America Lost The Civil War.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by yurigadaisukida, Jun 12, 2013.

  1. And just to clarify.

    Evidence: the civil war was fought over secession. The civil war established that the federal government has power over the states.

    My claim: As a result states rights were destroyed

    My claim that its a conspiracy is my opinion, based on the facts. Not a fact itself.

    I can't prove its a conspiracy, only that the result was an empowered federal government. Which IMO was not the founding fathers wishes.

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

     
  2.  
     
    If the proof is in you then have fun with that. Charles Manson says he can prove things and its all within his mind. Thats why he is behind electrified glass. Im sure his inner voices are fountains of wisdom.
     
    When the idiots announced to the world Cold Fusion last century that was a bold claim. The burden was on them not the naysayers. They made the claim the others did not. So that team released there findings. All over the world attempts to verify and replicate there experiment happened. No one could. They were not credible. Thats how it works. 

     

     
  3. #43 rhapsodyrcks, Jun 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2013

     
     
     
    Your a little late in the game. Are you just discovering this in the 21st Century? I guess better late then never.
     
  4. Not sure whats going on here, but to some degree the title is true. Slavery was an issue, but not the only catalyst. 
     
    The North wouldn't have minded slavery that much. The north was much more industrialized and depended upon the south for cotton which it used in production. Slavery meant cheaper production which saved north money in operating costs. 
     
    As states were being added, they were unsure whether they should allow states to be slaves states or not. Popular sovereignty was tried, but that led to "Bleeding Kansas".  
     
    The south wasn't completed crushed in the war. For the most part, they kicked ass. The north finally got some victories, after which Lincoln emancipated the slaves which was a death blow to the south. 
     
    The Emancipation Proclamation also did not free slaves. In fact, It legalized slavery in the border states. Lincoln didn't have constitutional power to free slaves. Slaves in rebel states could be freed because they were being used to aid in the South's war effort. In a sense, he freed slaves in territories he had no control over. 
     
     
    Lincoln was a tyrant, but circumstances were much different than any other president had been in. The North did need to keep the States united. Had the south won, it could have been a blow to democracy around the world. Democracy was just reborn at the time and if the states fell, England and France may have followed suite and democracy would not be dominate in the west. I think it would be unjust for him to have stayed in power after he broke constitutional laws, but Boothe didn't help the south by killing Lincoln. Reconstruction period wasn't the best time in American history, in part because of who replaced Lincoln. 
     
  5. #45 lilro, Jun 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2013
  6. The civil war was fought over secession, yes that is true, but toward the end it was a fight over slavery, not merely to restore the union.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union
    States did not have their rights destroyed. As you can tell there are quite a few states today - Washington, or Colorado - who don't follow federal rules, that shows that state rights were never lost. If you're saying, "as a result of the civil war, state rights were lost" or something like that, they left, so if they lost any rights they weren't part of the union at the time. I don't know if that's what you meant though. Either way, they have their rights, and had there rights once re-added. (Plus, you never give evidence, it has just been claim, claim, claim, with no supporting material)

    It being a conspiracy is unlikely, though Lincoln's murder was a conspiracy, as well as JFKs - check out Cuba.

    The empowered federal government... Uhhhh, maybe it gained a little more power, but this wasn't anything that gave them immense power, and denied the pendulum its ability to swing back - the checks & balances remained at there current state of power; though the executive branch has begun to get more and more power as recently as the Nixon administration.

    I may have misread what you said, so my bad if so.
     
  7. #47 yurigadaisukida, Jun 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2013
    A blow to democracy is what we needed.

    The founding father's didn't want democracy.

    Democracy innevitably turns into tyranny by majority, and spirals into a welfare state.

    Many of the founding fathers talked about trading freedom.for security and letting bankers take control.

    This is because people are stupid and can't be trusted to rule over other people. Not a king, not a president, not a democracy.

    The reason the constitution was written was to preserve rights and create as little government as possible to appease the statists.

    But the mere existence of the federal government made the system easily corruptable.

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  8. What do you mean the founding fathers didn't want democracy? Some did, and some didn't, but you can't say that universally the founding fathers didn't want a democracy, or they wouldn't have drafted the constitution as it was...

    Democracy does turn to tyranny, I believe that.

    They did talk about trading freedom for security, and mainly advised against this. As for Bankers, that was one of their greatest fears, how many founding father's letters have you read? I 'm currently going through a bunch of Jefferson's.

    People can be trusted to rule people, look at 'primitive' Native American societies, they  had elders that led the society, and it went fairly well, so well that many white settlers wanted to live with them! (I wish they wouldn't have been depopulated by foreign disease..)

    The constitution was written to preserve rights, and to create a system that will have checks & balances, so that the will of the people can be done with limitation, and a certain guiding... Not to have 'as little government as possible'.

    With the separate branches, it was only easily corruptible because branches have been submissive, and have given the executive branch far too much power. Also, money, more or less, made the system easily corruptable. That is, bribery, or lobbying, combined with the loss of interest in politics by the American people, made the system easily corruptable.
     
  9. What do you mean the founding fathers didn't want democracy? Some did, and some didn't, but you can't say that universally the founding fathers didn't want a democracy, or they wouldn't have drafted the constitution as it was...


    Democracy does turn to tyranny, I believe that.


    They did talk about trading freedom for security, and mainly advised against this. As for Bankers, that was one of their greatest fears, how many founding father's letters have you read? I 'm currently going through a bunch of Jefferson's.


    People can be trusted to rule people, look at 'primitive' Native American societies, they had elders that led the society, and it went fairly well, so well that many white settlers wanted to live with them! (I wish they wouldn't have been depopulated by foreign disease..)


    The constitution was written to preserve rights, and to create a system that will have checks & balances, so that the will of the people can be done with limitation, and a certain guiding... Not to have 'as little government as possible'.


    With the separate branches, it was only easily corruptible because branches have been submissive, and have given the executive branch far too much power. Also, money, more or less, made the system easily corruptable. That is, bribery, or lobbying, combined with the loss of interest in politics by the American people, made the system easily corruptable.
    </blockquote>
    I believe the "checks and balances" was a compromise.

    Some of the founders were still stuck in the old ways of thinking a large central government was nessesary.

    That's why so much fighting occurred between them. Some were minarchists. Some were statists. Some believed in small local governments.

    But when they gave Congress the ability to ammend the constitution, they essentially gave them the power to regulate themselves.

    Checks and balances turned into a cartel owned by money.

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

     
  10. Only read the first page and holy fucking shit can you people please read a God damn book for once in your lives?
     
  11. Democracy is a type of government in which the people make up the government. People have the power to vote, that is democracy. We have a type of democracy called a republic. 
     
    What we have is not tyranny by majority, a very small minority controls the government. 
     
    The constitution was not perfect. The founding fathers did the best they could based on what history taught them. It has fallen short and its obvious it needs to be revised. Restoring it is one thing, but that wouldn't help US in the long run. 
     
  12.  
    We got our ass handed to us in the War of 1812, after the American Revolution we had no military. We disbanded it because we had no need for it and it costs money to maintain a military, money we did not have. At Bladensburg our troops broke and ran, mostly militia of course since there was no professional army. This left Washington DC open and it was partially burned, including the White House. In fact, it was not even commonplace for European nations until about this time to field modern, professional, national armies of citizen soldiers. The American Civil War was a great tragedy of failing to compromise and industrialize, had the war not happened slavery would have become antiquated to industrialization and fallen away due to more effective and profitable methods compared to  manpower alone. The war happened because we are a nation and we are in this together, you cannot pick and choose when to leave because we have all agreed to be a nation when state legislatures ratified the US Constitution, thus joining the union. Lincoln was killed because Booth and others had a plot to kill several high ranking members of the US government, all were southern sympathizers. Learn history, 99% of the time there is no great conspiracy or mystery, just crazy people who have no clue of history and so they invent their own to fit their view of reality. Trust me conspiracy in history is far more titillating than the crap a lot of you buy into. I mean come on the Catholic Church helped high-ranking Nazi's, including war criminals, escape Europe. If I remember right the guy who did much of it was a German bishop in Italy (German sympathetic to other Germans). Please learn history through legitimate channels.
     
  13. America died as fascism was born. Lincoln was arguably the worst President we ever had. His Memorial even has fasces right on the front of his chair. He was a pure fascist, and is now honored by statists everywhere for the power and control he wielded over the people. This is the truth, but in the empire of lies he's simply the Great Emancipator, raised to near divine status. It's all very Orwellian.
     
  14. #54 jay-bird, Jun 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2013
    Lay Low you really disgust me. Not even saying to be rude. I'm stating the truth. Who are some of your idols?
     
  15. Wait. So you think lincoln wasnt a bad president?

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

     
  16. Haha. Libertarianism and neoconservatism are basically total opposites of each other, your ideology disgusts me as well, and I'm not being rude either. Neoconservatism is one of the worst political philosophies to ever come from the mind of man. It's truly disgusting imo, so the feeling is mutual. As far as idols, that's a strong word. I can list some of the people I admire politically, I wouldn't call them idols though.

    Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, ARJ Turgot, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Hans Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux, and many others. That's just a short list that spans a big time period.
     
  17. #57 jay-bird, Jun 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2013
    There are few statesmen on that list. To be expected...
     
    Lincoln is a man to be honored and respected. Washington, Madison, Lincoln, and FDR quite simply did what they had to do. There is always negative criticism for all of them, similar to how you guys are condemning Lincoln just because you think he did things that you wouldn't have done yourself. (suspended Habeus corpus, overrid states rights)
     
    I wonder what any of you would have done in Lincoln's situation. If you would follow your weird hearts and do things differently, you would likely not be remembered for boldness and leadership, which resonates with the very land, legislations, and people of the state for years to come. Until now. Until people like you guys became the next best thing.
     
    I'v come to realize that some of you are so bad at putting yourself in someone else's shoes, that you decide to just defend individualism and take the easy way out. I understand. You guys truly are anarchos, and would never be satisfied with any type of leader unless they were an individualist like yourselves. Spouting anarchist and libertarian ideologies now that communism and socialism and liberal democratism isn't cool anymore.
     
  18. You prove my point.
     
  19. #59 jay-bird, Jun 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2013
    God damn you. Lincoln deserves the power of the fasces. Lincoln IS the man that our American bodies would probably flock under again to serve. We would ALL assemble as one under such a man and such a cause AGAIN. Only American men can adapt and metamorph themselves to do anything possible, in the most righteous way possible by faulty men. Because of what he did, this country, America, will likely not have to worry for a very long time about states (I know there have been some stories as of late in the news, that's why I can't say "never worry about it again") seceding, decreasing our security and quality of life in many ways.
     
    Lincoln is a fascist, FDR was a socialist/communist... FUCK IT ALL. American politcal leaders are special leaders who can be called many things, as they draw from nearly every political and societal predisposition to make an ultimate solution for the problems at hand to the best of their abilities. And the solutions aren't best for them, they are best for the people too. Fuck the south. They deserved to get bloodied up and embarassed by the North. Look at their lifestyle. Today, in the year 2013, I would probably WANT to go to war with fucks like that a couple states down from where I live and grow. They held the entire country and thus the world back.
     
  20. Because the fact is, the federal government were completely ignoring the Southern States' rights to decide on matters that should be up to them, not the federal government. This is exactly the purpose of the tenth amendment, and this set a direct precedent on why the federal government thinks they have the right to outlaw plants that, in reality, are the right of the states to decide whether they should be legal or not. We can thank Lincoln for our outrageous unConstitutional drug war that we have today.
     

Share This Page