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

page: 7
100
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
just to add ... self-determination should never be mitigated by any govt body.
not then and certainly not now.




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Good quote and good thread. History has completely reinforced those words.

edit on 10-7-2012 by Nightwalk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
This thread does not seem to have a point. Are we really talking about North vs South again? In the end does it matter? Is this thread political since we have a black President? It appears some parts of this country is still trying to drag the hillbilly's to the 21st century.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheInfamousOne
 

if you had bothered to read it, you'd realize this is about States Rights vs Federalism, you know, the real reasons behind the War of Northern Aggression.
and that it ... Tis a shame nearly 250 yrs later, that the same problems prevail.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Slavery wasn't "ALL" the South was fighting for -- that I agree.
But the other issues weren't any better. The "states rights" argument is basically asking for a week central government. What happens after that -- do YOU get your voice heard more? No. The inter-state businesses low-ball and horse trade to get a better deal -- county by county, state by state. You want our Coal Mine? Give up on worker safety and we'll make a deal. Every state that has been "weak" ends up getting run by business cartels. Coal Miners in Virginia get to leave ruined landscapes while we have a resurgence of "black lung disease" because it means more profits to work people longer and not bother keeping up the air quality.
The Southern States wanted the RIGHT to import from England -- rather than buy pricier goods from the Northern States.

The original "tea party" was about goods from England (tea) made cheap by subsidies -- no local US competition could gain a foothold.

Not adhering to a Trade Policy, would have meant that the Northern states would have had to "lower costs" just like the Southern states. Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet?

>> So yes, protecting our trade from cheap Chinese goods "deprives WalMart shoppers of liberty" -- but it also means more CItizens who can pay taxes, raise kids, and build a society.

The Slave Holders weren't doing any favors for the common working man in the South -- and just like the Koch brother's funders of the Tea Party today, they wanted other people to shed their blood to preserve their great way of life.

>> Modern Americans need to learn the true lesson of the civil war, before neighbor is tricked into fighting neighbor so that Donald Trump can skimp on taxes.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The US still hasn't won the American War of Independence.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet


I don't think it is the unfettered capitalism, I think it is the Keynesian version where we only regulate the convenient things and provide an unfair market place. If it were truly capitalism, then it should work. BUT, we can't ever have true capitalism, because our consumers are too stupid, and they won't "buyer beware" and therefore they have to have government agencies give them quality assurances.

When is the last time you checked a gas pump to see if a gallon of gas really was a gallon, or the last time you sent a tylenol into a lab to see if it really was 500 mg?

We expect the government to do those things, so we expect regulation, but with regulation comes favoritism. We make laws that are favorable to the bigger, more well-known, and well-funded corporations but restrict the little guys. Instead of capitalism we get corporatism, and corporatism creates slaves!



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet


I don't think it is the unfettered capitalism, I think it is the Keynesian version where we only regulate the convenient things and provide an unfair market place. ...


LOL. "Unfair" marketplace. There's all kinds of fairness on Wall Street and it's bankrupting the economy.

So obviously, we can add your name to the list of people who haven't learned the lesson. Keynesian economics hasn't had a hand in rational economics for decades now. The OIL companies still get fools to believe that Green Peace and not profits keeps them from building new refineries.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet


...
We expect the government to do those things, so we expect regulation, but with regulation comes favoritism. We make laws that are favorable to the bigger, more well-known, and well-funded corporations but restrict the little guys. Instead of capitalism we get corporatism, and corporatism creates slaves!



That I agree with -- but how did we GET to the position that the large financial institutions actually PUSH FOR bills like Sarbanes-Oxley? I'm glad you've caught on that it's corporations that push for most of the regulations.

But if I'm having to test my drinking water and weigh my aspirin - that ends up ruining the marketplace. You cannot have "fair competition" without a referee with enough power to punish those who betray the public trust. WE have all sorts of fraud right now that isn't addressed; chicken pumped with pork broth, olive oil that is not olive oil, honey that is not honey. It doesn't kill someone but the system is too corrupt to stop it.

>> We got to this point by allowing Rich People and Corporations too much power. We have to have public financed, instant run-off elections and ban political parties and associations. Corporations cannot donate money -- it's a bribe.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

You cannot have "fair competition" without a referee with enough power to punish those who betray the public trust
what does fair competition have to do with public trust ??
good luck finding "fair competition" that includes public trust.

the public trust has been abused, trampled and diminished to a point of non-existence via this system of "fair competition". drugs, food, toys, medical care, medical supplies, automobiles, you name it, it's all polluted and everything But fair.
when human lives are tallied as "acceptable loss ratios" ... there is nothing fair about it.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
"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.”


Meaning our right to own slaves. I don't care what this guy claims. He knows damn well he was fighting for slavery. And pointing the finger at the "Northerners." Please. History was written accurately. I wish the "South will rise again" crowd would just get over it. They lost. Plain and simple. And thank God that they did.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

You cannot have "fair competition" without a referee with enough power to punish those who betray the public trust
what does fair competition have to do with public trust ??
good luck finding "fair competition" that includes public trust.

the public trust has been abused, trampled and diminished to a point of non-existence via this system of "fair competition". drugs, food, toys, medical care, medical supplies, automobiles, you name it, it's all polluted and everything But fair.
when human lives are tallied as "acceptable loss ratios" ... there is nothing fair about it.


There is corruption -- but that doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. Once upon a time -- before this "war on government", there were enough FDA inspectors to make sure we didn't have a huge outbreak of Cholera on our spinach and the drug companies weren't getting cover. We could break up monopolies and ride herd on Banks.

Government is a tool -- and it's been the "stop big government" fanatics in the Republican party (for the most part) that have created this revolving door with Coal Company execs writing legislation.

We can't all become food inspectors. This stuff USED TO WORK. Yes, once the public trust has been abused -- the system starts to break down. Welcome to the Banana Republic known as the USA my friend.

If you want NO regulations and think that the marketplace will sort things out -- then visit Haiti or Honduras.

>> Europeans certainly have much better standards on their food and less corruption in that part of their government -- and it's directly tied with how politicians are elected. Our Congress has to raise money every two years -- and it is now completely gamed towards sell outs.

These things can work -- because they have in the past. Just not with henchmen of the robber barons running for office.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Veering a bit off-topic from the Civil War, but it is an argument between "personal responsibility" and "government protections." What should they do, and what should we do ourselves? The more they do, the less freedom and liberty we have, but the more we do, the less reassurances we will have that everything is legit.

There was a lawsuit in Florida where a family sued a municipality for not preventing a shark attack on an Atlantic Coast Beach! Some people (usually tourists) think the government is ultimately responsible for making everything perfectly safe, but that just isn't realistic.

The less we depend on the government, the better off we'll be, and the longer this grand experiment will last, but as we give up liberties at an accelerating pace, the more and more unstable this Republic becomes.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by xstealth
"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.”


Meaning our right to own slaves. I don't care what this guy claims. He knows damn well he was fighting for slavery. And pointing the finger at the "Northerners." Please. History was written accurately. I wish the "South will rise again" crowd would just get over it. They lost. Plain and simple. And thank God that they did.


So, you are absolutetely happy with the broad powers the Federal Government currently has?

Assassination of US citizens. No-knock, sealed, paramilitary styled raids on our homes? Taxes and regulations on everything we do. Molecular Scanners, wiretaps without cause. Walking into our homes uninvited because our Grass is too high? Road blocks, asking for ID just walking down a NY street? Banning hemp? Banning smoking of tobacco in our own cars and homes?

Remember when Rodney King caused an outrage, but now that is standard procedure that happens every day.

This is what the Northern victory ultimately produced, a further loss of liberty.
edit on 10-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:22 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


Here's a current context for you: A liberal student that lobbies and rallies for free health care and unlimited food stamps for a people that refuse to contribute back into society's infrastructure - Goes and gets a JOB for the first time after graduation. This now, CONSERVATIVE recognition of the drastically reduced paycheck from taxing they receive reminds them that they are slaves to an ideology that they are required to support, whether they like it or not.

Conservation = Conservative = Constant = Constitution - You college kids living off of loans and Daddy's money getting any of this? Think about how much you love the 1% when you go to sleep tonight. The school you attend, the movie stars you worship and the world you live in depends on the promise of that achievable status.

Slavery is living in a world where 100% of the people have 100% chance of failure.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by xstealth
"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.”


Meaning our right to own slaves. I don't care what this guy claims. He knows damn well he was fighting for slavery. And pointing the finger at the "Northerners." Please. History was written accurately. I wish the "South will rise again" crowd would just get over it. They lost. Plain and simple. And thank God that they did.


to bad Patrick R. Cleburne didnt have any slaves, Also 1864, Patrick called together the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and put forth the proposal to emancipate slaves and enlist them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence! So your argument doesn’t hold water. Not Everyone in the south was a slave owner. Slaves were expensive and only the wealthy farmers had them. The slave issue was not brought into the war until later when Lincoln was losing the war. He needed an issue that would unite the north, SLAVERY.

but what do i know, my family is only one of the largest privet owners of civil war collections in the united states.
edit on 10-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Nope, but Grant and Sherman owned slaves, and they didn't bother freeing them until it 1865 when the 13th amendment came into effect, but even that amendment was not ratified by all northern states. Delaware didn't ratify it until 1901!

Contrast that with Lee who freed his slaves (whom he inherited, didn't buy himself) early on in the war in 1862.

So, while Sherman was marching through, decimating the South, killing innocents and livestock, he was still a slave owner, and had slaves serving him at the time! Lee had already freed his slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, which in and of itself is a fraud, because it only applied to the Confederate States!
edit on 10-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

but that doesn't mean it HAS to be that way
so long as humans are directly involved, yes it does.
that my friend is human nature. it is the beast within.

FDA ??? one of the worst of the bunch and you place them on a pedestal?

the FDA hasn't helped in decades, imho, they have done much more harm than good.

i don't do banks so i'm not sure i follow what you said there.
i'm not partisan either so R/D arguments don't get far with me.

i didn't say anything about NO regulations but over-regulating is equally bad.
why don't you try asking my opinion instead of telling me what it is ?

am not touching the "we're better than you are" statement, the playground bell already rang.

you/we cannot go backwards. forward is the only option.
forward in an effort to correct previous errors, rather focus on making more.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If I were alive at that time ? I would have fought for the South, even tho I despise slavery and it seems odd to consider the South fighting for independence. It seems evident to me that's mostly what it was about. And that doesn't even make the South more just and moral in it's efforts. It simply means I'm opposed to an overly zealous and nosey ass government inspired and run by obvious tyrants.. A government that even as we see now is enslaving all of us thru debt anyway.

The Black slaves of the South at that time and for the most part, might have had a lot more freedom and happiness than any us as citizens do today. Today being a direct result of what happened yesterday in the 1860s.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy.

Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."

Democracy is three wolves and a rabbit voting on what's for dinner.

I agree on many points, but slavery goes against every American Value that I hold dear. A states' rights should be limited friend! The loss of liberty and attacks upon our freedoms is another matter entirely!

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Dont interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.

-Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) U.S. President.

Dont get me wrong the states should be empowered, and the Fed's role limited, but not so that states may trample even more civil liberties. A more perfect union is what we should seek!
edit on 10-7-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
100
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join