Yankees...they think that they always right and southerners are nothing more than dumb hicks that fly a Confederate f**g and that f**g represents s***ery. Well, I do h**e to bust your bubble but you are wrong in many ways. First you are wrong about the War of Aggression. The Godfather, Part II. A single scene in the movie illustrates the true cause of the “Civil War”, the War to Prevent Southern Independence or otherwise known as the War of Aggression.

The scene in question involves a Hells Kitchen New York Mafia boss in the early twentieth century named Don Fanucci, whose character is based on a real-life Mafia boss named Ign**io Lupo (“Lupo the Wolf”). In the scene Don Fanucci meets with a young Vito Corleone (who would later become “The Godfather”) after discovering that young Vito and some friends had been quite successful operating as thieves in the neighborhood. The purpose of the meeting was to extort money from the young Mafia wannabes since that, after all, was a big part of the “business” the Mafia was in at the time. Don Fanucci (and Ign**io Lupo) would go to all business people in Hell’s Kitchen and essentially say, “If you want to do business in ‘my’ neighborhood, you’ll have to give me a percentage – or else.” (Ign**io Lupo meant business; he is “credited” with at least 60 murders). Here is what Don Fannucci said to Vito Corleone, from the script of The Godfather, Part II:

Don Fanucci to Vito Corleone: “I hear you and your friends are stealing goods. But you don’t even send a dress to my house. No respect! You know I’ve got three daughters. This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect. You should let me wet my beak a little. I hear you and your friends cleared $600 each. Give me $200 each, for your own protection. And I’ll forget the insult. Young punks have to learn to respect a man like me! Otherwise the cops will come to your house. And your family will be ruined. Of course, if I’m wrong about how much you stole, I’ll take a little less. And by less, I only mean – a hundred bucks less. Now don’t refuse me. Understand, paisan? Tell your friends I don’t want a lot. Just enough to wet my beak. Don’t be afraid to tell them!”

In the next scene Vito Corleone murders Don Fanucci and becomes the new “godfather” of the neighborhood and collector of exortion money for the privilege of doing business in “his” neighborhood.


In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same extortion threat to the South. But as the head of a powerful government and not just a small criminal gang, his threat involved “invasion” and massive “bloodshed” (his exact words) and a war that cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research. This may seem far-fetched to some, but not if one understands the essential nature of the state as a parasitic exploiter of the public. The state, said Murray Rothbard in his essay, “The State,” is by nature “parasitic” in that “it lives coercively off the production of the citizenry.” The purpose of the state is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. As Rothbard further wrote, quoting Albert Jay Nock: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime . . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.” Or as George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force” and can become “a fearful master.”

Extortion is indeed a primary occupation of the state and statists. As economist and legal scholar Fred McChesney wrote in his book, Money for Nothing: Politics, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard University Press, 1997), in the U.S. governments at all levels routinely propose onerous or even economically-disastrous taxes and regulations on specific businesses or industries purely in order to solicit “campaign contributions” from them. Then, after many millions are sent to politicians of both major parties, the proposed taxes and regulations are withdrawn. Such proposed legislation is known to Capitol Hill insiders as “milker bills” since they “milk” money from business people, Don Fanucci style, minus the threats of murder. Threats of economic ruination (or income tax audits) usually suffice.

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln was a small-time machine politician from Illinois whose reputation in politics was that of being a champion of patronage politics and corporate welfare. He was a wealthy corporate lawyer who represented all the major railroad corporations in the Mid-West. He traveled in a private rail car, courtesy of the Illinois Central Railroad, accompanied by an entourage of executives, and lived in the largest house on what is today called “Old Aristocracy Row” in Sprinfield, Illinois. His law office was about fifty paces away from the front door of the Illinois Statehouse.

Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the “one-percenters” of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all. This was the old Hamiltonian/Whig Party agenda that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.” In reality, it was an American version of the rotten, corrupt, British mercantilist system that benefited politically-connected corporations at the expense of everyone else.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln wasted no time establishing himself as what I would call the Don Fanucci of American politics. In the first part of the speech he made an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, arguably the most powerful defense of s***ery ever made by an American politician. The purpose of this was to keep the South in the union and, more importantly, to keep them paying federal taxes, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier when President Buchanan signed into law the Morrill Tariff. (At the time tariffs on imports accounted for about 90 percent of federal tax revenue. The Morrill Tariff increased the average tariff rate from 15% to 32.6%; vastly increased the number of items covered by the tariff; and provided for a future increase to 47%).

On the issue of s***ery, Lincoln promised the strongest possible support. “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of s***ery in the States where it exists,” he said. “ I believe I have no right do to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

He then reminded his Washington, D.C. audience that this same ironclad defense of Southern s***ery was a key part of the Republican Party platform of 1860. “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them. . . . I now reiterate these statements . . .”

Next, Lincoln offered the strongest possible support for the enforcement of the Fugitive S***e Act, which compelled Northerners to hunt down runaway s***es. Finally, he voiced his support for the proposed “Corwin Amendment” to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate with almost exclusively Northern v**es, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever interfering with Southern s***ery. The text of the “first thirteenth amendment” read as follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to service.

In mid-March of 1861 Lincoln sent copies of the proposed amendment to all the state governors. In in first inaugural address he mentioned the amendment by saying, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

So on the issue of s***ery Lincoln did not even entertain the notion of some kind of compromise. He issued an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, period. There was nothing to compromise, in his mind. The only opposition to s***ery that was even discussed by Lincoln and the Republican Party at the time was opposition to the extension of s***ery into the new territories, of which they gave two reasons. The first reason was that, because of the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution, limiting the extension of s***ery would limit Democratic Party representation in Congress, making it more likely that “the American System” could become law. Second, the Republican Party wanted to pander to the w***e s*********t North by promising white Northern v**ers in the soon-to-become states that there would be no black people living among them or competing with them for jobs.

On the issue of tariffs, on the other hand, Lincoln was a monstrous, uncompromising tyrant. “[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he announced in his first address. What on earth, one may ask, could cause an American president to think of the possibility of inflicting “bloodshed or violence” on his own citizens?! Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).

This was Abe Lincoln’s Don Fanucci moment. What he was saying was essentially this:

“Here’s the deal. S***ery is already legal and constitutional under the U.S. system of government, and has been since 1776. We in the North have no qualms about making s***ery “express and irrevocable” right in the text of the U.S. Constitution. So if you are worried about Northern instigators of s***e r*******ns, you are mistaken. Stay in the union and your s***e property will continue to be very well protected.”

“S***ery is a very profitable business, and we in the North intend to share in those profits. That is one of the main purposes of the Morrill Tariff, which has just more than doubled the average tariff rate. Since you, the South, export at least three-fourths of all your agricultural products and rely so heavily on foreign trade, we in the North cannot – and will not – tolerate the free-trade policies that you have written into your Confederate Constitution. [The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether]. Free trade in the South, and a 50% tariff rate in the North, the cornerstone of the Republican Party Platform of 1860, will destroy the Northern ports and much of our commerce. We will not allow this to happen. We have the willingness and the ability to inflict violence, bloodshed, force, and invasion on the Southern people. We will not back down this time to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers as my predecessor, President Andrew Jackson did some thirty years ago.”

“We are not being any more greedy here than say, our European counterparts. We only want to wet our beaks, so to speak, by taxing a portion of your s***e profits. There need not be any violence or bloodshed –as long as you do what we say.”

This is how the Southern politicians understood the motivations of the Yankee political elite in early 1861. Jefferson Davis himself demonstrated this understanding in his own first inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 18, 1861:

“Our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit . . . and that . . . there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities . . . . If, however, passion or the lust of d******n should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of [the Northern states], we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed . . .”

Wh**ever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession is irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports, he kept his promise of “invasion and bloodshed” and waged war on the Southern states. No gangster in the history of the world has ever enforced an extortion racket on such a gargantuan scale of death, plunder, and destruction.

http://no-ruler.net/11136/the-don-fanucci-of-american-politics/#comment-720
I must also give credit to an OPP member, Katron who originally posted this a few months ago: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-37405-1.html

But, what about s***ery? That old and worn out cry of the B****s in the USA, the white man did this or that. T***h is sometimes stranger than fact. But, more later on the lies the North believes about s***ery later.

Yankees...they think that they always right and southerners are nothing more than dumb hicks that fly a Confederate f**g and that f**g represents s***ery. Well, I do h**e to bust your bubble but you are wrong in many ways. First you are wrong about the War of Aggression. The Godfather, Part II. A single scene in the movie illustrates the true cause of the “Civil War”, the War to Prevent Southern Independence or otherwise known as the War of Aggression.

The scene in question involves a Hells Kitchen New York Mafia boss in the early twentieth century named Don Fanucci, whose character is based on a real-life Mafia boss named Ign**io Lupo (“Lupo the Wolf”). In the scene Don Fanucci meets with a young Vito Corleone (who would later become “The Godfather”) after discovering that young Vito and some friends had been quite successful operating as thieves in the neighborhood. The purpose of the meeting was to extort money from the young Mafia wannabes since that, after all, was a big part of the “business” the Mafia was in at the time. Don Fanucci (and Ign**io Lupo) would go to all business people in Hell’s Kitchen and essentially say, “If you want to do business in ‘my’ neighborhood, you’ll have to give me a percentage – or else.” (Ign**io Lupo meant business; he is “credited” with at least 60 murders). Here is what Don Fannucci said to Vito Corleone, from the script of The Godfather, Part II:

Don Fanucci to Vito Corleone: “I hear you and your friends are stealing goods. But you don’t even send a dress to my house. No respect! You know I’ve got three daughters. This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect. You should let me wet my beak a little. I hear you and your friends cleared $600 each. Give me $200 each, for your own protection. And I’ll forget the insult. Young punks have to learn to respect a man like me! Otherwise the cops will come to your house. And your family will be ruined. Of course, if I’m wrong about how much you stole, I’ll take a little less. And by less, I only mean – a hundred bucks less. Now don’t refuse me. Understand, paisan? Tell your friends I don’t want a lot. Just enough to wet my beak. Don’t be afraid to tell them!”

In the next scene Vito Corleone murders Don Fanucci and becomes the new “godfather” of the neighborhood and collector of exortion money for the privilege of doing business in “his” neighborhood.


In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same extortion threat to the South. But as the head of a powerful government and not just a small criminal gang, his threat involved “invasion” and massive “bloodshed” (his exact words) and a war that cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research. This may seem far-fetched to some, but not if one understands the essential nature of the state as a parasitic exploiter of the public. The state, said Murray Rothbard in his essay, “The State,” is by nature “parasitic” in that “it lives coercively off the production of the citizenry.” The purpose of the state is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. As Rothbard further wrote, quoting Albert Jay Nock: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime . . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.” Or as George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force” and can become “a fearful master.”

Extortion is indeed a primary occupation of the state and statists. As economist and legal scholar Fred McChesney wrote in his book, Money for Nothing: Politics, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard University Press, 1997), in the U.S. governments at all levels routinely propose onerous or even economically-disastrous taxes and regulations on specific businesses or industries purely in order to solicit “campaign contributions” from them. Then, after many millions are sent to politicians of both major parties, the proposed taxes and regulations are withdrawn. Such proposed legislation is known to Capitol Hill insiders as “milker bills” since they “milk” money from business people, Don Fanucci style, minus the threats of murder. Threats of economic ruination (or income tax audits) usually suffice.

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln was a small-time machine politician from Illinois whose reputation in politics was that of being a champion of patronage politics and corporate welfare. He was a wealthy corporate lawyer who represented all the major railroad corporations in the Mid-West. He traveled in a private rail car, courtesy of the Illinois Central Railroad, accompanied by an entourage of executives, and lived in the largest house on what is today called “Old Aristocracy Row” in Sprinfield, Illinois. His law office was about fifty paces away from the front door of the Illinois Statehouse.

Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the “one-percenters” of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all. This was the old Hamiltonian/Whig Party agenda that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.” In reality, it was an American version of the rotten, corrupt, British mercantilist system that benefited politically-connected corporations at the expense of everyone else.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln wasted no time establishing himself as what I would call the Don Fanucci of American politics. In the first part of the speech he made an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, arguably the most powerful defense of s***ery ever made by an American politician. The purpose of this was to keep the South in the union and, more importantly, to keep them paying federal taxes, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier when President Buchanan signed into law the Morrill Tariff. (At the time tariffs on imports accounted for about 90 percent of federal tax revenue. The Morrill Tariff increased the average tariff rate from 15% to 32.6%; vastly increased the number of items covered by the tariff; and provided for a future increase to 47%).

On the issue of s***ery, Lincoln promised the strongest possible support. “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of s***ery in the States where it exists,” he said. “ I believe I have no right do to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

He then reminded his Washington, D.C. audience that this same ironclad defense of Southern s***ery was a key part of the Republican Party platform of 1860. “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them. . . . I now reiterate these statements . . .”

Next, Lincoln offered the strongest possible support for the enforcement of the Fugitive S***e Act, which compelled Northerners to hunt down runaway s***es. Finally, he voiced his support for the proposed “Corwin Amendment” to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate with almost exclusively Northern v**es, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever interfering with Southern s***ery. The text of the “first thirteenth amendment” read as follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to service.

In mid-March of 1861 Lincoln sent copies of the proposed amendment to all the state governors. In in first inaugural address he mentioned the amendment by saying, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

So on the issue of s***ery Lincoln did not even entertain the notion of some kind of compromise. He issued an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, period. There was nothing to compromise, in his mind. The only opposition to s***ery that was even discussed by Lincoln and the Republican Party at the time was opposition to the extension of s***ery into the new territories, of which they gave two reasons. The first reason was that, because of the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution, limiting the extension of s***ery would limit Democratic Party representation in Congress, making it more likely that “the American System” could become law. Second, the Republican Party wanted to pander to the w***e s*********t North by promising white Northern v**ers in the soon-to-become states that there would be no black people living among them or competing with them for jobs.

On the issue of tariffs, on the other hand, Lincoln was a monstrous, uncompromising tyrant. “There needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he announced in his first address. What on earth, one may ask, could cause an American president to think of the possibility of inflicting “bloodshed or violence” on his own citizens?! Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).

This was Abe Lincoln’s Don Fanucci moment. What he was saying was essentially this:

“Here’s the deal. S***ery is already legal and constitutional under the U.S. system of government, and has been since 1776. We in the North have no qualms about making s***ery “express and irrevocable” right in the text of the U.S. Constitution. So if you are worried about Northern instigators of s***e r*******ns, you are mistaken. Stay in the union and your s***e property will continue to be very well protected.”

“S***ery is a very profitable business, and we in the North intend to share in those profits. That is one of the main purposes of the Morrill Tariff, which has just more than doubled the average tariff rate. Since you, the South, export at least three-fourths of all your agricultural products and rely so heavily on foreign trade, we in the North cannot – and will not – tolerate the free-trade policies that you have written into your Confederate Constitution. The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether. Free trade in the South, and a 50% tariff rate in the North, the cornerstone of the Republican Party Platform of 1860, will destroy the Northern ports and much of our commerce. We will not allow this to happen. We have the willingness and the ability to inflict violence, bloodshed, force, and invasion on the Southern people. We will not back down this time to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers as my predecessor, President Andrew Jackson did some thirty years ago.”

“We are not being any more greedy here than say, our European counterparts. We only want to wet our beaks, so to speak, by taxing a portion of your s***e profits. There need not be any violence or bloodshed –as long as you do what we say.”

This is how the Southern politicians understood the motivations of the Yankee political elite in early 1861. Jefferson Davis himself demonstrated this understanding in his own first inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 18, 1861:

“Our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit . . . and that . . . there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities . . . . If, however, passion or the lust of d******n should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of the Northern states, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed . . .”

Wh**ever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession is irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports, he kept his promise of “invasion and bloodshed” and waged war on the Southern states. No gangster in the history of the world has ever enforced an extortion racket on such a gargantuan scale of death, plunder, and destruction.

http://no-ruler.net/11136/the-don-fanucci-of-american-politics/#comment-720
I must also give credit to an OPP member, Katron who originally posted this a few months ago: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-37405-1.html

But, what about s***ery? That old and worn out cry of the B****s in the USA, the white man did this or that. T***h is sometimes stranger than fact. But, more later on the lies the North believes about s***ery later.

Lol, give it up. S***ery was the backbone of Southern society and wealth. Yes, it was about State's right--this one right, to own a human being. This is not questioning the heart of all those young man who came to the defense of the South and willingly gave their lives. Most probably they did not die to protect s***ery but out of love for their family, friends, and land. Even if s***ery was what some were fighting for, it is not so easy to separate that from protecting the ideal of state's rights. It could be just an example representing a principle. Hard to say.

The "Confederate F**g" represents more than r****m and s******n. Yet in the long run, and rightly, I feel, that is what the Stars and Bars is reduced to, and it is inescapable.

You do not submit, as was always your habit, one piece of evidence, but only your opinion. I opened this topic for discussion.....not an opinion poll.

However, because you offered your opinion, I think it is right that I too should provide you with an opinion. I think that you have a closed mind as you did when you were here before. Your techniques have not changed in any respect. When you were here before, you consistently railed against the US F**g, the Nation, religion and anything that did not fit into your understandings of history or the bible. You were a consistent defender of muslims and black privilege and p***e. You smacked down anyone that dared say a negative word against either. It is comforting to know that some people never change.

You do not submit, as was always your habit, one piece of evidence, but only your opinion. I opened this topic for discussion.....not an opinion poll.

However, because you offered your opinion, I think it is right that I too should provide you with an opinion. I think that you have a closed mind as you did when you were here before. Your techniques have not changed in any respect. When you were here before, you consistently railed against the US F**g, the Nation, religion and anything that did not fit into your understandings of history or the bible. You were a consistent defender of muslims and black privilege and p***e. You smacked down anyone that dared say a negative word against either. It is comforting to know that some people never change.

Yankees...they think that they always right and southerners are nothing more than dumb hicks that fly a Confederate f**g and that f**g represents s***ery. Well, I do h**e to bust your bubble but you are wrong in many ways. First you are wrong about the War of Aggression. Pennylynn, as a Yankee who has lived the past 53 years in the Old South, I must ask, just where did you go to school? Also, your views of how Northerners view Southerners is just as biased as your claims against Northerners. Plus, in case you're from Texas, in which case you'd have an excuse for not knowing the t***h, the official title for the Civil War is: "The War of the R*******n;" not the War of Northern Agression, the War for Southern Independence, the Civil War, or anything else. The Godfather, Part II. A single scene in the movie illustrates the true cause of the “Civil War”, the War to Prevent Southern Independence or otherwise known as the War of Aggression.

The scene in question involves a Hells Kitchen New York Mafia boss in the early twentieth century named Don Fanucci, whose character is based on a real-life Mafia boss named Ign**io Lupo (“Lupo the Wolf”). In the scene Don Fanucci meets with a young Vito Corleone (who would later become “The Godfather”) after discovering that young Vito and some friends had been quite successful operating as thieves in the neighborhood. The purpose of the meeting was to extort money from the young Mafia wannabes since that, after all, was a big part of the “business” the Mafia was in at the time. Don Fanucci (and Ign**io Lupo) would go to all business people in Hell’s Kitchen and essentially say, “If you want to do business in ‘my’ neighborhood, you’ll have to give me a percentage – or else.” (Ign**io Lupo meant business; he is “credited” with at least 60 murders). Here is what Don Fannucci said to Vito Corleone, from the script of The Godfather, Part II:

Don Fanucci to Vito Corleone: “I hear you and your friends are stealing goods. But you don’t even send a dress to my house. No respect! You know I’ve got three daughters. This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect. You should let me wet my beak a little. I hear you and your friends cleared $600 each. Give me $200 each, for your own protection. And I’ll forget the insult. Young punks have to learn to respect a man like me! Otherwise the cops will come to your house. And your family will be ruined. Of course, if I’m wrong about how much you stole, I’ll take a little less. And by less, I only mean – a hundred bucks less. Now don’t refuse me. Understand, paisan? Tell your friends I don’t want a lot. Just enough to wet my beak. Don’t be afraid to tell them!”

In the next scene Vito Corleone murders Don Fanucci and becomes the new “godfather” of the neighborhood and collector of exortion money for the privilege of doing business in “his” neighborhood.Your saying that the "Godfather" movie is a metaphor for the War of the R*******n? Only in your mind.


In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same extortion threat to the South. Exactly when and where was this "threat" made by Lincoln? But as the head of a powerful government and not just a small criminal gang, his threat involved “invasion” and massive “bloodshed” (his exact words) Please cite your source(s, Pennylynn). and a war that cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research. This may seem far-fetched to some, but not if one understands the essential nature of the state as a parasitic exploiter of the public. The state, said Murray Rothbard in his essay, “The State,” is by nature “parasitic” in that “it lives coercively off the production of the citizenry.” The purpose of the state is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. As Rothbard further wrote, quoting Albert Jay Nock: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime . . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.” So, you're using the words of an anarchist to justify the creation of one government formed to unify a r*******n against their legal government? Or as George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force” and can become “a fearful master.”Why are you NOT printing the ENTIRE quote? Is it because the entire quote will show Washington's true thought toward government? Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." No where is he implying that government, in and of itself is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force," as you would have us believe. He is cautioning us that unchecked, government can become those things. Washington also said, "The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make or to alter their constitutions of government." Does this sound like someone who thinks government is inherently bad? Washington also said, "Guard against the imposters of pretended patriotism." I would think that he's warning us of those who think our government is bad and in need of changing and banging their "patriotic drums" to gain attention to their f**ed ideals. To me, it sounds like Washington is warning us of people like you!

Extortion is indeed a primary occupation of the state and statists. As economist and legal scholar Fred McChesney wrote in his book, Money for Nothing: Politics, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard University Press, 1997), in the U.S. governments at all levels routinely propose onerous or even economically-disastrous taxes and regulations on specific businesses or industries purely in order to solicit “campaign contributions” from them. I suppose that next, you'll claim that tithing to our church is really extortion money paid to God to allow us to remain alive? Then, after many millions are sent to politicians of both major parties, the proposed taxes and regulations are withdrawn. Such proposed legislation is known to Capitol Hill insiders as “milker bills” since they “milk” money from business people, Don Fanucci style, minus the threats of murder. Threats of economic ruination (or income tax audits) usually suffice.Again, how does this relate to Lincoln!?

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln was a small-time machine politician from Illinois whose reputation in politics was that of being a champion of patronage politics and corporate welfare. He was a wealthy corporate lawyer who represented all the major railroad corporations in the Mid-West. He traveled in a private rail car, courtesy of the Illinois Central Railroad, accompanied by an entourage of executives, and lived in the largest house on what is today called “Old Aristocracy Row” in Sprinfield, Illinois. His law office was about fifty paces away from the front door of the Illinois Statehouse.

Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the “one-percenters” of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all. This was the old Hamiltonian/Whig Party agenda that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.” In reality, it was an American version of the rotten, corrupt, British mercantilist system that benefited politically-connected corporations at the expense of everyone else.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln wasted no time establishing himself as what I would call the Don Fanucci of American politics. Your analogy is rather stretched already. Why continue to break it? In the first part of the speech he made an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, arguably the most powerful defense of s***ery ever made by an American politician. The purpose of this was to keep the South in the union and, more importantly, to keep them paying federal taxes, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier when President Buchanan signed into law the Morrill Tariff. (At the time tariffs on imports accounted for about 90 percent of federal tax revenue. The Morrill Tariff increased the average tariff rate from 15% to 32.6%; vastly increased the number of items covered by the tariff; and provided for a future increase to 47%).

On the issue of s***ery, Lincoln promised the strongest possible support. “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of s***ery in the States where it exists,” he said. “ I believe I have no right do to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

He then reminded his Washington, D.C. audience that this same ironclad defense of Southern s***ery was a key part of the Republican Party platform of 1860. “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them. . . . I now reiterate these statements . . .”

Next, Lincoln offered the strongest possible support for the enforcement of the Fugitive S***e Act, which compelled Northerners to hunt down runaway s***es. I'm not sure where you get your information, but wherever it comes from, it's badly twisted. Abraham Lincoln's e******n to the presidency as a Republican in 1860 was not welcomed by the Southern s***e states. Those states saw the Republicans as not supportive of keeping the institution of s***ery alive in the South, or even worse, as a group of abolitionists who wanted to set all the s***es free. Abraham Lincoln wanted to calm the leaders of these states and keep them from seceding from the United States, so he tried to put them at ease in his First Inaugural Address.

President Lincoln gets right down to talking directly to the Southern (or s***e) states, saying that he only wants to talk about the big issue that he knows everyone cares about. He goes on to reassure the South that even though he is a Republican, he is not interested in taking away their 'property' - s***es - or their peace. He goes on to quote himself from past speeches saying that he is not interested in making s***ery illegal in order to prove that he has always been against using force of any type to end s***ery.

President Lincoln continues by reassuring the South that he is not even interested in ending the Fugitive S***e Act, a law which made it so that any s***es escaping from a s***e state to a free state were still not considered free by the government and could be sent back to their owner. He notes that he and his government will uphold the Constitutionally-protected laws of the country, including that one. He also says that even though there is disagreement whether the Fugitive S***e Act should be enforced by the states or the federal government, that is a minor disagreement in the scheme of things and should not be a reason for the Southern states to panic.

Continuing on, President Lincoln stresses that the country could not legally be broken up and that the Constitution binds the states together. He points out that when states tried to strike out on their own and not be bound under one federal power, it did not work out so well (when the U.S. was under the Articles of Confederation). The Constitution, Lincoln says, was created because we already tried to go it alone as separate states, and that attempt was a failed experiment.

Furthermore, President Lincoln says that signing the Constitution is like signing a 'contract.' In other words, unless all states choose to dissolve the contract, no one state or group of states is allowed to leave. The president wants the South to know that the North will not agree to let them violate the contract by seceding from the United States.

Finally, President Lincoln addresses the issue with s***ery moving into the territories that were not yet states, but that would one day become states. President Lincoln knew that the s***e states were worried that new states would mostly choose to be free, and once there were enough free states, those states would have the v**es in Congress to band together and to end s***ery by law. He points out that even though the Constitution does not answer what to do about s***ery in the territories, the Supreme Court will help to answer that question, and the states must come together and compromise about what to do in order to keep the minority of s***e states happy and secure. However, if a minority of states just leaves the Union, that would set a bad precedent where any minority, whether one or a group of states, could just leave the United States at any time it felt slighted.

In closing, President Lincoln tells the Southern states that they can choose to peacefully work with the free states to come up with a solution, but that if they are aggressive and they secede from the United States, the president will have to answer that aggression in order to protect the U.S. from breaking up. He asks them, and everyone in the United States, to choose to be friends rather than enemies and to not pursue any actions that could lead to a civil war.

Finally, he voiced his support for the proposed “Corwin Amendment” to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate with almost exclusively Northern v**es, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever interfering with Southern s***ery. The text of the “first thirteenth amendment” read as follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to service.Pennylynn, this correcting you is getting hilarious! I can't believe that you can let yourself be so duped. When the 36th Congress adjourned on March 3, 1861, it was anyone's guess whether the United States would continue to exist as a single nation. In response to the e******n of Abraham Lincoln as president, seven Southern states had seceded. Four others would soon join them. As the candidate of the new Republican Party, Lincoln had championed the power of the federal government to exclude s***ery from territories that were not yet states, a power that the s***e states saw as a dagger aimed at the heart of their "peculiar institution."

The lame-duck, President James Buchanan, in an attempt to mollify the s***e states, asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment" (his words) to the Constitution which would explicitly recognize s***es as property and the right of s***e-owners to keep their human property anywhere on American soil. Although this would do nothing more than restate existing law, as expressed in 1857 in the Supreme Court's explosive Dred Scott decision, a special House committee of 33 members under Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio dutifully, if unenthusiastically, set about drafting the proposed amendment, their numbers steadily depleted by the departure of Southern members whose states had seceded.

In a stunning feat of linguistic legerdemain, the Corwin committee delivered, to the House floor, a draft amendment to protect s***ery, that never mentioned the words "s***e" or "s***ery" in the amendment, at all! But then, neither did the original Constitution. Significantly, the proposed amendment did not address the burning issue of moment: the power of Congress to bar s***ery from territories that were not yet states.

The amendment passed the House as Joint Resolution No. 80 on February 28 by a v**e of 133 to 65, which was two-thirds of the members present. In the subsequent parliamentary wrangle over whether that met the Constitution's requirement of two-thirds of the House, opponents of the amendment lost. On March 2, the Senate acted in favor of the proposed amendment by a v**e of 24 to 12, with anti-s***ery Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio attempting to derail it -- or at least to demonstrate his disgust for it -- by asking unanimous consent to v**e first on a bill relating to guano deposits. Another opponent of the amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, lodged an appeal of the decision by Senate President Pro Tem Solomon Foot of Vermont that the v**e -- two-thirds of the members present -- met the Consitutional two-thirds requirement; but Trumbull joined 32 other senators in upholding the action, leaving Wade the sole senator opposing it.

The Corwin amendment was only one of several proposals to re-write the Constitution in the hope of saving the Union. Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky proposed a set of amendments that would have restored the old "Missouri Compromise" that was repealed in 1854, then declared unconstitutional in Dred Scott ; and a so-called "peace conference" chaired by former president John Tyler recommended to Congress more or less the same thing. These complicated proposals came to nothing. Many members of Congress were willing to v**e for the simpler Corwin amendment not because they necessarily believed in it or even thought that it would work, but because they wanted to be seen making an eleventh-hour gesture for peace.

It's noteworthy that the Confederate constitution, adopted only a few days later by the seceding states, contained nothing like the Corwin amendment. While the Confederate document explicitly recognized s***es as property, it did not purport to bar future amendments to restrict or abolish s***ery. In any event, the Confederate congress was given no power to propose amendments: that power rested exclusively with a convention of the states.

In mid-March of 1861 Lincoln sent copies of the proposed amendment to all the state governors. In in first inaugural address he mentioned the amendment by saying, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

So on the issue of s***ery Lincoln did not even entertain the notion of some kind of compromise. I call BS here. He issued an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, period. There was nothing to compromise, in his mind. The only opposition to s***ery that was even discussed by Lincoln and the Republican Party at the time was opposition to the extension of s***ery into the new territories, of which they gave two reasons. The first reason was that, because of the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution, limiting the extension of s***ery would limit Democratic Party representation in Congress, making it more likely that “the American System” could become law. Second, the Republican Party wanted to pander to the w***e s*********t North by promising white Northern v**ers in the soon-to-become states that there would be no black people living among them or competing with them for jobs. Not too steady in his grasp of constitutional law, President Buchanan signed the joint resolution the day the Senate approved it: an unnecessary step, given the fact that Congressional power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not subject to p**********l approval or veto. Two days later, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the sixteenth president of the United States and the proposed amendment was largely forgotten, although two states, Ohio and Maryland, actually ratified it! An Illinois state constitutional convention that met in 1862 purported to ratify the amendment, but had no legal authority to do so. Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address, in paragraph 29 of his speech. Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln's detractors! and now! YOU, portray him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis. Ironically, it fell to Lincoln to notify the states that the Corwin amendment was open for ratification.

On the issue of tariffs, on the other hand, Lincoln was a monstrous, uncompromising tyrant. “There needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he announced in his first address. What on earth, one may ask, could cause an American president to think of the possibility of inflicting “bloodshed or violence” on his own citizens?! Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).. As I said above, "In closing, President Lincoln tells the Southern states that they can choose to peacefully work with the free states to come up with a solution, but that if they are aggressive and they secede from the United States, the president will have to answer that aggression in order to protect the U.S. from breaking up. He asks them, and everyone in the United States, to choose to be friends rather than enemies and to not pursue any actions that could lead to a civil war." Tell me, if you were the newly elected president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, how would you deal with states that had already declared themselves seceded, FREE AND INDEPENDENT and had DEMANDED that all U.S. property be turned over to them; or they'd attack the installations and take them by force? I find it very disingenuous that you'd omit such an important and historical FACT. Then again, you're not very good at stating facts, historical or otherwise, are you?



This was Abe Lincoln’s Don Fanucci moment. What he was saying was essentially this:

“Here’s the deal. S***ery is already legal and constitutional under the U.S. system of government, and has been since 1776. We in the North have no qualms about making s***ery “express and irrevocable” right in the text of the U.S. Constitution. So if you are worried about Northern instigators of s***e r*******ns, you are mistaken. Stay in the union and your s***e property will continue to be very well protected.”

“S***ery is a very profitable business, and we in the North intend to share in those profits. That is one of the main purposes of the Morrill Tariff, which has just more than doubled the average tariff rate. Since you, the South, export at least three-fourths of all your agricultural products and rely so heavily on foreign trade, we in the North cannot – and will not – tolerate the free-trade policies that you have written into your Confederate Constitution. The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether. Free trade in the South, and a 50% tariff rate in the North, the cornerstone of the Republican Party Platform of 1860, will destroy the Northern ports and much of our commerce. We will not allow this to happen. We have the willingness and the ability to inflict violence, bloodshed, force, and invasion on the Southern people. We will not back down this time to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers as my predecessor, President Andrew Jackson did some thirty years ago.”

“We are not being any more greedy here than say, our European counterparts. We only want to wet our beaks, so to speak, by taxing a portion of your s***e profits. There need not be any violence or bloodshed –as long as you do what we say.”

This is how the Southern politicians understood the motivations of the Yankee political elite in early 1861. Jefferson Davis himself demonstrated this understanding in his own first inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 18, 1861:

“Our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit . . . and that . . . there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities . . . . If, however, passion or the lust of d******n should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of the Northern states, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed . . .” "we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed . . .," You don't see anything resembling a threat to use force in this quote? Lincoln told the Southern states that federal property would not be turned over to them and that neither would any tariffs as they were federal property as well. If I recall correctly, it was CONFEDERATE BRIGADER GENERAL P. G. T. Beauregard who ordered the first shot fired at Ft. Sumter.

Wh**ever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession is irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. It does if the seceding state(s) fires on a Federal fort without provocation. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports, he kept his promise of “invasion and bloodshed” and waged war on the Southern states. This is another total misrepresentation of history. The tariff collection was secondary to giving the impression of accepting the soverignity of South Carolina. It had voluntarily joined the Union and there was no way for it to leave. No gangster in the history of the world has ever enforced an extortion racket on such a gargantuan scale of death, plunder, and destruction.

http://no-ruler.net/11136/the-don-fanucci-of-american-politics/#comment-720
I must also give credit to an OPP member, Katron who originally posted this a few months ago: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-37405-1.html

But, what about s***ery? That old and worn out cry of the B****s in the USA, the white man did this or that. T***h is sometimes stranger than fact. But, more later on the lies the North believes about s***ery later.

Yankees...they think that they always right and southerners are nothing more than dumb hicks that fly a Confederate f**g and that f**g represents s***ery. Well, I do h**e to bust your bubble but you are wrong in many ways. First you are wrong about the War of Aggression. The Godfather, Part II. A single scene in the movie illustrates the true cause of the “Civil War”, the War to Prevent Southern Independence or otherwise known as the War of Aggression.

The scene in question involves a Hells Kitchen New York Mafia boss in the early twentieth century named Don Fanucci, whose character is based on a real-life Mafia boss named Ign**io Lupo (“Lupo the Wolf”). In the scene Don Fanucci meets with a young Vito Corleone (who would later become “The Godfather”) after discovering that young Vito and some friends had been quite successful operating as thieves in the neighborhood. The purpose of the meeting was to extort money from the young Mafia wannabes since that, after all, was a big part of the “business” the Mafia was in at the time. Don Fanucci (and Ign**io Lupo) would go to all business people in Hell’s Kitchen and essentially say, “If you want to do business in ‘my’ neighborhood, you’ll have to give me a percentage – or else.” (Ign**io Lupo meant business; he is “credited” with at least 60 murders). Here is what Don Fannucci said to Vito Corleone, from the script of The Godfather, Part II:

Don Fanucci to Vito Corleone: “I hear you and your friends are stealing goods. But you don’t even send a dress to my house. No respect! You know I’ve got three daughters. This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect. You should let me wet my beak a little. I hear you and your friends cleared $600 each. Give me $200 each, for your own protection. And I’ll forget the insult. Young punks have to learn to respect a man like me! Otherwise the cops will come to your house. And your family will be ruined. Of course, if I’m wrong about how much you stole, I’ll take a little less. And by less, I only mean – a hundred bucks less. Now don’t refuse me. Understand, paisan? Tell your friends I don’t want a lot. Just enough to wet my beak. Don’t be afraid to tell them!”

In the next scene Vito Corleone murders Don Fanucci and becomes the new “godfather” of the neighborhood and collector of exortion money for the privilege of doing business in “his” neighborhood.


In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same extortion threat to the South. But as the head of a powerful government and not just a small criminal gang, his threat involved “invasion” and massive “bloodshed” (his exact words) and a war that cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research. This may seem far-fetched to some, but not if one understands the essential nature of the state as a parasitic exploiter of the public. The state, said Murray Rothbard in his essay, “The State,” is by nature “parasitic” in that “it lives coercively off the production of the citizenry.” The purpose of the state is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. As Rothbard further wrote, quoting Albert Jay Nock: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime . . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.” Or as George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force” and can become “a fearful master.”

Extortion is indeed a primary occupation of the state and statists. As economist and legal scholar Fred McChesney wrote in his book, Money for Nothing: Politics, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard University Press, 1997), in the U.S. governments at all levels routinely propose onerous or even economically-disastrous taxes and regulations on specific businesses or industries purely in order to solicit “campaign contributions” from them. Then, after many millions are sent to politicians of both major parties, the proposed taxes and regulations are withdrawn. Such proposed legislation is known to Capitol Hill insiders as “milker bills” since they “milk” money from business people, Don Fanucci style, minus the threats of murder. Threats of economic ruination (or income tax audits) usually suffice.

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln was a small-time machine politician from Illinois whose reputation in politics was that of being a champion of patronage politics and corporate welfare. He was a wealthy corporate lawyer who represented all the major railroad corporations in the Mid-West. He traveled in a private rail car, courtesy of the Illinois Central Railroad, accompanied by an entourage of executives, and lived in the largest house on what is today called “Old Aristocracy Row” in Sprinfield, Illinois. His law office was about fifty paces away from the front door of the Illinois Statehouse.

Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the “one-percenters” of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all. This was the old Hamiltonian/Whig Party agenda that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.” In reality, it was an American version of the rotten, corrupt, British mercantilist system that benefited politically-connected corporations at the expense of everyone else.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln wasted no time establishing himself as what I would call the Don Fanucci of American politics. In the first part of the speech he made an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, arguably the most powerful defense of s***ery ever made by an American politician. The purpose of this was to keep the South in the union and, more importantly, to keep them paying federal taxes, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier when President Buchanan signed into law the Morrill Tariff. (At the time tariffs on imports accounted for about 90 percent of federal tax revenue. The Morrill Tariff increased the average tariff rate from 15% to 32.6%; vastly increased the number of items covered by the tariff; and provided for a future increase to 47%).

On the issue of s***ery, Lincoln promised the strongest possible support. “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of s***ery in the States where it exists,” he said. “ I believe I have no right do to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

He then reminded his Washington, D.C. audience that this same ironclad defense of Southern s***ery was a key part of the Republican Party platform of 1860. “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them. . . . I now reiterate these statements . . .”

Next, Lincoln offered the strongest possible support for the enforcement of the Fugitive S***e Act, which compelled Northerners to hunt down runaway s***es. Finally, he voiced his support for the proposed “Corwin Amendment” to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate with almost exclusively Northern v**es, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever interfering with Southern s***ery. The text of the “first thirteenth amendment” read as follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to service.

In mid-March of 1861 Lincoln sent copies of the proposed amendment to all the state governors. In in first inaugural address he mentioned the amendment by saying, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

So on the issue of s***ery Lincoln did not even entertain the notion of some kind of compromise. He issued an ironclad defense of Southern s***ery, period. There was nothing to compromise, in his mind. The only opposition to s***ery that was even discussed by Lincoln and the Republican Party at the time was opposition to the extension of s***ery into the new territories, of which they gave two reasons. The first reason was that, because of the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution, limiting the extension of s***ery would limit Democratic Party representation in Congress, making it more likely that “the American System” could become law. Second, the Republican Party wanted to pander to the w***e s*********t North by promising white Northern v**ers in the soon-to-become states that there would be no black people living among them or competing with them for jobs.

On the issue of tariffs, on the other hand, Lincoln was a monstrous, uncompromising tyrant. “There needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he announced in his first address. What on earth, one may ask, could cause an American president to think of the possibility of inflicting “bloodshed or violence” on his own citizens?! Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).

This was Abe Lincoln’s Don Fanucci moment. What he was saying was essentially this:

“Here’s the deal. S***ery is already legal and constitutional under the U.S. system of government, and has been since 1776. We in the North have no qualms about making s***ery “express and irrevocable” right in the text of the U.S. Constitution. So if you are worried about Northern instigators of s***e r*******ns, you are mistaken. Stay in the union and your s***e property will continue to be very well protected.”

“S***ery is a very profitable business, and we in the North intend to share in those profits. That is one of the main purposes of the Morrill Tariff, which has just more than doubled the average tariff rate. Since you, the South, export at least three-fourths of all your agricultural products and rely so heavily on foreign trade, we in the North cannot – and will not – tolerate the free-trade policies that you have written into your Confederate Constitution. The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether. Free trade in the South, and a 50% tariff rate in the North, the cornerstone of the Republican Party Platform of 1860, will destroy the Northern ports and much of our commerce. We will not allow this to happen. We have the willingness and the ability to inflict violence, bloodshed, force, and invasion on the Southern people. We will not back down this time to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers as my predecessor, President Andrew Jackson did some thirty years ago.”

“We are not being any more greedy here than say, our European counterparts. We only want to wet our beaks, so to speak, by taxing a portion of your s***e profits. There need not be any violence or bloodshed –as long as you do what we say.”

This is how the Southern politicians understood the motivations of the Yankee political elite in early 1861. Jefferson Davis himself demonstrated this understanding in his own first inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 18, 1861:

“Our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit . . . and that . . . there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities . . . . If, however, passion or the lust of d******n should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of the Northern states, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed . . .”

Wh**ever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession is irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports, he kept his promise of “invasion and bloodshed” and waged war on the Southern states. No gangster in the history of the world has ever enforced an extortion racket on such a gargantuan scale of death, plunder, and destruction.

http://no-ruler.net/11136/the-don-fanucci-of-american-politics/#comment-720
I must also give credit to an OPP member, Katron who originally posted this a few months ago: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-37405-1.html

But, what about s***ery? That old and worn out cry of the B****s in the USA, the white man did this or that. T***h is sometimes stranger than fact. But, more later on the lies the North believes about s***ery later.