You may never look at America the same after reading

The House has had fasces since 1789 I think ?😀

a reply to: Terpene

What is it telling?
does it tell that fascism has covertly been there all along? As leader of the free world, makes that fascism the good guys now?
Or is this just an empty title, and fascism is at the helm?

Or is it like the swastika where different cultures use the same symbols with different meaning?
The last one does not really apply, as the meaning is quite well defined trough its symbology.
Together as one, one can behead whomever without the danger of breaking.
It says dictatorship of the masses, in modern words democracy...

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

What a great read! Thank you for that!

I have always thought of Lincoln as the tyrant. He took an ends justifies the means approach which is not how the nation was supposed to operate. He violated the constitution regularly (refer to your post for some of the egregious ones) and forced the south back into a taxation without true representation form. Why should they pay for roads in Boston? The states were not envisioned to operate or function in that manner.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

The south's cessation from the union was nothing more than based on the slavery issue. States rights were involved, but the case of the "lost cause" argument has routinely been debated and subsequently dismantled.

As far as state sovereignty goes, I'm not sure if we have ever really respected that clause since the overturning of the articles of confederacy.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The House has had fasces since 1789 I think ?😀

I think your confused with feces you clearly meant the house has been full of feces since 1789.

After living in several states each in the north and south over 50+ years, I can tell you we truly have different cultures going on here. Lincoln came from tobacco country Kentucky. They were poor where he came from. They had slaves in parts of Kentucky. I took a several, 7 history classes in college, of various history. The slavery issue was a human rights offense for sure. However, it is so hot and difficult to do farm work in the south they needed help. They didn’t have the farm equipment we have today. Those farm owners were desperate and committed a human rights crime getting labor. They should have hired people, giving them a property share in the profits. Greed overtook their morals. I believe Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had slaves up north in Virginia on their farms and bred with the black women. This is a fact the government sanitized from the public schools history books. I had a great grandfather who was senator of Illinois at the time of Civil war, and another great grandfather that fought with the Yankees from Indiana. He went with Sherman. I had another Senator grandfather that President John Adams put in jail for seditious remarks. He was Senator of Vermont then later Kentucky. These people in government are good and evil just like all the rest of us. Just people making choices. It’s probably all about money, money, money when they their choose ideas. It’s important that we stand up and say something when others are doing bad evil deeds. This is probably what they were thinking January 6, 2021. It’s important to protest peacefully. We all own that Capital building. We all paid for it. It’s public property.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Lictirs were not always authorized to insert axes in their fasces. Generally that was a sign of unrest where it was thought they might actually need to back up the symbololic nature of their authority.

Interesting, point taken

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: xuenchen
The House has had fasces since 1789 I think ?😀

I think your confused with feces you clearly meant the house has been full of feces since 1789.

Touche

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

The south's cessation from the union was nothing more than based on the slavery issue. States rights were involved, but the case of the "lost cause" argument has routinely been debated and subsequently dismantled.

That's like looking at a pool of water and assuming its shallow yet not realizing its depth.

Again, I don't want to seem like an apologist, but here on ATS, we "deny ignorance" as "ignorance is bliss". We ask the hard questions, even sometimes the most primitive questions that have the most substantive and everlasting answers, for example "what is 'light'", which I did a heavy topic on.

You can honestly say "it was about the slaves", and not be wrong. But would you allow me to expunge on that issue? Today, the Supreme Court has over ruled Roe v Wade, returning the power to the STATES. Currently, progressives are ready to riot because ... red states banned abortion...? Lets take a trip into history really quick. The federal government prior to the outbreak of war, convened in congress, as they do every year, to vote on legislation. One piece of legislation was the fugitive slave act. The law was passed and went into effect. However some northern states did not adhere to the legislation, that was passed by a duly voted bill from Democrats AND Republicans.

The south went on to question the legitimacy of the federal government. A seemingly similar position that we are in today with Bidens America, although the fight is different, today it's about the rights of the life of the unborn, before it was about the rights of the life of African slaves.

Whether or not you agree with slavery, because as I stated in my OP, it's easy to claim valor and say "If I was a German in 1939, I'd have fought Hitler myself!", and I'll say it again, no...no you would not have.

When Clinton called Trump supporters "deplorable", did the progressives denounce her words?

So we can absolutely agree on a surface level the main driving force for the outbreak of the civil war was in fact slavery. But again, at a surface level, it's easy to fall into that trap and end up fighting "for" the fascist authority without even knowing it (see 2016-2022 progressive movement).

originally posted by: Iconic
As far as state sovereignty goes, I'm not sure if we have ever really respected that clause since the overturning of the articles of confederacy.

Roe v. Wade.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Terpene

What is it telling?
does it tell that fascism has covertly been there all along? As leader of the free world, makes that fascism the good guys now?
Or is this just an empty title, and fascism is at the helm?

Or is it like the swastika where different cultures use the same symbols with different meaning?
The last one does not really apply, as the meaning is quite well defined trough its symbology.
Together as one, one can behead whomever without the danger of breaking.
It says dictatorship of the masses, in modern words democracy...

Great questions! This is exactly what we need to do on ATS, ask ask ask!

I'll give you my personal view. Fascism is about the individual, individuality. Capitalism, privatization, ect. I was always a capitalist, but I'm coming to understand the world a little differently.

Is it natural for you to put your neighbor in harms way to make a buck? We have companies that compete with eachother, cutting eachothers throats so the next man dies in order for you to live.

Granted, in the animal world this happens all the time. But we are not primitive animals, yet we behave like we're chimps.

The Renaissance is commonly held to have been, and undoubtedly it was in a way, all that the name implies of re-birth of classical studies and pagan lore. Still, had it been only that and nothing else, had it meant for the world simply an artificial reproduction of old idea, feelings, ways of living, etc., the Renaissance would have failed to represent a milestone in the road of human development. The spirit of the age had not true organic connection with the spirit of ancient times, and the classic-pagan-hedonistic attitude of mankind throughout that age was at best a poor reproduction of something which represented a moment of human history forming part of the past, a past as dead as the men who of this moment were the brightest lights. The Renaissance has importance, instead, inasmuch as it represents the birth of Individualism; the birth of a philosophy of life which was to hold sway over the thoughts and the actions of men for well nigh four centuries; those momentous centuries characterized by the greatest changes in all fields of human activity.

The birth of Individualism meant belief in man and his powers, hence the Reformation, which relying especially on man’s reasoning power, transformed this belief into practical and , in a way, logical actuation with the doctrine of freedom from all authoritative rules of faith.

The birth of Individualism meant also the birth of freedom from all external authority, all external constraint, all external rules and laws; hence Liberalism which, forgetting that man is truly man only because he is part of a greater whole, proclaimed the doctrine of liberty, which is at the bottom only a doctrine of negative liberty.

The birth of Individualism meant in time a return to nature, hence the doctrine of his natural rights in politics, the doctrine of his material essence in philosophy, the doctrine of class war in economics, the negation of moral values in ethics.

The birth of Individualism meant in short the decay of all ties which connect man to the spiritual world and make of him a being thoroughly distinct from the world of nature.

It is thus that if the Renaissance is to be rightly understood, the ominous significance and the evil influence of the Individualism must need be made part of, and integrated within, that complex picture filled by the birth of experimental science, the rebirth of art, and the revival of classical studies.

The Philosophy of Fascism (1936)


ETA: My long formatted rants usually bring these threads to a close. Again, love you all and thank you for being the best part of the online community, where deep conversation and thought still happen

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Law of War.

When the North invaded the South it became the 2nd American revolution instead of a Civil War. The South never set out to subjugate the North, simply free themselves from unwilling agreements. Yankee arrogance was the issue.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Interesting read.. A few things stand out, at least to me.

1st - The US Constitution was never meant to apply to the states nor citizens of the states. It was designed for any employee of the Federal government. The intent was to have a strong central government that was extremely restricted in what it could do. States were suppose to run their affairs wall to wall, without federal government interference.

In 1833 this was pointed out and reiterated / reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). The city took an action that screwed over Barron and his business. Barron sued, claiming his federal constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled against Barron, stating that the US Constitution does not and did not apply to the citizens of the respective states. It only applied to the Federal Government and is employee's.

Primary Holding
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

This ruling also supported the fact that the individual State governments were in fact "separate sovereigns" from the Federal government.

* - Texas -
Texas was an independent country for 10 years before coming into the US via voluntary annexation. It is also why Texas is the only state that has "special" privileges that no other state has. First and foremost Texas has the right, on their own, to sub divide the 1 state to create an additional 5 separate states, all without Congressional approval. Texas also has the right to fly their state flag at the same level as the US flag, as opposed to all other states where they are required to be lower than the US flag.

* - Federal land vs.State land
The Federal government was never supposed to be a land owner. The states were to run their states as they saw fit, wall to wall, without federal interference.The exception being federal military installations per the Property Clause of the United States Constitution (Article 4, section 3, clause 2).

The only mention in the U.S. Constitution of the specific types of land the federal government is authorized to own outside Washington D.C., in Article 1, Section 8, refers to "Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards, and other needful Buildings."

The creation of National Parks flushed that doctrine down the drain.

* - Succession vs Insurrection -
Congress is given the authority to accept new states into the Union. States did have the right to leave the Union, but the manner in which it occurred was not accepted by the remaining states - hence we had a civil war. While slavery was part of the reason for the civil war, it was not the only reason. States rights were also called into question as well. I suspect had the Southern states seceded peacefully we might have 2 countries today. When shots rang out, the Federal government, per the constitution, became required to fight the south (against all enemies, foreign and domestic as well as in cases of invasion, both externally as well as internally).

When the South lost the civil war the Supreme Court had to deal with the issues of secession. In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869) scotus ruled that a state cannot unilaterally leave the Union and that the Constitution does not address the issue of a state wanting to leave the Union. In short, once a territory / land becomes an official part of the US as a state, the marriage cannot be dissolved.

Because there is no method for a state to leave the Union, the actions by the Southern States were viewed as an insurrection / revolt. The Supreme Court's ruling on the issue is somewhat goofy, because their ruling says the states never seceded from the Union (they revolted) however the Southern States had to meet certain requirements in order the be admitted back into the Union - Hence the 14th amendment.

* - The 14th Amendment
The 14th amendment was only suppose to apply to the Southern States. The legal challenge ended up making its way to the US Supreme Court, who faced a dilemma. Because all states are equal at the federal level, you cannot have a constitutional amendment that applied to only some of the states. Long story short Scotus applied the 14th amendment to all states.

This decision by the Supreme Court up ended the original intent of the Federal Constitution. Now the federal constitution applied to all states, as well as all state citizens. Because of the Supremacy Clause, any conflict between federal law and state law, the federal law automatically wins. It is also why the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution became very prominent.

It says Congress decides what official documents from 1 state must be accepted by all states. So over the years court cases, drivers licenses, marriages, etc are defined by Congress and must be accepted by every other states.


There is a damn good reason why the US and its government, constitution etc are referred to as the great experiment. While its worked for us, the same cant be said for other countries attempting to achieve the same. One of the US's most dangerous exports is not our military equipment, but our Constitution.

So our countries history seems to be at odds with some of the items raised in your op?

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Apparently there a few different statues of Abe Lincoln posing with bundles of sticks. I guess perhaps there is a significant meaning behind it as it isn't a feature only organic to the Lincoln Memorial in DC.


Earliest statue of Lincoln


Emancipation? statue

a reply to: Xcathdra
Fort Sumter was South Carolina land. Lincoln refused to relinquish it even though Federal forts in Florida had already been handed over to state authorities. He knew Southern firebrands would shell the fort eventually and give him the excuse for war but it still belonged to the state.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Xcathdra
Fort Sumter was South Carolina land. Lincoln refused to relinquish it even though Federal forts in Florida had already been handed over to state authorities. He knew Southern firebrands would shell the fort eventually and give him the excuse for war but it still belonged to the state.

I've often wondered about the civil war and LIncoln especially when people say things like Lincoln refused or Lincoln did this or that. I don't discount that events are true BUUUUUUUT I never took Lincoln as a strategist tactical genius either, during some of these events was his refusals on behalf of his staff and generals or was some of this # really him just saying no? I am not the best history guy in regards to the civil war or Lincoln.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

the fasces
a bound bundle of sticks or arrows with an axe signifying the government of Rome

a symbol then taken to mean fascism in mussolinis Italy

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Xcathdra
Fort Sumter was South Carolina land. Lincoln refused to relinquish it even though Federal forts in Florida had already been handed over to state authorities. He knew Southern firebrands would shell the fort eventually and give him the excuse for war but it still belonged to the state.

S. Carolina ceded most of their military installations, including Ft. Sumter, to the Federal government. In 1836 S. Carolina officially ceded any claims to the forts in question to the Federal government. So when they decided to attack Ft. Sumter, it was viewed as an insurrection, starting the civil war. Under the Constitution, the moment S. Carolina ceded the military forts, they lost any claim to reclaim them them. They were no longer state property per the Property Clause of the constitution. It required the consent of the S. Carolina government, and it was given when the forts were ceded.

a reply to: Brotherman

Fun fact about Lincoln. He is the first person to ever run for President as a third party candidate (Republican) and win.

a reply to: Xcathdra
I stand corrected, I had never heard about the ceding of the Fort due to expenses. It's central position controlling Charleston harbor was not something to be left in the hands of any outside force. The South had very few harbors which made blockades easy so control of fort Sumter didn't make much real difference. South Carolina was definitely about the most committed state to secession. They had suffered in the revolution and war of 1812 worse than most states/colonies and felt themselves as leaders of the American experiment. They were pretty unbearable in their arrogance.

Why the invasion of Virginia was merited due to the actions of South Carolina is a fair question. It was used as a general excuse for war by the North as much as the south used Harper's Ferry did for secession.

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Lictirs were not always authorized to insert axes in their fasces. Generally that was a sign of unrest where it was thought they might actually need to back up the symbololic nature of their authority.

Interesting, point taken

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: xuenchen
The House has had fasces since 1789 I think ?😀

I think your confused with feces you clearly meant the house has been full of feces since 1789.

Touche

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

The south's cessation from the union was nothing more than based on the slavery issue. States rights were involved, but the case of the "lost cause" argument has routinely been debated and subsequently dismantled.

That's like looking at a pool of water and assuming its shallow yet not realizing its depth.

Again, I don't want to seem like an apologist, but here on ATS, we "deny ignorance" as "ignorance is bliss". We ask the hard questions, even sometimes the most primitive questions that have the most substantive and everlasting answers, for example "what is 'light'", which I did a heavy topic on.

You can honestly say "it was about the slaves", and not be wrong. But would you allow me to expunge on that issue? Today, the Supreme Court has over ruled Roe v Wade, returning the power to the STATES. Currently, progressives are ready to riot because ... red states banned abortion...? Lets take a trip into history really quick. The federal government prior to the outbreak of war, convened in congress, as they do every year, to vote on legislation. One piece of legislation was the fugitive slave act. The law was passed and went into effect. However some northern states did not adhere to the legislation, that was passed by a duly voted bill from Democrats AND Republicans.

The south went on to question the legitimacy of the federal government. A seemingly similar position that we are in today with Bidens America, although the fight is different, today it's about the rights of the life of the unborn, before it was about the rights of the life of African slaves.

Whether or not you agree with slavery, because as I stated in my OP, it's easy to claim valor and say "If I was a German in 1939, I'd have fought Hitler myself!", and I'll say it again, no...no you would not have.

When Clinton called Trump supporters "deplorable", did the progressives denounce her words?

So we can absolutely agree on a surface level the main driving force for the outbreak of the civil war was in fact slavery. But again, at a surface level, it's easy to fall into that trap and end up fighting "for" the fascist authority without even knowing it (see 2016-2022 progressive movement).

originally posted by: Iconic
As far as state sovereignty goes, I'm not sure if we have ever really respected that clause since the overturning of the articles of confederacy.

Roe v. Wade.

Fasces used in symbolic ways by our founding fathers are showing that they are Lictirs
for God only . In God this Country was founded for good or bad .
Secret societies burrow many symbols as Confraternity or as a new meaning all together.
The fasces seen in political architecture in America is a show of defiance to Rome & the existence of a new Atlantis founded by monotheistic triune God believing men .
Lincoln like all Presidents had his bad behaviors & good ones .
You are reading way to much into the fasces .

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Good job, great thread