It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why America Lost the Civil War and how it will lead to our ruin. (Agree?)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   
The Answer

Maybe not, as with everything I like discussion, to see where things end up.

However I believe this is a very good and brief analysis that clearly paints a vivid picture of the betrayal of our US Constitution by the Federal Government.

Anyone who knows me well knows that above anything else I believe the current Federal Government is a "self-established entity" while the Federal Government invisioned by our fore-fathers was an entity that existed only because the States willed it to exist. This will was excersised by the ratification of the US Constitution.

I believe that slavery was used as a "cover" to sweep the attrocities of the Northern War of Agression upon the south and the destruction and dismantling of our US Constitution as the Federal Government became an entity unto itself that has established a slowly and self-decaying system that will constantly spiral towards centralization until our Republic ceases to exist and a dictatorship//empire exists in its place.

Many of you may think that Bush is such a culmination, however you'd be wrong, Bush's policies are anti-Federalist. As are all Republican policies.

It is the Democrats who are the true enemies, the supporters of States' Rights in 1860s have fallen to the side of darkness as two different ideologies arose.

Free Markets and Socialism.

The Democrats took the side of centralized government, the side of the Federalist, the Socialists. And while moderate compared to others, it is the disease that will only perpetuate our inevitable destruction.

However, it is the flaw in the system that must be discussed.

That flaw is why America lost the Civil War.

Explained best:


The victors justified themselves to the world and history by brute force and sly obfuscation. The elimination of slavery was trumpeted as the justifying crown of victory. As to saving the Union, is that not like preserving a marriage by beating the wife into submission?

The result is the humanist monster-state, and activist judges who reinvent what the constitution means. They have lost the ability to understand and receive it, since they have abandoned the transcendence of principle. They will always find a way to make themselves the final authority. New amendments designed to strengthen the plain intent of the Founding Fathers will eventually fail, because no loophole can be drawn so tight as to eliminate a scoundrel.




posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I agree whole-heartedly, and I think some more evidence of taking away the power of the original founding was, taking away our gold standard, and there was a law passed in 1954 that slips my mind right now, could it be the 18th amendment...

But all in all, I think the final step towards dictatorship will be martial law. I think the 14th amendment coupled with the other factors, will ultimately lead to this demise.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Well the removal of the Gold Standard was inevitable and not crucial to our original founding. Originally the Gold Standard was put into the Constitution as a measure to stabalize our currency as during the Revolution it was horribly valueless. However as our economy super-inflated after WWI there was no longer enough Gold to back the amount of currency needed for the market.

So we eventually found a better way to stabalize our currency.

As for that 18th Amendment, a great quote was by Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field, in striking down as unconstitutional a progressive income tax enacted by Congress, predicted that such a tax would lead to class wars: "Our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich, a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness."

All these implimentations were possible by the usurpation of power by the Federal Government in the War of Northern Agression (I think it should be more accurately called the War of Federal Agression or Usurpation), destroying the State-Centered Federalism that our nation was founded upon.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I can see opening up the Mexican borders sparking a civil war. I doubt thatll ever happen. The economy collapsing and money declared useless i believe would create anarchy, riots, looting, you name it. When a throng o people are hungry no law or moral has any meaning, all that is important is getting another meal.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Some of my people fought for states rights . Half of my paternal side for slavery.But the south loss the war because a loose conederation of states leaders could not agree on a policy for all of them. The first interracial marrige was in the 1820's[in South Carolina].Interracial marrige was not outlawed till after the war. Most union people fought to bring the nation together again. The confederacy[WE are not Dixie.]could not survive today. Now are you suggesting that the states rule themselves,have thier own unigue laws? maybe even succede from the union? No more Unites States of America?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Not actually Karl, the South lost simply because the North had more men to lose. The South had a population of 5 million and lost 300,000 in battle, the North had a population of 29 million and lost about 350,000 - 400,000 in battle.

And had many more to go.

The "Union's" (I call them Federals) had a horrid policy of winning the war, because they couldn't win it through popular support.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Oh and your last part. No I don't advocate Secession.

If ever the idea of Secession arose I would be doing my best to try and motivate the States for what I call "Temporary Confederation".

Which is ambiguous in name but its principle is nothing less than a Confederacy of States of the Union to restore the Union as the Founding Fathers invisioned and not as the Federal Government invisioned (14th Amendment, 18th Amendment, Lame Duck Amendment and so forth).

Since 1867 the Federal Government has moved to amend the Constitution as would be best to shatter our Union and establish a nation that is dominated by the Federal Government.

This "Temporary Confederacy" would be established to achieve that goal and once that goal is accomplished, elections would occur again and so forth.

I wouldn't urge secession, which would only ruin us, but I would urge an attempt for the States to understand their Constitutional supremacy in areas not enumerated to the Federal Government by the US Constitution, and thus nullify by force if necessary any Federal action that steps outside the US Constitution.

Basically the States would nullify the amendments of the Constitution that were never Constitutionally put there anyway, such as the 14th, which gives the Feds unlimited power over the States through Judicial Review and was never Constitutionally Ratified.

There, a general maybe not good explaination but a good first glimps into exactly what I believe should be done to save our Union.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:23 AM
link   
What I don't understand is, if republican policy is anti-federalist, (and I agree it is) wasn't Lincoln a Republican? The reason I ask is because I really don't know too much about the policy and politics of that time. I know more about the war (battles, ect....). Has the party changed since then? Or, am I wrong and Lincoln was a democrat?

Thanks,
Baked



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:38 AM
link   
The parties changed platforms, and the reason will be more complicated than I can give but simply put it is for the following reason.

When Abolitionism won, the Republicans lost a significant part of their "running"...the whole Republican Platform of 1860 was maintaining Union and in more words "Smashing Slavery". Hence why the Election of Lincoln just sent the Southerners flying.

Since then the Republicans became more oriented to re-establishing the Union, they rebuilt the Union as they wanted, whether intended or not that allowed institutionally for the behemoth Federal Government that exists today.

That ended around 1877 and the Democrats began to move back in.

I can't say specifically (don't have the running platforms) but after the Reconstruction acts the Democrats started winning Presidencies again.

Well when the Great Depression hit everything flipped, a Republican was sitting in the seat so it was the Democrats who got the "next try" and Roosevelt was more or less forced to use the Government to restore stability.

Roosevelt and Truman I wouldn't say resemble the party of today, but it was this and the war that effected a change.

The Republicans became more national defense oriented, anti-Communism (thus support small business), and the Democrats took on Roosevelt's socialist policies.

JFK ran with it with his "Camelot" and LBJ practically destroyed our nation with his bullcrap "Great Society".

Hence since about the 60s we have had 4 decades of what has become increasingly ideological partisan activity, in 1930 the Repubs and Demos were not really much apart.

By the 1960s the democrats were picking up increasing ideological views, which today has established them as an advocate for centralized government to support those ideals, civil rights, humanism (whatever that is), socialism.

The Republicans however have just advocated a different economic plan sometimes more defense, and don't really run with an "ideology" though with Bush they have started to pick-up more right-wing ideology of religion and such.

If we stuck with State's Rights we'd not have to worry about the coming ideological conflicts.

Damn the Reconstruction acts!



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Thanks for the detailed response. It makes sense to me.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   
It does make sense, but it's not an indepth answer, just simply the Great Depression changed everything, WW2 didn't help any. I don't think the Republicans are "intentionally" anti-Federalists, as while they tend to give powers to the States through their pro-business policies, they also end up enlarging the Federal Government in their defense expenditures (and because of the Democrats you can't balance it out by cutting out other programs that the Democrats want).

But the Democrats intentionally reduce the freedoms of the States to force their agenda.

Simply put though, just don't trust the parties until the States have their authority back and the Feds are back in the cage that was established for them when the US Constitution was first ratified



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Youre, strangely enough, right on this one, Freemason.

The Union didnt give a # about the slaves at all. Slavery was, as you said, used to cover up thier reasons. Hell, many of the Union generals had little problem with slavery.

The war was really about states rights. Had they try to fight the war on any other platform other than slavery, it would have never happened, the northerners would have never approved. But using slavery as the reason for the war whipped up righteous puritan indignation amongst many northerners who were abolitionists.

It has barely been mentioned, Lincolns own view on the slaves. He stated clearly, that he had no intention of "elevating the negro as the white mans equal" but instead, sending the lioberated slaves back to Africa.

The real reason for the war was.........federalism. And look what they did to the south after the war.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Slavery was the cause, though not the reason. the Civil War was fought. And yes, the Union had more men and access to supplies. The Confederacy had better military leadership (Lee, Jackson) than the Union.

Lee was offered the position of Commanding General of Union Forces, and turned it down. Lee went back to Virginia, to defend his homestate against invasion from the North. Simple as that. The war was fought over state rights vs. Federal mandate. All of the key players of the Civil War, Lee, Grant, Jackson, Beaugard, Scott, Mclellan, and so on, all studied either at West Point, or the VMI(Virginia Military Institute). They all served together in Mexico. Winfield Scott, Lee's prior commanding Officer, was disappointed when Lee did not accept the position offered to him by Lincoln. It was the force of varying beliefs in state vs Federal rights that caused the rift. If I were living during that time, I would have probably sided with the Confederacy. I am more for state rights. What may be good for me here in Illinois, may not be good for someone, say in California.


df1

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   
The north did not care about slavery down on the plantation and only became concerned with slavery after the south expressed an active interest in building its own manufacturing infrastructure. At that point the north became concerned at the large population of cheap slave labor available to support manufacturing in the south. This would have devastated northern manufacturing and exports because the north could not compete economically with the south if this was allowed to happen. This is the core reason for the civil war, the story of freeing the poor abused slaves is a myth and while a few compassionate souls did care about the plight of the slaves, it was not sufficient motivation to go to war. The issue of states rights is also largely a myth.

As with most wars, the civil war was about the money.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by df1]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Very nice link, very informative.

The war was never about slavery, that was just a small issue. The South was fed up with Lincoln and his policies and they wanted to seperate. The South wanted state rights and did not like a government looking over its shoulder. The North as the opposite, very pro-government.

The South had the better millitary minds, Lee and Jackson were great millitary figures. However like FM pointed out, the North had many more men and could keep on fighting.

The South did have a good markets, such as tobacco and cotton. They would be able to hold all of those goods from the North.

If Lee had taken that position and if Stonewall survived, Jacksonville (I am prettu sure this is the battle where he died at, correct me if I am wrong) the South had a very good shot at winning.

While I am anti-Slavery, I would've fought for the South. I am more pro-state rights that a big governement. The South was more concerned with the people and their rights than the rights of the government.

And of course of history, liberals have spun it so that the South were all racist hate-mongers, that the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate. Its a symbol of heritage, should people be forced to shun part of its history? The war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over freedoms,state rights, and the government.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
1.Freemason i'd love to debate why the war ended like it did with you .But THAT is off this topic.
2.Jackson died at Chancellersville.
3.I agree that the platforms for the parties changed.Repulicans became conservatives[mostly] and democrats[mostly liberal].
4.How about the electorlial college? How about our votes don't really count. In the US Constitution anyone appointed to this body may cast thier vote as they choose.What were the founding Father's thinking?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
You need to go down to your local library or bookstore and get a copy of Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America

It is an easy to read, fascinating look at how the Gettysburg Address marked a turning point our concept of ourselves as a nation. Although I dont happen to agree with the author with one thing, I feel that Lincolns speech was a refection of the changing perceptions, rather than a catalyst for them. In otherwords, the changes in perceptions were already taking place, the Gettysburg Address, simply clarified them.

Read the book.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Before the civil war most people called the country the United States. After the war most people call it the United States of America.


When a person was asked before the war where they were from they would say I'm a Texan or I'm a Virginian. Now when asked most people say they're American. This used to be unheard of.

A friend of mine told me the other day about a concrete marker, you know the four sided markers a few feet tall the government uses to mark borders and stuff like that. This marker is at a park right where Maryland and the District of Columbia meet. On one side of the marker it says Maryland. On the other side of the marker instead of saying District of Columbia, it says United States of America.

Is this a little strange or what? Does this mean the laws of the state of Maryland dont apply if your in the United States of America? Or maybe it means Maryland isn't part of the USA? Maybe it means the District of columbia is owned by the USA but if that's the case then why not put DC on the marker instead of USA?

I think the Libertarian party is the best political party in the country right now because they are for states rights over that of the federal government. I think the Democrats and the Republicans no longer have goles that are different. Both parties are the same and both want a bigger federal government and less rights for the states. This has been getting worse and worse since the end of the civil war. I also believe the war was about states rights but with the money issue thrown in as well that df1 pointed out.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Karl, the Electoral College exists to protect States' Rights. When the Electoral College is "removed" our nation as was conceived by our Founding Fathers is dead, and we may as well move back to England.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Oh and Texan, the Libertarians are "pro-Individual rights" they don't give a crap about States' Rights, it is just better than Federal control. Ideally they'd have very weak Federal and States.

As for df1, I think his assertion that the South was building an industrial infrastructure thus threatening the North is "unfounded".

The South had one factory through-out all of the Civil War that produced almost all the Cannon and munitions for the Confederacy.

They relied mostly on capturing Federal equipment.

One Confederate is claimed as having said after being captured and walking by a row of Union guns, "My we have more of these guns than you do."

The South was most certainly not threatening Northern Industries by constructing Industries of their own. The North however was protecting their own Industries from British Industries at the expense of the Southerners.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join