Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

page: 23
100
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The Morrill Act was a major part of the abolitionist party platform.


It's irrelevant what you think the Morrill Act was about, the bill was only passed through congress in 1861, months following the secession of the first Southern States. Had those states not seceded and stayed in congress, this bill would have not passed through the senate given southern dominance in congress at that time. So what exactly was the point of seceding because of the Morrill bill when they held the majorities to stop it from being passed? There was no point really, because the Morrill Bill had little to nothing to do with secession in the first place.

If your excuse then is that the southern representitives were "offended" by the Morrill Bill being introduced then this only demonstrates to me further how spineless many of them were. You can't pick up your toys and leave everytime you don't like what you hear, politics is a game for big boys:


In 1833, the minority threatened secession over the tariff. The majority gave in. In 1835, it threatened secession if Congress did not prohibit discussions of slavery during its own proceedings. The majority gave in and passed a "Gag Rule." In 1850, the minority threatened secession unless Congress forced the return of fugitive slaves without a prior jury trial. The majority agreed to pass a Fugitive Slave Act. In 1854 the minority threatened secession unless the Missouri Compromise was repealed, opening Kansas to slavery. Again, the majority acquiesced rather than see the Union smashed.

www.claremont.org...


The Governor of Massachusetts wouldn't let any escaped slaves enter into the state.
In actuality, he didn't want ANY blacks in his state. Free or slave.

Lincoln wanted to ship the freed slaves to Haiti.


And what does this mean? Why are you reverting to strawman arguments? I was never of the position that the North was at all innocent over the slavery issue so what's the point of your excuses? Because many of the North also treated slaves badly, that justified the institution? Two wrongs make a right?

Tell me, putting aside your pettiness to the Lincoln and the North, does the institution of slavery represent Liberty for you? And I'm not concerned about whether it was "legal" or a "constitutional right at the time, the two were never one in the same and I explained this clearly to you before. Does slavery represent liberty to you?




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



It was finally signed by Democratic president Buchanan in March 1861, right before Lincoln assumed office.

What's this source of yours that you speak of?


I honestly don't know the answer to this debate that you have mucked up, because it is pointless.

Tell me Mr. Sophist Cad... How exactly would a date regarding a congressional vote on the Morrill Act change the fact that you have wrongly wronged history by revising a made up fantasy to fit your WRONG view of the world.

If she is even mistaken about this, what you are doing is no different than criticizing someone for misplacing a period or misspelling a word.

Everyone makes simply mistakes.

I stated that Tsar Nicholas II loaned his navy to the Union, when in reality it was Tsar Alexander II.

And you stated that the concept of liberty had nothing to do with the Constitution.
And you stated that the Confederate States never seceded.
And you stated that the States were never independent and sovereign.
And you stated that James Madison completely misunderstood the Constitution, which he helped write.
And you stated that we never had a self-governing form of government.
And you stated that the states were carved out of the Union....

All mistakes.

I would think that someone so prone to err as yourself might be a bit more forgiving.

But it doesn't even matter, because I don't even know if she was wrong in the first place.
And even if she might be mistaken, it changes neither the core of her argument nor the fact that she has run circles around your academically challenged nonsense.

Ease up son.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
How exactly would a date regarding a congressional vote on the Morrill Act


By pointing out that the South seceded before the bill could even pass congress, with a democratic majority in place.


If she is even mistaken.


You have access to the internet, there are plenty of articles regarding the Morrill Tariff and when it passed through congress.


And you stated that the concept of liberty had nothing to do with the Constitution.


I stated that the original constitution and the concept of Liberty are not synonymous, they are not one in the same. If you are to suggest that they are, then you'd have to explain to me how the "right to own slaves" connects to the concept of liberty in anyway?


And you stated that the Confederate States never seceded.
And you stated that the States were never independent and sovereign.


Judging by the end result of the civil war, no they were not. In the minds of many confederates and their apologists today, they were.


And you stated that we never had a self-governing


I stated that you were never self governing the day you were born in this country. The only time anybody was truly self-governing was when they live in a society of anarchy. Beyond that, it's ones own personal definition of what is self governance.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



There was no point really, because the Morrill Bill had little to nothing to do with secession in the first place.


Since you obviously have short term memory problems, let me explain to you why I began discussing the Morrill Act.


Valhall, I asked you earlier to give one example of a bill or law that was met with the resistence of southern politicians in the 1850's, I have not seen a response to my post. Do you have anything? Any law? What did this tyrannical federal government (dominated mostly by the southern backed democrats) do to cause southern secession? Do you anything from the 1850's? Any laws?


This bill had been on the agenda for the abolitionist well previous to 1860.

I was answering your question.

And tariffs had everything to do with secession.
I have explained this to you.
Valhall has explained this to you.

If you can think of some other means that might assist you in learning this historical truth then let me know.
I will try to accommodate you.
If needed, I can have the short bus come pick you up and transport you here for some good old fashioned learnin'.


If your excuse then is that the southern representitives were "offended" by the Morrill Bill being introduced then this only demonstrates to me further how spineless many of them were. You can't pick up your toys and leave everytime you don't like what you hear, politics is a game for big boys:


mmmmmm..... okay....

Spineless.
Kind of like Lincoln trying civilians under military tribunal because he was too afraid that a jury would nullify his abuse of power.
Or like Lincoln locking the entire state legislature in jail in order to keep them from seceding.

Which I don't understand because you keep saying that they couldn't secede.
I still have yet to hear an answer to why Lincoln locked up state representatives to keep them from seceding when apparently, according to you, they couldn't secede.

(I actually already know the answer. You are going to say that him locking them in prison was proof that they couldn't secede.)

I really hope no girl ever tells you NO when you are really intent on hearing YES.
Anyhoo.


And what does this mean? Why are you reverting to strawman arguments? I was never of the position that the North was at all innocent over the slavery issue so what's the point of your excuses? Because many of the North also treated slaves badly, that justified the institution? Two wrongs make a right?


Do you have some kind of a man crush because you keep copying my words.

I don't make straw man arguments.
You do and I have shown you that many times.
Kind of like right now, because, you see, I was responding to your comment.
Do you remember stating this?


Rights closest to those resembling "Liberty" were still very much restricted to a certain kind prior to the civil war.


You actually made a straw man argument by accusing me of making a straw man argument.

But it was all a retort to your comment.



Originally posted by kyviecaldges
How exactly would a date regarding a congressional vote on the Morrill Act


By pointing out that the South seceded before the bill could even pass congress, with a democratic majority in place.


Is there anything that I can do to stop you from arguing with sentence fragments?
It's like talking to a person who can't hear.
It is very frustrating.


I stated that the original constitution and the concept of Liberty are not synonymous, they are not one in the same.


Where are you getting this from?
Are you okay? Did you hit your head really hard or something?


If you are to suggest that they are, then you'd have to explain to me how the "right to own slaves" connects to the concept of liberty in anyway?


Considering that liberty is defined as the power to do as one pleases, then I think that you should understand that the right to do anything connects to the concept of liberty.

Slavery is a part of history. It happens today. It happens in your town.
You are a wage slave. If you don't believe me then go and turn in your social security card and tell the government that you don't want to participate anymore and see how fast you go to jail.


I stated that you were never self governing the day you were born in this country. The only time anybody was truly self-governing was when they live in a society of anarchy. Beyond that, it's ones own personal definition of what is self governance.



I trust I understand ..the right of self-government..each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own. -ABE LINCOLN

link to source

Look at that... Even a dolt randomly says the right thing occasionally.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
This bill had been on the agenda


My initial point being, the Morrill bill passed through congress in 1861, more than a month following southern secession. My point was never regarding whether the morrill bill was "on the agenda", there are many bills on the agenda in congress, and many of them fail to go through.


And tariffs had everything to do with secession.
I have explained this to you.


Neither of you have explained your arguments at all. All you've done is make references to the nullification crises that occured more than 30 years prior to the civil war (so there was some big plan for secession 30 years in the making), you ignore the 1857 reduction of tariffs to their lowest in decades, and then you insist the Morrill Tariff is partly to blame even though it would be a month after secession where it passed through congress. I fully understand though how you would get away with these excuses on this forum, but among the vast majority of historians and serious researchers on this event, your arguments hold little substance.


Kind of like Lincoln trying civilians



The final campaign of the Army of Northern Virginia began March 25, 1865, when Gen. Robert E. Lee sought to break Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's ever-tightening stranglehold at Petersburg, Va., by attacking the Federal position at Fort Stedman. The assault failed, and when Grant counterattacked a week later at Five Forks, 1-2 April, the thin Confederate line snapped, and Lees skeleton forces abandoned Richmond and Petersburg. Although fighting would continue for the next week, it would be to no avail. Lee was beaten and would ask for surrender terms on April 9."


Call Lincoln what you wish, the difference here is that there's a lovely monument of him in DC, maintained in part by your tax dollars.


Which I don't understand because you keep saying that they couldn't secede.


I never said they could not secede, I stated, rather clearly, that they were unable to achieve secession and independence. They lost the civil war, they lost their fight for independence. They may have written declarations of secession, in their eyes they may have considered themselves independent, but in the end they lost the civil war to win that independence.


Slavery is a part of history.


I wasn't asking whether it was apart of history. My question to you was whether the "right" to slavery under the constitution made it a justified institution? Why would one believe the right to slaves under the constitution has anything to do with liberty? In my eyes and as you so clearly defined it, liberty is the power of self governance, self determination. What does protecting the rights of states to continue the institution of slavery have to do with liberty? The answer is nothing, the two are not one in the same. The original constitution is not a document of liberty, it is a rule of law with many laws that directly contradict the definition of Liberty.


If you don't believe me then go and turn in your social security


I like social security, I also like medicare, I also believe in the need for safety net programmes. It's unfortunatete that the vast majority of Libertarians and conservatives don't share my view. Are you one of them?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



My initial point being, blah, blah, blah, blah....the Morrill bill passed through congress in 1861, blah, blah, blah, blah....more than a month following southern secession blah, blah, blah, blah.
My point was never regarding whether the morrill bill was "on the agenda", blah, blah, blah there are many bills on the agenda in congress, blah, blah, blah...



Neither of you have explained your arguments at all blah, blah, blah, blah...



I fully understand though how you would get away with these excuses blah, blah, blah, blah...but among the vast majority of historians and serious researchers on this event, your arguments hold little blah, blah, blah, blah....



I wasn't asking whether it was apart of history blah, blah, blah....My question to you was whether the "right" to slavery under the constitution made it blah, blah, blah.... Why would one believe the right to slaves under the constitution has anything to do with blah, blah, blah...



It's unfortunatete that the vast majority of Libertarians and conservatives don't share my view.


You spelled unfortunate incorrectly.
How unfortunate.

Checkmate.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I didnt realize before, but this thread is in the Skunkworks section, although you almost earn 100 flags (and 23 pages) out of it. :|

Did you think you didnt had enough prove to put your thread in a more compeling subforum, OP?

Regardless, I have another opinion about American civil war conspiracies.

So, the south was richer than the north. If this was a fact, how come that the south lost the war to the north? Theoreticaly, the south must have more resources to throw away in order to fight and overpower the north?

Is it posible to use this "anomaly" as a proof, that the north was funded by external finance, like the Brits, for example?

And they were the invading faction too, read as: active. So they posibly had better preperations and plannings aswell, compared to the south.

Another factor could be also the "anti-slavery" propaganda, it could also effectively weaken the southern morality, somehow and to some degree.
edit on 17-7-2012 by coyote66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyote66
So, the south was richer than the north. If this was a fact, how come that the south lost the war to the north? Theoreticaly, the south must have more resources to throw away in order to fight and overpower the north?

Is it posible to use this "anomaly" as a proof, that the north was funded by external finance, like the Brits, for example?


The Union apparently won the war because of their industrialized strength from what I understand. I highly doubt they were significantly financed from outside because while Britain and France did not formally recognize the Confederacy, they had interests in the South:


The blockade had a negative impact on the economies of other countries. Textile manufacturing areas in Britain and France that depended on Southern cotton entered periods of high unemployment, while French producers of wine, brandy and silk also suffered when their markets in the Confederacy were cut off. Although Confederate leaders were confident that Southern economic power would compel European powers to intervene in the Civil War on behalf of the Confederacy, Britain and France remained neutral despite their economic problems, and later in the war developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India. Although British Prime Minister Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, was personally sympathetic to the Confederacy,

history.state.gov...



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



The Union apparently won the war because of their industrialized blah-biddy, blee, blah, bloo, blow (as in wow).


@coyote66-
If you really want to know what happened in the War Between the States, then this thread has the answer.
Rather unfortunately, it is also filled with just about every piece of yankee propaganda to have ever been told.

If you do have a question, then I feel sure that one of many people would be happy to answer it, but please don't trust people who can't spell unfortunately.
What I mean is don't trust people who can't spell the word unfortunately.

I suppose that you shouldn't trust people who can't spell, unfortunately, but that would make for a whole lotta paranoia considering that everybody makes simple mistakes every once in a while.

I recently read somewhere that THEY just came out with a study showing that people who couldn't spell the word unfortunately are 100% more likely to be wrong most of the time.
It's like a genetic marker or something.
edit on 17/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


If you would like to get a grasp of the ever-increasing oppression and violations of the citizens of Missouri try to find a list of the numerous martial law orders passed over the years by the Federal troops who had absconded with the people's power in that state. I've tried to find a comprehensive list of the orders but so far have not found one to point you to. There are some really good books on Missouri during the Civil War that go into great detail of the actions on all sides during this time. If you would like me to send you a PM with the titles to those books I would be glad.

Just as an example Order 11 was issued in retaliation to the Lawrence raid. Please keep in mind that Quantrill's raiders were a mix of non-Missouri mischief makers who had become idolized by the MIssouri rural people because they were fighting those Federal troops who were viewed as the oppressors and usurpers of their lives and land. Quantrill himself was never from Missouri, nor were several of his top men. As the Federal military continued to issue orders that were more and more in violation of the citizens' rights, Quantrill's raiders swoll in numbers to hundreds and hundreds as disenfranchised Missouri men took up arms and joined him in order to fight for their family's protection and their property.

Several of the Union forces acknowledged themselves that Price had no greater recruiter than the Jayhawkers and the Federal troop treatment of the MIssouri people. As more oppressive unconstitutional acts were committed against the people of Missouri more people who had either been neutral or pro-Union were driven toward pro-secession feelings out of either anger and resentment of their treatment by Federal troops or out of fear that if they didn't help the south win their world was coming to an end.

Even Lincoln himself lamented he feared the handling of Missouri citizens had set the whole state against the Union. But he never really did a damned thing about it either. He referred to it as his "Missouri problem". He handled this "problem" by not responding very often to how the Federal troops were handling the people and when he did respond he was as intentionally unclear in his responses as he could possibly have gotten. A man known for giving direct, bold and charismatic speeches with blunt declarations couldn't seem to pen a single statement back to the Federal military leaders in Missouri that didn't sound like he was talking out of both sides of his beard.

Anyway, here's order 11 issued after the raid of Lawrence. Keeping in mind the raid was done by Quantrill and his raiders, this order was for ALL citizens of the enumerated areas because in martial law that's the way it works. They (they being the Federal occupying troops) decided that ALL of the people of these areas were a den of "bushwhackers" (a derogatory term created to refer to ANY guerrilla warfare fighter or southern sympathizer because then you've labeled them as thieves and murderers instead of what they really were - freedom fighters or just people who didn't agree with what you were doing to them!)


First, All persons living in Jackson, Cass and Bates Counties, Missouri, and in that part of Vernon included in this district, except those living within one mile of the limits of Harrisonville, Hickman Mills, Independence and Pleasant Hill and Harrisonville, and except those in the part of Kaw Township, Jackson County, north of Brush Creek and west of the Big Blue, embracing Kansas City and Westport, are hereby ordered to remove from their present places of residence within fifteen days from the date hereof. Those who, within that time, establish their loyalty to the satisfaction of the commanding officer of the military station nearest their present places of residence will receive from him certificates stating the fact of their loyalty, and the names of the witnesses by whom it can be shown. All who receive such certificates will be permitted to remove to any military station in the district, or to any part of the State of Kansas except the counties on the eastern border of the State. All others shall remove out of the district. Officers commanding companies and detachments serving in the counties named will see that this paragraph is promptly obeyed.

Second, All hay and grain in the field, or under shelter in the district, from which the inhabitants are required to remove, within the reach of the military stations, after the 9th of September, next, will be taken to such stations and turned over to the proper officers there; and reports of the amounts so turned over made to district headquarters, specifying the name of all loyal owners and the amount of such produce taken from them. All grain and hay found in such district after the 9th of September, next, not convenient to such stations, will be destroyed.
edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Now, to follow up on Order 11 let me explain part of what grew Quantrill's ranks. Here are some of the policies that led to taking arms and becoming freedom fighters:

In 1862 neutrality was pretty much ordered to be disallowed. So if you were NOT pro-secessionist, but you also were NOT inclined to support the Union actions and you just wanted to sit on your hands, tend your crops, mind your own business and hope to live through this hell on Earth....you were in violation of martial law.

In the summer of 1862 the Union military authorities who had absconded with the people's rights in Missouri declared that "all loyal men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five enroll for militia duty and that 'all who do not enroll their names are to be considered as spies and traitors and are to be treated as such.'"

So neutral got you no where. Well, actually, neutral usually got you dead by one side or the other. Imagine the following scenarios taking place day after day:

2 regularly dressed men ride up to your house and ask if they can have water and feed their horses. You say yes. They were Union troops dressed as "bushwhackers". You are now a pro-secession supporters. Bang, you're dropped on your porch.

2 Union troops ride up to your house and ask the same thing. You say yes. They were guerrilla fighters. You're a Union supporter. Bang, you're dropped on your porch.

2 Union troops ride up to your house and ask the same thing. You say no because you fear that if you harbor them pro-secessionists will retaliate against you. You're a pro-secessionist. Bang, you're dropped on your porch.

There was no right answer. Only luck of the draw at the right time. And then if you lived through the initial encounter, pro-Union raiders or pro-southern raiders would most likely retaliate when word got back of what you have done.

Then there was the scenario that took place over and over. Union troops or pro-Union raiders would ride up, knock on the door and ask the Mrs for the man of the house. The man of the house would be shot dead coming down the stairs, or on the front porch, or taken down the road and either hung or shot. Military justice.

And then there were fines. If guerrilla fighters blew up a railroad bridge just outside your town the military troops would levy a fine (like $50,000) against your town and expect every person to pay their part of that fine because an order had been issued that stated if a guerrilla attack resulted in damage to public property then the citizens of the surrounding area had to have allowed that act to happen so they must pay for it.

Or there was the amnesty rule. Some pro-secession Missouri men had gone off to join the Confederate forces. The military leaders in Missouri issued an amnesty call that any of them that came back, signed an allegiance to not take up arms again, and PAID A $1000 BOND, would be granted amnesty and their temporary service in the Confederate forces would never be held against them. One of the hundreds of Missouri men who took this offer and paid their bond was Frank James.

Within months these men were labeled southern sympathizers and attacked by Union troops, burned out of their homes, arrested without cause, accused by pro-Union neighbors of sedition, and they started losing their homes, their freedom, etc. Guess what they did? They picked their guns up and headed to the bush because they learned through months to years of painful violations upon them that the only way to protect themselves, their families and their homes was to fight for it.

They got labeled bushwhackers.

edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
And then lastly, what turned the fighting in Missouri so deadly, and the citizens' lives so very deadly was the military order issued that any freedom fighter was not to be given the rights of a combatant in war. Even though occupying forces were committing acts of war against the civilian population, any man who took arms to protect himself, his family or his property was deemed not a combatant of war with due rights of treatment as a prisoner of war, but as a criminal and there would be no quartering of prisoners of war they were to be shot on sight.

THAT was the beginning of what would be considered some of the most effective fighting by pro-southern fighters anywhere during the Civil War - the guerrilla warfare between Quantrill's raiders and the Union troops. Even the top brass of the Confederate army stated that had they had a whole army of Missouri raiders - THAT COULD BE DISCIPLINED - (and they could not be, by the way) - they could win the war.

When the order was issued by the occupying Federal troops that all freedom fighters would be killed and offered no status or chance of even being taken prisoner, EVERY encounter past that point between guerrilla fighters and Union troops in Missouri and surrounding areas became a fight for your life and a fight to the death because if you didn't win - you were being executed on the spot.
edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
And this was all happening, mind you, under the fully informed and watchful eye of His Excellency Abraham Lincoln.

Hellofaguy



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”


Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864


Very true! It seems that the war was'nt about ending slavery it was more about enslaving us all!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
If slavery can be put aside as an inefficient and expensive way for taxable consumers to live, the best reason for the North to gain control the South is National Security. England or any other European power could have used the South against the North or visa versa.

Each state should have been a separte county from the start. Most signators of the Constitution thought that they were getting into something like the United Nations, not an all powerful central government. The Anti-Federalists predicted and warned against all of the centralization of power and alienation of representation that has happened since 1789.

The Civil War kept the North American continent under the minimum number of controllers, and put everyone into debt.

History is written by the winners, art and culture are commisioned by the winners also.


Each State WAS a separate country from the start. That's kind of the definition of STATE.

They were the United STATES of America. Countries that agreed to be bound by a set of rules that would be governed by a constitutional republic.

Of COURSE they had the right to secession. EVERY group of people have the right of secession.

That is the basic premise of the declaration of independence.

They still are a group of separate countries, and just because they have made it more difficult and not part of the public awareness that they can secede, does NOT mean that they can't.

Jaden

It is the right, it is the duty of people to throw off such government and to form one that will better fulfill these needs...


I put too much weight on the pronoun " from"

Rollye James talked about the difference between De Jure, as written, and De Facto, the real situation.

Each state started out as its own state, country, or nation, but by the time of the Civil War that status was De Facto eliminated.

Was state sovereignty eliminated like the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle-- That is, at the moment the South lost, or
as the North would say( in intuitive accordance with the principle of consevation of energy),
state sovereignty was lost little by little each year as real politique made separate governments on the continent ruinously vulnerable to European hegemony.

If the states had stayed separate all along, from 1800, the problem of outside influence could have been dealt with in turn. But the South leaving en mass, with hostility, would have lead to a North-South situation similar to the cold war, or middle eastern standoffs. This is the best reason for the Civil War, to keep the continent's self-control.

Vigilance is the price of freedom. Vigilance was lost somewhere between 1800 and 1860.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeHonest1
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 



I do not understand any of this...



I was trying for outside of the box gramatically. Some mathmatical ideas are conveighed through equations in a manner that I attempted to use in english. Success is in the eye of the beholder in this case.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
All of this back and forth is real tiring.

There's ONE history and there were no victors and losers, there were just AMERICANS.

We were STUPID back then and fought over slavery and we've grown up some.

We've learned from our history and are better people.

All of the needless bickering in here gets nobody anywhere and if I were mod I'd end the thread.
edit on 29-7-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The final outcome of every war ever fought in any time throughout human history is exactly as it should be ; to no avail as per the words of wise king Solomon: " All is vanity and vexation of spirit. Nothing under the sun offers any permanent profit. In the end, the wise man is he who fears God and keeps His commandments " (Ecclesiastes 12:13 ) And now today as the new world order balances out the third world countries with the new world ; we all have become slaves to the dollar and satan : If you think you actually own any thing quit paying your taxes and see what becomes of your imagined possesssions



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpinDoctor
The final outcome of every war ever fought in any time throughout human history is exactly as it should be ; to no avail as per the words of wise king Solomon: " All is vanity and vexation of spirit. Nothing under the sun offers any permanent profit. In the end, the wise man is he who fears God and keeps His commandments " (Ecclesiastes 12:13 ) And now today as the new world order balances out the third world countries with the new world ; we all have become slaves to the dollar and satan : If you think you actually own any thing quit paying your taxes and see what becomes of your imagined possesssions


Real deep thoughts there, Yoda.

Why don't we get real though? You'd be hard pressed to find ANY developed civilization in human history that didn't require some form of tax in order to sustain the common services. And in virtually every case in history there were known negative consequences to NOT meeting that obligation. So instead of coming up with an over-the-top scenario that equates to "doing something stupid on purpose" and then sitting back to see if what you knew was going to happen actually happened, why don't you tell us something on this topic that actually is more than pointing out the obvious?

Wrapping it in a pseudo-philosophical-religio tortilla didn't disguise things very well.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Good thread, O.P..
I wanted to share this song by Hoyt Axton. I know it's how I feel. Hope you like it.

I'm a good ol' rebel
www.youtube.com...
edit on 2-8-2012 by Fylgje because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
100
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join