The conspiracy that launched US federal government .

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If there was a time to lay a foundation for corruption it was definitely during the Constitutional convention . Many people do not realize only 55 men authored the original document .

a reply to: Greathouse

That is exactly why I believe that certain founding fathers establised this nation with an expiration date...9/16/2016, once again the Paleo-Hebrew Feast of Trumpets. Had the South been successful in their efforts, the Federalists plot would have been foiled.

originally posted by: Greathouse

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

Look at that last highlighted statement again . It was after the Civil War that subjugation of all states to the federal government was etched into stone .

As far as nullification is concerned (which is what your quote addresses) the power of the federal government was "etched in stone" by the Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth BEOFRE the Civil War started.

Nullification was not a Southern issue in the war. Actually, the south was AGAINST nullification when northern states tried to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Ableman v. Booth decision favored the south and no southerners objected. They advocated that the federal government overrule the decisions of northern states.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Ice cases and stance trying to defend your unattainable position . It is linked to my sources I'm well aware that the north matter fact I think it was Wisconsin tried to use the nullification act to appeal that fugitive slave act .


You cherry pick your responses as an evident in my reply on the other post. Calhoun who you have been quoting up to now was a firm supporter of nullification .


Any future attempts after the Civil War for had no essence of action behind them. Look up the source you kept quoting to me John C Calhoun you will find out that senator from the state of South Carolina was a full supporter of nullification .

So I will put a question to you directly you told me you would answer them. Do you believe the only cause of the Civil War was slavery exclusively and the only precipitating factor into the involvement of the Civil War?

a reply to: Greathouse

I think that the slavery issue played just a tiny part of of the cause of the war. Northern states also owned slaves. I think the biggest issue was unfair taxation and the south having to prop up failing northern banks. Lincoln actually said that if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves, he would.

a reply to: Skid Mark

I will even give debaters the issue of slavery being the cause of the Civil War. Though with the preponderance of evidence it becomes obvious what the causation was to bring the issue of slavery to a head .

But many people even though it is obvious will not admit it for fear of weakening their argument . There's a term for that action it's called intellectual dishonesty .

I enjoy debating people like you who are honest with their opinions .

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Greathouse

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

Look at that last highlighted statement again . It was after the Civil War that subjugation of all states to the federal government was etched into stone .

As far as nullification is concerned (which is what your quote addresses) the power of the federal government was "etched in stone" by the Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth BEOFRE the Civil War started.

Nullification was not a Southern issue in the war. Actually, the south was AGAINST nullification when northern states tried to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Ableman v. Booth decision favored the south and no southerners objected. They advocated that the federal government overrule the decisions of northern states.

Again you cherry pick. Let me tell you something if you're going to cherry pick a source and not link it. Never pick wiki .



Here is the rest of that statement that you somehow left out of your quote ?

South Carolina's ordinance of secession from December 1860 stated that nullification attempts by the northern states were a cause of South Carolina's secession from the union: "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution...Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

The Civil War put an end to most nullification attempts. Nullification relied on principles of states' rights that were viewed as no longer viable after the Civil War.[66][67][68]

I guess you cut it off there because in the first sentence it proves to you that your stance is incorrect it was not etched in stone in 1859 it was challenged again and cited as the reason for South Carolina succeeding .


your source

Sorry when I responded before I couldn't be precise I was in the drive-through and took a couple seconds to reply I also noticed I failed to edit .


I'm going out again shortly would you like me to pick up some aloe for that burn ?

a reply to: Greathouse

I really don't know how to be anything other than honest. It gets me in trouble frequently and pisses people off. They say that honesty is the best policy but few seem to really appreciate it. I'm glad that you're one of the few that do.
I think that most people's views of the war come from what they were told in history class; little realizing that school boards vote on what content they want taught, how it's taught, and what they either want changed or left out entirely. I bought a book called Lies my Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. It was a real eye opener for me. It covers a lot of different subjects pertaining to history, shows how history has been warped and why, and has sources. It's a must have for anybody that's interested in history.

a reply to: Skid Mark

I bought a book called Lies my Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. It was a real eye opener for me. It covers a lot of different subjects pertaining to history, shows how history has been warped and why, and has sources.

I've heard of that book but never read it. Sounds like a good one, but better yet. Those individual stories sound like good threads. If you still have the book read one and educate us with a thread on it .

a reply to: Greathouse

I'll try to but with the lack of luck I've been having searching for things online, providing sources might prove difficult. I type one thing in and 1000 unrelated things pop up. It's frustrating and annoying lol. It's been like that all day.

a reply to: muse7

That may have been what the folks running South Carolina were fighting for. But that most certainly was not what Lincoln was fighting for. Lincoln really didn't care about freeing slaves. Other than the socioeconomic benefits of freeing the slaves, anyway. Lincoln didn't really think the black man his equal. During the civil war he started changing his public statements, which to me seems consistent with taking advantage of a political position.

Lincoln was more concerned with solidifying the Union. Pre Civil War America was not full of national sentiment. The states were not acustomed to answering to a central authority. Imagine if the EU tried to interlope on national laws for one of its constituents....it wouldn't go so well.

Since the founding, the question of "state vs federal" had been left to hang out there. Lincoln came along and answered the question once and for all.

Had the north not pushed the issue, the slaves would have been freed eventually anyway. Its just the way the world was moving. And had America ever really been a free nation, slavery would have never happened to begin with.

originally posted by: Greathouse
I guess you cut it off there because in the first sentence it proves to you that your stance is incorrect it was not etched in stone in 1859 it was challenged again and cited as the reason for South Carolina succeeding .

What South Carolina was claiming was that THE NORTHERN STATES were trying to nullify federal law concerning escaped slaves. They wanted the federal government to override the rights of the northern states.

The South were for states' rights as long as that supported slavery and against state's rights when it went against slavery. Slavery being the common denominator, not states' rights.

originally posted by: Greathouse
Here is the rest of that statement that you somehow left out of your quote ?


your source

What are you talking about? I quoted nothing from that page. I copied a quote from John Calhoun where he stated that slavery was the real underlying reason for the crisis around the Tariff of 1828.

originally posted by: Greathouse
I'm going out again shortly would you like me to pick up some aloe for that burn ?

So much for the dispassionate discussion you keep going on about. That's it for me. Have a good one.

a reply to: DelMarvel

The South were for states' rights as long as that supported slavery and against state's rights when it went against slavery. Slavery being the common denominator, not states' rights.

Like I've said to you 100 times. Yes when the issue came to ahead during the Civil War . But the issue went back to 1798 in the Kentucky Virginia resolutions . I'm sure you will ignore that fact in history again .

What are you talking about? I quoted nothing from that page. I copied a quote from John Calhoun where he stated that slavery was the real underlying reason for the crisis around the Tariff of 1828.

Baloney , The exact wordage in the post of yours I replied to sited wiki word for word . Unless you are being intellectually dishonest dishonest again. Our you referring to the other thread you abandoned . Where you took one paragraph out of some source and claimed it was John C Calhoun's position. You did not link that source so you were cherry picking there also. So I pulled up another source stating John C Calhoun's full support of nullification . Oh and by the way I supply the link there too. At this point I'm wondering if you will ever supply a link to the quotes you post ?

So much for the dispassionate discussion you keep going on about. That's it for me. Have a good one

I guess you missed the little smiley face behind it telling you that it was a joke and in good humor. If you would've done it to me I would've been adult about it and laughed because you can't hurt my feelings with a stick and it was funny .

One thing I've noticed. Despite you repeatedly saying you will answer my questions you still haven't answered the one I keep repeating.

Do you base all of your decades of history and study on the circumstances surrounding the Civil War on the position that it was solely about slavery and there were no other precipitating issues ?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Had it not been Lincoln it would have been something else. We have a microcosm of state vs federal rights playing out today in town vs city rights.

One of these days a war is going to start when the large metropolitan areas dictate things for the more rural areas. New York City exerting influence over my small town in Ohio for example, or Los Angeles/San Diego alleviating the drought issues by taking water upstream from the Colorado River.

originally posted by: Greathouse


Baloney , The exact wordage in the post of yours I replied to sited wiki word for word .

Unless you are being intellectually dishonest dishonest again.

If you're going to go around throwing out accusations of "intellectual dishonesty, please copy and paste what I wrote and "the exact wordage" from a wiki article.

originally posted by: Greathouse
Our you referring to the other thread you abandoned ?

GEEZ LOUISE!!! YOU TOLD ME TO COME OVER TO THIS THREAD!!!!

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Had it not been Lincoln it would have been something else. We have a microcosm of state vs federal rights playing out today in town vs city rights.

One of these days a war is going to start when the large metropolitan areas dictate things for the more rural areas. New York City exerting influence over my small town in Ohio for example, or Los Angeles/San Diego alleviating the drought issues by taking water upstream from the Colorado River.

You and I are of the same mind.

And that was what the Civil War was for most of the regular folks. It was a case of federalism vs antifederalism. Certainly not a new fight in America. Just the bloodiest example of it. Slavery was important to slave owners. Few southerners were slave owners, though.

But you are right: big city politics bleeding into the rural areas will be the flash point in the future. I think once the I35 corridor becomes nothing but a giant Supermetropolis, you'll see the same in Texas.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Excellent OP, you make many good and salient points.

Keep in mind however:

1) Lincoln did not invade the Southern states to end slavery, he did so to preserve the Union.
2) 94% of all Southerners did NOT own slaves.
3) Many in the North did NOT want to emancipate the slaves, it proved equally unpopular among the Union troops.
4) The emancipation proclamation served 2 primary purposes, neither of which were based on altruism -
A) To keep France and England out of the war.
B) To tie down troops in Southern states to guard against slave rebellions and use Black troops to bolster Union numbers.

I think what bothers me most is this perception that everyone in the South hated and abused Blacks and everyone in the North was a kindly abolitionist type. So far from the truth it hurts to contemplate the depth of this erroneous perception.

There are other facts concerning this war, AND THEY ARE NOT PRETTY. And it had to do with Andrew Jackson killing the bank.

Hopefully everyone is up to date about the private banking issue, and how the owners of the international banks have continually tried to overthrow our republic with privately owned monetary systems. They finally achieved this with the inception of the federal reserve.

I would add to your list 5. The illegal removal of a ratified amendment, and in its place a new 13th amendment, which should be the 14th.

Text of the orginal 13th "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Esquires, or lawyers, have title to the bar, and the bar (Crown) was a foreign power situated in the city of London. And as such, no lawyer could hold public office. By reading the above, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer first, a politician second, and incapable of holding any office of trust. Two months later, South Carolina seceded. I can find no written record of this being another reason why South Carolina seceded, but it sure would have been top on the list.


www.amendment-13.org...
www.uhuh.com...
www.dailykos.com...

There are arguments that this 13th amendment was never legally ratified, but, there are too many copies of the constitution with that original 13th that are still in existence. It was printed in many states as being the law of the land. You would think the President at that time would have full knowledge of its existence, but, the winners always write history, or rewrite history. Because of the very nature of this amendment all lawyers must recluse themselves from the subject. The law of the land should be written by the people, not lawyers, and the international bankers knew this full well.

So it appears one of the covert targets of the Civil war was the removal of the original 13th amendment, which barred International banking lawyers from taking over our government, from within, and legally, at least in there interpretation.

Today, our government, which is nothing more than a tool, has been stolen by lawyers and bankers, and Abraham Lincoln opened the door to them.

There is much on the internet today that is quite revealing about the nature of this questionable president, and the company he kept, and as a extension to that, where his true loyalties lay..

www.israeltoday.co.il...
www.aish.com...
shaarey.org...
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
www.amazon.com...

Yes, it is all about slavery, slavery to lawyers and bankers, white or black. The only freedom we have, is to pay taxes, and die.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Esquires, or lawyers, have title to the bar, and the bar (Crown) was a foreign power situated in the city of London. And as such, no lawyer could hold public office. By reading the above, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer first, a politician second, and incapable of holding any office of trust. Two months later, South Carolina seceded. I can find no written record of this being another reason why South Carolina seceded, but it sure would have been top on the list.

Many presidents and congressmen have been lawyers, even back then. Being a lawyer and a politician often go hand in hand, they have many overlapping skillsets. For example, Jefferson and Madison were both lawyers.

a reply to: DelMarvel

If you're going to go around throwing out accusations of "intellectual dishonesty, please copy and paste what I wrote and "the exact wordage" from a wiki article.

Why it was posted a directly above my post. But despite your attempts to turn the argument around and put me on the defensive. I noticed that you did not deny you sourced wiki and omitted all but the cherry picked part of the article you posted .

GEEZ LOUISE!!! YOU TOLD ME TO COME OVER TO THIS THREAD!!!!

No I told you to start your own thread because you won't pay attention or acknowledge any of the comments I make . You ask for more sources although you rarely supply any. So I sourced this thread that has multiple points of my position you chose to reply on this thread .


I see where this is going though you have realized you can't argue with my position because I've stated nothing but facts.

You seem to have found that in order to carry on a meaningful debate you would have to give in on one small portion on your stance not your entire stance mind you just one small portion of your position . But your insecurity in your beliefs will not allow you to do that. So as I told you before I was willing to have meaningful debate with you yet you refuse. I've also noticed thT you always feel the need to get the last word in. So feel free I will leave you with my sign off word when I'm in this situation .


Potato

a reply to: AazadanI believe Virgina ratified the amendment in 1819, so that is the magic date. Before that date they could, but not afterward. At least that is how I read it.