[variablebinary]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=nextpage



Coming to a head. The people will only tolerate so much before they break.

We know how President Lincoln handled this.

Quote:
Second Amendment an individual right



The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).



The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.



A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.



There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.



As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.



Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.



BRAD JOHNSON



Montana secretary of state



Helena, Mont.

 

[aziator]

They have any cheap land up there ??? ???;D ;D

 

[falnovice]

I actually was out in Montana back in Nov. Wonderful country out there. Unfortunately, I was scouting for a pharmacy school for my decade overdue return to college.....and the only one is in Missoula....which I really didn't care for too much.
I'd go just about anywhere else in Montana though.

 

[V]

If they do, "I might be movin to Montana soon..." ;D

 

[EricCartmann]

great.. each state can split up to a bunch of small countries like Europe with their own laws, their own army, and their own currency. I guess the UNITED states of america should now be the SEPARATE states of America.

Who needs a unified great nation anyways?

 

[Bravo]

Obviously Emperor Lincoln needed a unified nation when he suspended the Constitution to fight an illegal war over big-bucks and government control.

Just like VB said in the OP.

Enslavement of all citizens in this country. What a shame.

 

[aziator]

I know what you mean...all my vehicles have Alaska Plates on them if that means anything. It can be a very hard life and not one for anyone. Last time I drove down from Alaska I went by way of Montana and was very impressed with the places I passed through.

 

[EricCartmann]

Obviously Emperor Lincoln needed a unified nation when he suspended the Constitution to fight an illegal war over big-bucks and government control.

Just like VB said in the OP.

Enslavement of all citizens in this country. What a shame.

whatever dude. i don't feel like a slave. and before lincoln the US was some bottom feeder, but after lincoln preserved the union... the USA went from bottom feeder to kicking the Spanish asses (in the span-am war), to expanding globally (phillipines and japan), to kicking ass in WW1, and kicking ass in WWII. then after that we started the high tech boom, and cured all kinds of diseases.

if lincoln did not preserve the union we would have not done all these things. a fist with 5 fingers united will always be stronger than 10 separate fingers... so i guess preserving the union by lincoln was a bad move :

 

[Bravo]

so i guess preserving the union by lincoln was a bad move :

Yes, you are correct. Preserving the union at the cost of the Constitution on which it was founded was a bad move. Literally one of those "I had to destroy it in order to preserve it" decisions - except it was our Constitutional government that got destroyed.

A 'less bad' move would have been electing a less corrupt president. Here's a book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

After significant thought on the matter, you can trace virtually EVERY ill in our society and government now, back to what was done then - specifically by him.

There's a reason Constitutionalists - of which I am one - consider Emperor lincoln the worst president in American history.

 

[EricCartmann]

so i guess preserving the union by lincoln was a bad move :

Yes, you are correct. Preserving the union at the cost of the Constitution on which it was founded was a bad move. Literally one of those "I had to destroy it in order to preserve it" decisions - except it was our Constitutional government that got destroyed.

A 'less bad' move would have been electing a less corrupt president. Here's a book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

After significant thought on the matter, you can trace virtually EVERY ill in our society and government now, back to what was done then - specifically by him.

There's a reason Constitutionalists - of which I am one - consider Emperor lincoln the worst president in American history.

Thanks for the link Bravo. Have you seen the other books that author Thomas DiLorenzo wrote? Man is this guy the Grand Dragon in disquise or what? Did you see his Wikipedia entry?

Here is one review of that bashes the author and that book. You do not have to look far for many more bad reviews. Obviously this guy does not know what he is talking about and talks out of his behind a lot, despite having a PHD. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

Lastly, if you consider the freedom that I and you have now is slavery then I don't know what to tell you. If this is slavery, then please sign me up again in my next life! So you are saying preserving the union was a bad thing? Do you think this country would be where it is today if Lincoln allowed the country to break up?

 

[Bravo]

Actually, I haven't looked up anything else he's written. That book was recommended as a 'more in depth' addition to what Cleon Scousen had written, the recommendation coming from a professor of history (Constitutional history specifically). Could it be that DiLorenzo is racist? (I'm thinking that's the reference to Grand Dragon - no?) I have no clue. What I do know is that racism was alive and well prior to and after the War of Northern Aggression*, but Emperor lincoln was as racist as the rest - the Black Star shipping lines were well documented.

I'll check the link you provided, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a matter of people not liking the facts on a political bias.

The 'freedom' you and I now have is a shallow reflection of what Americans had prior to the War of Northern Aggression. The reflection is essentially that the government wants control, but offers you choice A, B, or C. Since you have the option of picking A, B, or C, you believe you have freedom. The crux of the matter is that A, B, and C are all dictated with an agenda of control and in all cases in the favor of that control.

Look into the history of this country, you'll find that each of the original colonies was its own independent nation after the Revolutionary War. Thus the united States referred to in the Constitution (note the lower case - something that changed after Emperor lincoln - now the United States) were a 'union' of the "several states". Not as in "the state of Texas", but as "the secretary of State, for the United States". Countries that formed a union by uniting - the united States. In every way analogous to the current European Union.

So in the hypothetical case that the EU changes policy to unduly tax England, would it be acceptable for England to leave the EU? Certainly. Would it be acceptable for Germany to then declare war on England, stating that England DOES NOT have the right to leave the EU? Hardly. And how would we look at the EU, if Germany did forcibly subjugate Britain and then pass a law that nobody from Britain could be a representative of that area in the EU? Not very well, eh? But then, to top it all off, Germany would declare itself to be the 'government' of all countries in the EU, that they had essentially no self-governance, and that all citizens of each EU constituent country would be answerable to that government of Germany. There would be riots and revolutions all over - except for the fact the people who would riot (i.e. non-Germans) were subjugated or dead. Well, that's EXACTLY what happened in the War of Northern Aggression. EXACTLY.

Was preserving the union such a bad thing? Heavens no. It's just the fact an unnecessary war was declared, a dictatorship set up, and the Constitution shredded that was bad. Could the union have been saved without that war? CERTAINLY. If it hadn't have been for the extremely un-equitable taxation, the CSA states wouldn't have felt the need to leave - and who set up those extremely un-equitable taxes? Yup, the emperor.

What I'm getting from your post is that you believe either there had to be a war and a retained union, or there would have been no war and a division between the two countries. That's A or B. Except there were -and almost always are- more options than A or B.

Suspending habeus corpus, jailing without charges, suspending rights to a fair and speedy trial, and a whole slew of other infringements. That's what the emporer gave - and the stupid citizenry were willing to let their personal freedoms go, because they were "in a time of war" - nevermind the fact the war wasn't necessary. What were the last words of Booth? Sic semper tyranus. Thus always to tyrants. Think about what would make him say such a thing.

And lastly, the country then wasn't anything like the country now. For instance, the Republic of Texas (a "state" in the fact it was a free nation before joining the union) joined the union, but quickly saw what was happening. We were only in the union for what, 6 to 10 years before leaving? Some people were quick to understand what was going on - the first President of Texas was removed from office for refusing to swear allegiance to the united States, making him the first ousted governor of two states. Think about it.......

*Technically the 'war between the states' could not have been considered a "civil war" as it does not meet the criterion for that definition in several areas. A single example of which would be that in a "civil war", two or more factions fight for control of a government - this was not the case during the War of Northern Aggression, as Jefferson Davis had no more aspirations of conquering Washington DC than General George Washington had aspirations of conquering London, England.

 

[wristlock]

It is the drive of any government to get as much control as possible. Even our branches try to increase their power over the others daily.

It is up to the people to "keep it straight" or "put it straight."

WWI helped bring us back as a unified nation.

My question to help calm the Bravo/Cartman death match is: How would the Fed. Gov. handle secession today?

 

[Bravo]

No deathmatch, at least not yet.

How would the fed handle Montana seceeding?

Death. Lots of death. Mobilization of federalized everyone in the short range - until fratricide in the military hit 'rampant' on the dial. And yes, that's how it'd go - the military swore their allegiance to the Constitution, not to the unconstitutional government.

In the end, it'd be ugly-ugly. I'd expect a full-on split reminiscent of the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[EricCartmann]

No death match here either. Just a different point of view

The 'freedom' you and I now have is a shallow reflection of what Americans had prior to the War of Northern Aggression. The reflection is essentially that the government wants control, but offers you choice A, B, or C. Since you have the option of picking A, B, or C, you believe you have freedom. The crux of the matter is that A, B, and C are all dictated with an agenda of control and in all cases in the favor of that control.

None of us are truly really free, but I am satisfied with the freedom I do have.
- I can insult the President if I wanted to.
- I pay relatively low taxes compared to citizens of other modernized countries.
- I have more buying power than most people in other countries
I do hate that the gov't makes me wear a seat belt, or wear a helmet, or that I can't own machine guns, or how others feel like they need to make laws to make me safer.. but like I said I am very satisfied with the freedom that I do have.

Look into the history of this country, you'll find that each of the original colonies was its own independent nation after the Revolutionary War. Thus the united States referred to in the Constitution (note the lower case - something that changed after Emperor lincoln - now the United States) were a 'union' of the "several states". Not as in "the state of Texas", but as "the secretary of State, for the United States". Countries that formed a union by uniting - the united States. In every way analogous to the current European Union.

I don't think a strong centralized Gov't is a bad thing as long as it takes care of the people, help us to prosper and they don't abuse their power, or have checks and balances in place so it will not have the ability to abuse it's power. Rome was not that great as a Republic, it became the greatest when it was an Empire under one centralized Gov't ran by Augustus. It's citizens prospered and lived better lives. When Rome started to factionalize and it's empire began to slowly break up, is when it went into obscurity. America is what it is today because of a strong centralized Gov't after the civil war. We lead the world in technology, wealth, and even our movies and singers are the best. We set trends and others follow. If we were separate I doubt we would have the prosperty we have today.

So in the hypothetical case that the EU changes policy to unduly tax England, would it be acceptable for England to leave the EU? Certainly. Would it be acceptable for Germany to then declare war on England, stating that England DOES NOT have the right to leave the EU? Hardly. And how would we look at the EU, if Germany did forcibly subjugate Britain and then pass a law that nobody from Britain could be a representative of that area in the EU? Not very well, eh? But then, to top it all off, Germany would declare itself to be the 'government' of all countries in the EU, that they had essentially no self-governance, and that all citizens of each EU constituent country would be answerable to that government of Germany. There would be riots and revolutions all over - except for the fact the people who would riot (i.e. non-Germans) were subjugated or dead. Well, that's EXACTLY what happened in the War of Northern Aggression. EXACTLY.

I don't see England and the EU the same as Montana and the United States. The way I see it.... what if London wanted to seceed from England? Would England go to all cost to stop that from happening? you bet! Would they have the right to go to war to keep London in their control? you bet! I see the EU almost the same way I see NATO, the UN, or even the the fraternities at my local university. They are all just a bunch of separate organization that share a common interest and have common goals so they start a club, but if someone wanted to leave this club, then they are free to do so. I see secession almost the same way as I see as annexation (when a another country claims part of your land now belong to them). If another country tried to take our land then we have every right to go to war for it.

I don't see the civil war as "the war of northern aggression" at all. This country has always had debate on how it wanted to be operated. If you disagree, you and your group have no right to leave and form your own country. In the beginning Washington, Hamilton, and Adams wanted a strong centralized Govt because they wante a stong centralized bank. Jefferson was on the other end of the spectrum as he wanted more state rights and a weak centralized Gov't. Hamilton wanted to centralize the bank to pay off all the states debt that incurred during the Revolutionary war and make it one single national debt. This way all the states would work together and pay off the debt. The South in my book had no right to leave the union, and Lincoln had every right to go to war over it. Like I said above, seceeding to me is much like another country claiming your land is now their land, and then used their Army to take it by force. This is what the Southern states did when they proceeded with seccession, then built Army.

Funny how you called Lincoln an emperor, I guess technically you are right because he did rule an Empire I don't think he used "anti-slavery stance" for his own personal agenda, but if he did I would not be surprised. I don't think Lincoln was a racist, but if he was this would also not surprise me. However, you make out the South to be a bunch of angels when they are frar from it. They went to war over slavery, they wanted to keep slaves, be able to subject humans to the fields with whips, and they wanted to keep the ability to break up families by selling slave babies to highest bidder. I have heard many southerners tell me secession was not about slavery when clearly it was.

................................ I will comment on the other stuff later.

 

[Bravo]

We got snow last night, and I don't shoot when I can't pick up brass (can't afford to now!).... so here we go.

None of us are truly really free, but I am satisfied with the freedom I do have.
- I can insult the President if I wanted to.
- I pay relatively low taxes compared to citizens of other modernized countries.
- I have more buying power than most people in other countries
I do hate that the gov't makes me wear a seat belt, or wear a helmet, or that I can't own machine guns, or how others feel like they need to make laws to make me safer.. but like I said I am very satisfied with the freedom that I do have.

Things I'd point out on your tick-marks:
1. No, you can't. If you do, you're arrested without charges, held for a few days, then released. And it doesn't even have to be the president - one fellow I know got to explain the finer points of humor to the feds for a few days after heckling teddy kennedy (PTUI!). Are you free to do so? Sure. But it's a hollow freedom.
2. You pay several thousand percent higher taxes than ever envisioned by the Founding Fathers. What's more, before emperor lincoln, it was completely illegal for the federal government to tax individuals - the only reason the 16th Amendment could be executed was because of the 14th Amendment - the one that turned all individuals into federal citizens. In my analogy, that would be the writing on the piece of paper that said the government of Germany could dictate terms and conditions to the citizens of Britain.
3. You have more buying power right now. Look at what Argentina went through in 2001. That's what we're headed for, full blast. This whole 'economic stimulus package'? You got it, trying to stave away exactly that. When both the republicrats and the demopublicans (both halves of the liberal party) are extremely concerned about this, it ain't a joke. For an excellent treatise on why our monetary system is going tango-uniform, look into what Benjamin Franklin wrote up on the matter after his last trip to London.
4. All those pesky laws you noted are symptoms. Symptoms of a government that doesn't understand where it is bounded. All you have to read is the Constitution. It's not on legalese, it's right out there (this was done on purpose) so that any farmer with a 3rd grade education can understand it (according to Alexis deToqueville - sent to 'check out' America and report back to King Louis - Americans at the time in general were the most informed, literate, and educated citizens the world had to offer) - just read Amendment 9 and Amendment 10. Then read Article I section 8. We had an agreement - the citizenry and the government. The citizenry has lived up to much more than its responsibility, but the government has defaulted in spades time and time again. The big dog is off the leash - the pesky laws you mentioned are just the beginning bits of evidence. Beginning being roughly 100 years ago or so.

I don't think a strong centralized Gov't is a bad thing as long as it takes care of the people, help us to prosper and they don't abuse their power, or have checks and balances in place so it will not have the ability to abuse it's power.

That's the crux - there are checks and balances in place, but they have run far, far over those after having found that they have the ability to abuse the power vested. Technically, the government has no power, so "it's power" has no meaning - again, this is clearly spelled out in the Constitution - all power is resident in the people, the government operates only with authorities allowed by the people that can be recalled at any moment for any reason ("borrowed" power if you will). Otherwise, if you're for a large, powerful, centralized government, we're essentially rehashing the same old debates that went on long ago when the Constitution was being written. If you want to read up on those, in detail, two books will pretty much do it all: the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. But the government has 'defaulted' on the contract it made - which is EXACTLY what the letter from Montana references. There were agreements made, and those are being 'conveniently overlooked' - just like the checks and balances. In the case of Montana, the agreement was a legally binding annexation agreement. What happens when one party defaults on a contract?

Rome was not that great as a Republic, it became the greatest when it was an Empire under one centralized Gov't ran by Augustus. It's citizens prospered and lived better lives. When Rome started to factionalize and it's empire began to slowly break up, is when it went into obscurity.

Kind of. Rome did what other great Republics have done - it fell into a democracy. As the great historians have shown, a democracy has a lifetime of approximately 200 years before it implodes. Here, in America, we have done the same thing Rome did - take a Republic, and allow it to degenerate into a democracy. Our 200 year clock started ticking when Emporer lincoln started his War of Northern Aggression. Why else do you think that senators are no longer appointed by the governor? Simple - we've become a democracy.

America is what it is today because of a strong centralized Gov't after the civil war. We lead the world in technology, wealth, and even our movies and singers are the best. We set trends and others follow. If we were separate I doubt we would have the prosperty we have today.

I take the opposite view - America is today what it is, in spite of a strong centralized government. There was a reason that the Federalists lost during the forming of the Constitution. So much so that a couple of "red flags" should have been spotted by all (and were by anyone paying attention): out of the original 13 colonies (which became the Nation of Massachusetts, the Nation of Pennsylvania, the Nation of New Jersey, etc) only 12 would sign the Constitution! The one that wouldn't was the Nation of Rhode Island - their statement on such was that the Constitution didn't go far enough in protecting the citizenry from the government. It wasn't until later, when products from Rhode Island were taxed at a huge rate (tariffs on the products coming and going from the Nation of Rhode Island to the united States) that they were 'economically pressured' into signing. Ditto for one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence - he refused to have anything to do with the ratification of the Constitution because he believed the exact same as the Nation of Rhode Island. Also note, that by your line of reasoning, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the other 12 colonies - now the united States - to invade, subjugate, and dictate rules to Rhode Island during that time....... but they couldn't! Not that they militarily couldn't, they legally couldn't, under the Constitution!

I don't see England and the EU the same as Montana and the United States.

That's because you've been indoctrinated by federalists. Read up on the founding of the country - heck, even my illustration before. England and the EU vs. Montana and the United States are a perfect mate. Either there's soverignty or there isn't - just because something has 'always been' doesn't mean it 'always must be'.

The way I see it.... what if London wanted to seceed from England? Would England go to all cost to stop that from happening? you bet! Would they have the right to go to war to keep London in their control? you bet! I see the EU almost the same way I see NATO, the UN, or even the the fraternities at my local university.

Funny you mention fraternities and clubs - that was the exact same (let me emphasize exact) parallel that both Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jefferson used. TJ used it in relating the united States, JD used it when dissolving that union (I doubt I'll get the quote 100%, but he essentially said that if any man may disregard the club he has joined, he has the right to leave it). In other words, the Constitution of the united States has no entry as far as disabling a constituent Nation from disbanding once banded from the union.

They are all just a bunch of separate organization that share a common interest and have common goals so they start a club, but if someone wanted to leave this club, then they are free to do so. I see secession almost the same way as I see as annexation (when a another country claims part of your land now belong to them). If another country tried to take our land then we have every right to go to war for it.

Uh, you kind of messed up the definition and functionality of annexation. It's understandable though, since your take on the 'ownership' of property is that of a federalist. OK, here's the real way it rolls..... Let's go right after the Revolutionary War. The President of the Nation of New York (remember, under Brit lingo, the governor was the appointed "president" of an area, beholding / answerable to nobody but the king - since we came from Brits, we used some of their lingo - the lingo President hadn't been invented yet - but obviously the first governors weren't beholding to the king) had the highest authority over his area. Now under the Articles of Confederation (the history of which is one of the biggest blows to the Federalist theory) the 'mens club' had no significant authority. That's why it eventually crumbled - there was no significantly binding agreement between the President of New York and the President of New Jersey. Now let me ask...... what is going to entice the President of New York to 'hand over' all the area he's responsible for and has authority over? Basically nothing. To put a fine point on it, after Texas won its war of Independence (the Republic of Texas WAS -without question- its own nation for years before even considering annexation into the united States) it was a MAJOR concern that the united States would take it over militarily. Get that - why be concerned about being taken over if you're going to 'give up' the land? The easy answer is that when you join a fraternity, your body doesn't become the property of the fraternity. You are free to go once you join - which is EXACTLY what Texas did.

I don't see the civil war as "the war of northern aggression" at all.

Then who is it that invaded a soverign country illegally? Who were the defenders in this War for Independence?

This country has always had debate on how it wanted to be operated. If you disagree, you and your group have no right to leave and form your own country.

Your comment is incorrect if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers and the writers of the Constitution.

In the beginning Washington, Hamilton, and Adams wanted a strong centralized Govt because they wanted a stong centralized bank.

Also somewhat (not completely) wrong. Hamiliton was the first secretary of the treasury, and operated it well. A centralized government was NOT in the cards. Yes, he was a federalist, but for all the right reasons the federalists were essentially disregarded in the writing of the Constitution. Look at the entire Constitution - it speaks to LIMITATIONS of the government - to prevent EXACTLY what we've got right now. Unfortunately, those limitations aren't heeded. If you want a good history of Hamilton, read what the Washingtons wrote about him - Martha loved Hamilton so much she named her cat Hamilton - the why of the situation is hilarious.

Jefferson was on the other end of the spectrum as he wanted more state rights and a weak centralized Gov't. Hamilton wanted to centralize the bank to pay off all the states debt that incurred during the Revolutionary war and make it one single national debt.

Well, yes, that part is true.

This way all the states would work together and pay off the debt.

And this is 'not so true' and one of the reasons it failed - if Bobby can pay towards his 0 balance on his credit card, and Billy can pay towards his 0 balance on his credit card, then together they pay towards their 0 balance on the combined debt. It gets paid off not one whit faster, without redistribution of wealth (a plank in the communist manifesto). Robbing the 'rich' states to pay the debt in the 'poor' states wasn't any more popular then than it is now. Intrestingly, the federalists only desire to have things federalized when it's to their benefit. If you look at the 14th Amendment, you'll see that the former CSA states were held liable for the 'reparations' to the former USA states. So much for the 'pay it all off together' theory, eh?

I won't even get into the fact that the 14th Amendment could not have possibly been ratified legally.......

The South in my book had no right to leave the union, and Lincoln had every right to go to war over it. Like I said above, seceeding to me is much like another country claiming your land is now their land, and then used their Army to take it by force. This is what the Southern states did when they proceeded with seccession, then built Army.

Read The Making of America by Cleon Scousen. He's one of the most noted Constitutional Scholars still alive. It's a college textbook on exactly that. Your idea of annexation isn't correct. I bought a second copy, which is out on loan now. If you don't mind waiting until it comes back, I don't mind sending it to you.

Funny how you called Lincoln an emperor, I guess technically you are right because he did rule an Empire I don't think he used "anti-slavery stance" for his own personal agenda, but if he did I would not be surprised.

Actually, lincoln viewed the slavery issue as a minor problem - the bigger problem was cotton and natural resources. The South had the natural resources, but no way to turn them into goods. The North had significantly less resources, but all the industry to turn them into finished goods. The problem was that lincoln was a proponent of taxation of resource materials - to the point that he ran for presidency on a platform of increasing the taxes on cotton by doubling it. The reason was that the southern states were obtaining industrial machinery from mostly France with some from England. With both the natural resources and the means of turning them into finished products (see just how important cotton was at the time - why England occupied India for example) the North was concerned that the economy of the South would soon move them from the 'ruling party'. Thus incredible taxation, to economically oppress the southern states - leading to the division, which of course lead to the war. Without an idiot at the helm (Emperor lincoln) the division wouldn't have happened, which would have negated the reason for war, eh? An un-necessary war.

I don't think Lincoln was a racist, but if he was this would also not surprise me.

Correct. His idea was to 'level the playing field'. Slavery had been essentially outlawed by treatie for about 25 years before the War of Northern Aggression started. The only way a 'slave' could be created (since none could be imported) was if a baby were born to slave parents. As such - and with all things - the laws of economic theory were in full effect. Decrease the supply, the price (demand) increases - to the point that slaves were becoming too pricey (when compared with the automation being brought in from France and England) when compared to the other viable options. Remember, a French cotton gin didn't require food, shelter, clothing, medical, an overseer, etc. Given the economic realities, slavery would have been gone in another 20 to 30 years. That's not what Emperor lincoln wanted. He started the Blackstar Shipping lines - something that didn't turn out due to his early demise. His plan was for the government to sieze all slaves, 'repatriate' the owners at a given non-negotiable rate, then send all the slaves back to Africa. On that shipping line. Racist? I'd say. The real 'tell' though was that there were two states in the North (the United States during the War of Northern Aggression) that were 'slave states'. NOTHING was done about them until AFTER the war. Was slavery a big issue? Not anything compared to economics!

And let me hit on "honest abe". Do you know where that term was coined? It was coined by an Irish journalist. Back then, people 'stumped' for office via 'whistlestop'. A politician would make a speech from the train - or close to it - and then reboard the train until the next stop. Then he'd do the same. Getting out 'his message'. An Irish journalist was given the job of following lincoln around on his tour, listening to what he had to say - then publishing that as an article. The journalist noted that when lincoln would stop in certain areas, he would talk about the 'problem' of Irish imigrants and what he would do to 'solve that problem'. Extremely anti-Irish, which -looking at the times- wasn't odd. But when lincoln would get to an Irish community, he'd stump about how he was going to pass laws to protect the new imigrants. "Honest Abe" was a satire - a poke in the eye. Except now we're so removed from the situation by the years, we don't 'get the joke'. That didn't make lincoln very happy with the newspapers, but that's fine. During the war, if a paper wrote something he didn't like, he had the editor jailed without rights, and the paper shut down. So much for the First Amendment, eh? Happened several times.

However, you make out the South to be a bunch of angels when they are frar from it.

I never said angels. Just Patiots. Patriots that wanted freedom. In this case, economic freedom.

They went to war over slavery, they wanted to keep slaves, be able to subject humans to the fields with whips, and they wanted to keep the ability to break up families by selling slave babies to highest bidder. I have heard many southerners tell me secession was not about slavery when clearly it was.

Wrong. I've already addressed this, as have many historians. The economics of slavery were such that it couldn't have been viable for more than 1 generation longer. Sorry, that's just the way it was. And just so you don't think that I'm one of those 'racist crackers', let me assure you, the slaves in this country were treated MUCH better than my ancestors. Like I said, take a college course or two on the matter - at a good conservative college, from a professor that actually is into things. I took the courses long after I'd gotten my degrees, just for my edification - the prof had his own radio show that would be targeted toward the Patriot Movement if I had to label it.

 

[EricCartmann]

You wrote way to much stuff that I did not even read all of it 8)

Different points of views and I see that there is no way you will be able to see the other way. I can see your history is different than mine.

History can be misleading sometimes, hard to determine what really happened. Some people today even said the Holocaust never happened, when clearly it did. If these naysayers keep on pushing their agenda and provide "proof" the holocuast never happened, then in 500 years most people will think it never happened. I see their "proof" the same way I see some, but not all, of your "proofs".

I don't know how anyone can say the civil war was not about slavery. Yeah there were other issues involved in the civil war, but just study the events that lead up to the civil war and you will clearly see that slavery was the #1 issue. And no Montana is not part of a fraternity, they cannot leave anytime they want. They are a state and part of a Union. The land they live on belongs to the USA.

 

[Bravo]

Do some for-real research.

For instance, why is it that the country was called in the Constitution "the [or sometimes these] united States" - when it could have been called America instead. Or as later, the United States. What does United mean, anyway? Union? How does someone get into a union, and when they're IN a union, can they leave?

Here's the deal - it's EASY to get yourself into a college history course. Look for a good one, at your local university, in United States Constitution, or specific on the founding of America. I got into one as an evening course, liked it so much I did another one. Don't cheese out and get a "history of the US from beginning to WWI" or some crap like that.

I should mention that I took these courses after I'd already got out of school completely. Just do it to learn. What I'm saying isn't wrong, it's just taught against in the modern institutions. After all, it's a harder matter to control a free man than it is someone who has been convinced he has no rights in the first place.

The way I can say the War of Northern Aggression wasn't about slavery - as anything but a sideline - is because I know the history of the situation. Look at the position emperor lincoln espoused on taxation, and see if YOU would have stood for it. Look at the laws he passed, and ask yourself if YOU would have fought if it was YOU today. Simple.

If you still think that slavery was the major issue, do some research into the topic, on the English side. After all, they were the 'main player' in the situation. But again, it's not my place to educate you.

Either you take it upon yourself to learn, or you don't. If you don't, that's fine with me. Just understand two things:
1. You don't have the answers - anyone with a public school education that claims to have the answers is highly suspect to begin with - so don't claim that I don't when your education and mine don't agree.
2. There's a good chance that you'll have opportunity to prove your thoughts and intentions on the matter. Like pregnancy, there's no such thing as "a little bit totalitarian" - you're either free or you aren't. If you aren't, there are only degrees of subjugation. We're in the "mild-to-mid subjugated" range now. If this is fine with you, you may very well get the opportunity to kill those who oppose you. If you aren't killed in the process that is.

You say that Montana isn't part of a fraternity. I gave you comments from the Founding Fathers - you've given me comments from just you. If you want to prove something, you might want to cite something more than "I think". Besides, if you take a course or two - or at least read a bit - you'll find out you're 100% wrong on who owns the land. Period. Including the land D.C. sets on.

 

[EricCartmann]

if it was not about slavery then why was all(most) the slave states on one side and all the non-slave states on the other?

as a matter of fact, there were some slave states that allied themselves with the union. the union did not ban slavery, they only wanted to keep slavery from expanding. but the south did not want it that way, they wanted expand slavery to new territories.

were there any non-slave states that wanted to be part of the confederacy? no there was not! so what does that tell you? to me it tells me it was all about slavery.

and also laughed when you said slaves were treated better than you ahhahaha... what like maybe one out of 1000? for the most part slave owners treated thier slaves as property. you know like the way you treat dirt. it is hard for african americans to trace their bloodlines from the very beginning because slave owners sold babies and broke up families. hell just look at the laws back then.. blacks were treated as property! and a slaveowner could do what ever he wanted with slaves, he could rape em, kill em, and or do whatever and there would be no repurcussion.

 

[Bravo]

if it was not about slavery then why was all(most) the slave states on one side and all the non-slave states on the other?

If it was about slavery, then why is it that the north didn't do anything about the slave states IN the union - and why did lincoln wait so many years into the war to publish the emancipation proclimation - the answer is because they could no longer get assistance from England UNLESS they banned slavery. It was a minor issue, when compared to economics.

as a matter of fact, there were some slave states that allied themselves with the union. the union did not ban slavery, they only wanted to keep slavery from expanding. but the south did not want it that way, they wanted expand slavery to new territories.

That's right - the union did NOT ban slavery, so it must have been "THE" issue, right? After all, if you're going to fight a war over an issue, you clean it up in YOUR house first, right? Or does it make sense to you that if you're going to fight child molesters, you go out and fight them in your neighborhood, but don't mind the ones living in your house with you? Perfect illustration! Think of it this way, why would a pro-slavery state join the USA instead of the CSA, if it was all about slavery? They wouldn't, right? But if it was about economics...... ah, now that's a different matter! If it were about economics FAR above slavery, then a state would have to make a choice, and the choice would be to take the 'biggest winner' part - economics!

Again, you need to quit trying to debate me on the basis of "you think" or what makes sense to you, and go get some continuing education. It's not my place in life to educate you. At least read some. If you can't / won't read what I post, can't / won't read books recommended, can't / won't take classes, then you're not doing much to educate yourself, eh?

were there any non-slave states that wanted to be part of the confederacy? no there was not! so what does that tell you? to me it tells me it was all about slavery.

Yes. Look into it - indentured servitude was taking over, because it was economically feasible over slavery - but you just say "NOT!" like you know.....

and also laughed when you said slaves were treated better than you ahhahaha... what like maybe one out of 1000? for the most part slave owners treated thier slaves as property. you know like the way you treat dirt. it is hard for african americans to trace their bloodlines from the very beginning because slave owners sold babies and broke up families. hell just look at the laws back then.. blacks were treated as property! and a slaveowner could do what ever he wanted with slaves, he could rape em, kill em, and or do whatever and there would be no repurcussion.

That's right. My people were wiped out without a question en masse - my lineage is Native American. The slaves WERE treated better than the Indians, and that's an unquestionable fact. Nobody used bubonic plague to massacre hundreds of thousands of slaves - and that's ONE example. Again, you make comments based on assumptions - and your assumptions aren't correct.

 

[EricCartmann]

That's right - the union did NOT ban slavery, so it must have been "THE" issue, right? After all, if you're going to fight a war over an issue, you clean it up in YOUR house first, right? Or does it make sense to you that if you're going to fight child molesters, you go out and fight them in your neighborhood, but don't mind the ones living in your house with you? Perfect illustration! Think of it this way, why would a pro-slavery state join the USA instead of the CSA, if it was all about slavery? They wouldn't, right? But if it was about economics...... ah, now that's a different matter! If it were about economics FAR above slavery, then a state would have to make a choice, and the choice would be to take the 'biggest winner' part - economics!

Again, you need to quit trying to debate me on the basis of "you think" or what makes sense to you, and go get some continuing education. It's not my place in life to educate you. At least read some. If you can't / won't read what I post, can't / won't read books recommended, can't / won't take classes, then you're not doing much to educate yourself, eh?

For the South it was all about slavery. The South went to war over slavery! The north went to war to preserve the Union. Even during the emancipation proclamation, the slave owners in the union were able keep their slaves. It was not till the 14th ammendment where slavery was totally abolished in the whole country.

The North probably wanted to eventually phase out slavery, and it is like you said earlier, if slavery would have only lasted another 1-2 generation, then why leave the union? It was not like the North banned slavery, it wanted to keep it from expanding to the new territories. I will tell you why the southern states seceeded, they wanted to keep their slaves! they knew the north would eventually abolish it.