the bilge put out in govt education gulags?

      you NEED to read DiLorenzo's books so you don't embarrass yourself again, or, at least not declaring your ignorance in such a grand fashion.

      now to the reality of you and your ilk: you cannot be confused with such mundane items as facts.

    6. **"Jerry, those Tom DiLorenzo books were written for people just like you!"**

      LOL. Don't hold your breath. There's noting more irredeemably stunted than the intellects of "open minded" brainwashed progressives like Jerry.

    7. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry,

      Lincoln's genocide of the west was to make the new territories negro free so that white's would be employed. As Anon said, those DiLorenzo books were written for people just like you and I know because I was just like you until I actually read them.


    8. Easy now. Jerry may not be a "progressive". He may be an aficionado of low IQ neocon talk radio. I've heard similar ignorance about the "civil war" from the hosts that rivals Rangel's stupid and ignorant comment.

    9. To Sacha:

      Well, at least you had enough balls to actually QUESTION the shit they fed us in "school". Unlike most idiots I've met.

  5. Both the actions of the north and south reflect what appears to be a universal but horrible human trait. Once a group of people get accustomed to a source of income, they will fight to the death to preserve it, even it come from nefarious sources. Thus, the south, living off the monstrosity of slavery, was adamant to sustain that lifestyle. Similarly, the northern business interests, living well due to tariffs, were adamant to sustain their lifestyles as well. And we face the same thing today with so many American living off the dole one way or the other.

    1. Hear, hear! And it was an influential, arrogant minority in both sections that precipitated tbe disaster. Most people appear to have viewed it as politics as usual, until disaster was upon them (seems to be a common theme on EPJ today).

  6. I thought the author was going to dive into another reason the statement was so bad. Namely, that Lincoln was a Republican.

    And ironically, the KKK (former confederates) were democrats.

    I wonder how many black politicians realize that they are of the same party as the KKK?

    1. The KKK and the Democratic party were just like the IRA and Sinn Fein. A political party with a terrorist wing attached. The KKK's purpose was to wage a guerrilla war against the occupying Republicans, and to terrorize freedmen into submission to their Democrat politicians.

  7. What is more mind boggling than Rangel'sdistorted views of history is that this interview did not take place in his jail cell.