big government

[Cbarton]

Man, and I thought the Kennedy assassination conspiricies were wild...

 

[august spies]

this has gotten way off topic.. where is the outrage when a corrupt government begins prying into the private life of a stripper for "having the wrong thought"

 

[Neutron]

Actually..

The government is well within it's constitutional rights to do what they did. Read the constitution kiddies.


AS for some of the history theories offered here LOL> That's the trouble with the internet and wikipedia. Any nut case can offer his misconceptions and half truths about history and someone will accept them as a fact.

 

[Betchass1]

You DO have a better source than an internet site do you not? Like maybe a collection of the original papers? A verifiable history?
...
Get a real source, not wikipedia or a bogus website.

I don't know for sure what you guys are going on about, but the internet is a tremendous resource. There is a lot that is questionable, but cross-checking is far easier than when you have to drive from library to library. You can access faculty pages and dissertations from who knows how many universities. The internet is just like other media but a whole lot more a whole lot faster. And, like other media, it's only as accurate as the person using it. I daresay there are no serious scholars or scientists who don't use the internet in some capacity.

 

[Neutron]

I've Found

It to be a good starting point. But write a paper and use info obtained off the net and a decent professor will throw it out.

You can find stuff with it, but not do any serious research with it.

 

[asutickler1]

this has gotten way off topic.. where is the outrage when a corrupt government begins prying into the private life of a stripper for "having the wrong thought"

There is no "outrage." The woman in the original story is a self-admitted anarchist nutcase. We only have her side of the story, and she would have to be a true moron to admit membership in some sort of domestic terrorist organization. We do not know what reason the government may or may not have had to spy on her but, presuming that the government was able to secure a court's authorization prior to doing any wiretapping, it was probably a good one.


As for singling her out because of her political beliefs: Her political beliefs center around the overthrow and removal of organized government. I'm sure that the government routinely examines members of the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the KKK, and etc. as well... And I say "good for them!"

 

[Goodieluver]

There is no "outrage." The woman in the original story is a self-admitted anarchist nutcase. We only have her side of the story, and she would have to be a true moron to admit membership in some sort of domestic terrorist organization. We do not know what reason the government may or may not have had to spy on her but, presuming that the government was able to secure a court's authorization prior to doing any wiretapping, it was probably a good one.


As for singling her out because of her political beliefs: Her political beliefs center around the overthrow and removal of organized government. I'm sure that the government routinely examines members of the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the KKK, and etc. as well... And I say "good for them!"

Not to also mention anarchy is a crackpot stupid theory which is self defeating and that would be as sucessful as communism in the 20th century

I like how the thread did diverge from anarchy to civil war to rev war to const to back to anarchy, wonder what the next tangent will be(gee, i just described whats wrong and how anarchy doesnt work)

I will say this, anyone can say anything, i base all my knowledge i give off what i have researched on my own and what was taught to me by college professors who have written books in the academic world and are established members of the academic community. Yes there are flaws with the internet society and its information but some of the information online is valid and correct. For the whole argument with neutron and Plumr, well, plumr has given sites that give info, neutron has given(as far as ive seen) zero sources, so one tends to believe plumr, especially when you research outside of just the links provided. One side reads it and says one thing, the other side reads it and gets something completely different. If you already have an established opinion, someone with information wont change your mind

 

[plumr2003]

Thank you goodieluver I appreciate your comment , but punk is right we did stray from the initial topic a bit. Big Brother , er I mean big government scares me more than liberal leaning strippers. I fear the patriot act can be turned against the American people. Ben Franklin said it best: He who gives up essential freedoms for supposed safety will end with neither.

 

[august spies]

There is no "outrage." The woman in the original story is a self-admitted anarchist nutcase. We only have her side of the story, and she would have to be a true moron to admit membership in some sort of domestic terrorist organization. We do not know what reason the government may or may not have had to spy on her but, presuming that the government was able to secure a court's authorization prior to doing any wiretapping, it was probably a good one.


As for singling her out because of her political beliefs: Her political beliefs center around the overthrow and removal of organized government. I'm sure that the government routinely examines members of the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the KKK, and etc. as well... And I say "good for them!"

so people who dont believe in your narrow nationalist view of the world are "nutcases" and need to be oppressed. you are a perfect example of why freedom is necessary

 

[august spies]

Not to also mention anarchy is a crackpot stupid theory which is self defeating and that would be as sucessful as communism in the 20th century

I like how the thread did diverge from anarchy to civil war to rev war to const to back to anarchy, wonder what the next tangent will be(gee, i just described whats wrong and how anarchy doesnt work)

I will say this, anyone can say anything, i base all my knowledge i give off what i have researched on my own and what was taught to me by college professors who have written books in the academic world and are established members of the academic community. Yes there are flaws with the internet society and its information but some of the information online is valid and correct. For the whole argument with neutron and Plumr, well, plumr has given sites that give info, neutron has given(as far as ive seen) zero sources, so one tends to believe plumr, especially when you research outside of just the links provided. One side reads it and says one thing, the other side reads it and gets something completely different. If you already have an established opinion, someone with information wont change your mind

you didnt prove anything about anarchism

 

[august spies]

Thank you goodieluver I appreciate your comment , but punk is right we did stray from the initial topic a bit. Big Brother , er I mean big government scares me more than liberal leaning strippers. I fear the patriot act can be turned against the American people. Ben Franklin said it best: He who gives up essential freedoms for supposed safety will end with neither.

cheers to that.

 

[asutickler1]

so people who dont believe in your narrow nationalist view of the world are "nutcases" and need to be oppressed. you are a perfect example of why freedom is necessary

Save the self-pitying martyr act. People who believe in the violent overthrow of civilized society should be monitored. They are usually paranoid and delusional, and this sometimes makes them dangerous. They are also obnoxious and annoying, but that is more of a nuisance than anything else.

If you were being "oppressed," by the way, you would already be in prison or some sort of camp. The free speech you are currently enjoying is protected by the very government you profess to hate. You are a perfect example of someone who lacks a firm grip on reality, and thinks the world is out to get him. Don't worry: Most of your sort eventually grow out of it.

 

[jj82277]

I think that in the case of the stripper, i dont mind the fact that she got asked a few questions with her lawyer present. I think there was enough legitimacy to take a few hours to dot a few is and cross a few ts. if i saw someone that was almost completely off the grid planning to go to a country we are engaged in military action with, who had those type of leanings, i would want to know alittle bit more about the situation too. If she was arrested and put in a room then tortured i would ofcourse be outraged (and if they used feathers i would want the photos), but in all seriousness i view this and other examples like it as harmless thuroughness.

As for Lincoln i am probably not as well read as the people who have argued so eloquently on both sides of the point, but i will say this because in my company we use him as a reference a lot: after all that he went through in his life, loosing a lot of his family, and loosing election after election before finally winning the job that no one wanted, with a country on the brink of war and rampant injustice, with all the mistakes that he undoubtedly made i think he did a pretty damn good job. Had the South been allowed to disolve slavery at its own pace, im sure that the civil rights process in of itself would be pushed back at least about 40-60 years. so as i am typing this had he not taken the initiative to in practice (not theory) make the imanc. proc. meaningful by staying strong and resolute to an end and keeping this country together through blood ant turmoil, i would still be sprayed with water hoses, and chased by police dogs. hows that for historical prospective.

I hated the fact that everywhere i looked in all my history and humanity courses in school there was a certain groupg of people that took great joy in tearing apart the pride of this country and thats sad. Truth is truth don't get me wrong, but i can only hope that i like linclon ill make the type of progress or do something special enough with my life so that a century and a half from now a group will be engaged in free robust debate about the mistakes that i made on the road to greatness.

 

[Goodieluver]

It to be a good starting point. But write a paper and use info obtained off the net and a decent professor will throw it out.

You can find stuff with it, but not do any serious research with it.

Oh im not disagreeing, but they do allow content from net if from a credible source, such as a .org or gov site, dependant on your criteria, that or a library site which gives sources online

 

[Goodieluver]

you didnt prove anything about anarchism

Ok, name any nation state that has maintained an anarchist state of government and thrived.

The anarchist movement is a falasy, they want a lack of government but they wish to install a form of government, which is anarchy. Thru all chaos is order and thru all order is chaos. Its self defeating, its similar to people who consider themselves punk and dress as to how a punk is to look like. You want to overthrow government and making it chaos, yet then you establish rules of how to live in separate tribes\groups, giving it order. Hell if anythin, anarchists should be heavy supporters of conservatives, they are the only ones keepin them able to own guns for the "revolution"
But i digress, anarchy is a buzz word to try and freak "normies" out and to give people special reason\place to be. Its an illusion for people to say they are in a special societal class

 

[jj82277]

where did you go to school goodieluver

 

[Goodieluver]

where did you go to school goodieluver

Currently in college now, hopefully to finish in 5 months with a degree in history, why? I take it some issue of mine is incorrect?

 

[jj82277]

no you just seem to be well read, although i may not agree with some of your historical interprutations i can respect the fact that you seem to be a good student. dont be so paranoid i was just trying to make conversation.

 

[Neutron]

Excellent Post..

Ok, name any nation state that has maintained an anarchist state of government and thrived.

The anarchist movement is a falasy, they want a lack of government but they wish to install a form of government, which is anarchy. Thru all chaos is order and thru all order is chaos. Its self defeating, its similar to people who consider themselves punk and dress as to how a punk is to look like. You want to overthrow government and making it chaos, yet then you establish rules of how to live in separate tribes\groups, giving it order. Hell if anythin, anarchists should be heavy supporters of conservatives, they are the only ones keepin them able to own guns for the "revolution"
But i digress, anarchy is a buzz word to try and freak "normies" out and to give people special reason\place to be. Its an illusion for people to say they are in a special societal class

Excellent post man. Very well written and thought out. And true.

 

[Goodieluver]

no you just seem to be well read, although i may not agree with some of your historical interprutations i can respect the fact that you seem to be a good student. dont be so paranoid i was just trying to make conversation.

Thanks, since i have my views attacked constantly, i tend to think any questions are against me, sorry for my assumption

 

[TheChameleon]

my question, is why would they spend that much freakin' money, MY money, on A stripper, to ask her like... 6 or 7 questions? Those FBI agents get paid. Fat paid.

Also, why would A stripper want to blow up the country where she gets naked for money, when in the middle east, getting naked is against everything they believe in? It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?!

*screams and runs out of the room*

 

[jj82277]

really

Thanks, since i have my views attacked constantly, i tend to think any questions are against me, sorry for my assumption

you think your views get attacked constantly, try being like the only african american under the age of 45 in the state of Florida that is a republica, i think one day that i am goign to get assasinated or somehting

 

[plumr2003]

Here is a very interesting article for any one that was following the civil war debate. This is what I was taught in school in the 60's as a major cause of the war:The Hampton Roads Peace Conference During the War Between the States
by John V. Denson
by John V. Denson



Most establishment historians today might as well be the Orwellian historians writing for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel 1984, especially in relation to the War Between the States. They rarely, if ever, mention the Hampton Roads Peace Conference which occurred in February of 1865, because it brings into question most of the mythology promoted today which states that Lincoln and the North fought the war for the purpose of abolishing slavery and the South fought for the purpose of protecting it, and therefore, it was a great and noble war.

The story of the peace conference is related by a participant who was vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, in volume two of his work entitled A Constitutional View of the War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results, at pages 589 through 625.

The story begins in early January of 1865 which was before Sherman left Savannah on his march through the Carolinas. Mr. Francis P. Blair, Sr., instigated the conference by obtaining President Lincoln’s permission to contact Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, concerning a possible temporary halt in the war. Mr. Blair was closely connected to the Lincoln administration and he was concerned about the efforts on the part of the French to establish a military presence in Mexico in order to help them reconquer the territory that had been lost in the war with America. Mr. Blair made his proposal to President Jefferson Davis that a secret military conference take place and that all hostility cease between the North and South for the purpose of letting the American army enforce the Monroe Doctrine by directing all of its efforts to evicting the French from Mexico, thereby stopping any assault by the Mexicans on the southwest corner of America. President Lincoln gave his permission to Mr. Blair to talk with Jefferson Davis but indicated to him that he did not endorse Mr. Blair’s ideas; however, he would not stand in the way of some military conference to discuss peace terms and to stop hostilities while the conference was in session. Jefferson Davis listened to Mr. Blair’s proposal, met with his cabinet and it was decided that three delegates were to be appointed to meet with President Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Seward. The three Confederate delegates were Mr. Stephens, John Campbell, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice from Alabama, and a Mr. R. M. T. Hunter, a member of the Confederate Senate. The Confederate delegates were given safe passage through Northern lines and met directly with General Grant, who put them on a boat to go to Fortress Monroe. When they reached Fortress Monroe near Hampton Roads, Virginia, they were then escorted to another steamer where President Lincoln and Mr. Seward were to meet with them. The actual meeting occurred on February 3, 1865.

Mr. Seward indicated that this was to be an informal conference with no writing or record to be made, all was to be verbal, and the Confederates agreed. President Lincoln announced in the beginning that the trip of Mr. Blair was approved by him but that he did not endorse the idea to halt the hostilities for the purpose of the American army going to Mexico to enforce the Monroe Doctrine; however, he had no objection to discussing a peace offer at this time. President Lincoln stated that he had always been willing to discuss a peace offer as long as the first condition was met and that would be for the Confederacy to pledge to rejoin the Union. If that condition was agreed upon then they could discuss any other details that were necessary. Mr. Stephens responded by suggesting that if they could come up with some proposal to stop the hostilities, which might lead to the restoration of the Union without further bloodshed, would it not be advisable to act on that proposal, even without an absolute pledge of ultimate restoration being required at the beginning? President Lincoln replied firmly that there would be no stopping of the military operations unless there was a pledge first by the Confederacy to rejoin the Union immediately.

Judge Campbell then asked what would be the terms offered to the South if they were to pledge to rejoin the Union and how would they be taken back into the Union. Since there was no immediate response by either President Lincoln or Mr. Seward, Vice-President Stephens stated that it would be worthwhile to pursue stopping the hostilities to have a cooling off period so that the peace terms might be investigated without the passions of the war. Mr. Stephens indicated that should the hostilities stop for some extended period of time, he felt that there would be a good chance that many of the states would rejoin the Union on the same terms as they had when they joined in the beginning, but that the sovereignty of the states would have to be recognized upon rejoining the Union. Mr. Seward objected that a system of government founded upon the right of secession would not last and that self-preservation of the Union was a first law of nature which applies to nations as well as to individuals. He brought up the point that if all the states were free to secede, they might make a treaty with some foreign nation and thus expose the Union to foreign aggression. Mr. Stephens responded that the principle of self-preservation also applied to every state by itself and it would never be in the interest of any single state or several states to join with some foreign power against those states which remained in the Union.

Mr. Hunter then brought up the question of whether President Lincoln would require the Confederate army to join with the Union army to go to war in Mexico and stated before Lincoln answered that it was the view of all three commissioners that the Confederates would never agree to join with the Union army in an invasion of Mexico. Both President Lincoln and Mr. Seward responded that the feeling was so strong in the North to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, that they felt that the South would not be needed in the invasion.

The subject of slavery then came up and Mr. Stephens asked President Lincoln what would be the status of the slave population in the Confederate states, and especially what effect the Emancipation Proclamation would have if the Confederates rejoined the Union. President Lincoln responded that the Proclamation was only a war measure and as soon as the war ceased, it would have no operation for the future. It was his opinion that the Courts would decide that the slaves who were emancipated under the Proclamation would remain free but those who were not emancipated during the war would remain in slavery. Mr. Seward pointed out that only about two hundred thousand (200,000) slaves had come under the operation of the Proclamation and this would be a small number out of the total. Mr. Seward then brought up the point that several days before the meeting, there had been a proposed 13th constitutional amendment to cause the immediate abolition of slavery throughout the United States, but if the war were to cease and the Confederates rejoined the Union, they would have enough votes to kill the amendment. He stated that there would be thirty-six (36) states and ten (10) could defeat the amendment. The reader should be reminded at this point that President Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address before the war, gave his support to the first 13th amendment pending at that time which would have explicitly protected slavery where it already existed.

Mr. Stephens then inquired as to what would be status of the states in regard to their representation in Congress and President Lincoln replied that they would have their full rights restored under the Constitution. This would mean that there would be no punishment or reconstruction imposed. President Lincoln then returned to the slavery question and stated that it was never his intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed and he would not have done so during the war, except that it became a military necessity. He had always been in favor of prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories but never thought immediate emancipation in the states where it already existed was practical. He thought there would be "many evils attending" the immediate ending of slavery in those states. Judge Campbell then asked Mr. Seward if he thought there would be good race relations in the South upon immediate emancipation and inquired about what would happen to the freed slaves. President Lincoln responded by telling an anecdote about an Illinois farmer and how he avoided any effort in finding food for his hogs, and his method would apply to the freed slaves, in other words "let’em root!" The Confederate delegation showed no interest in protecting slavery in the Confederacy with their only interest being independence from the Union and the protection of the right to secede, which raised the subject of West Virginia. Mr. Hunter asked President Lincoln whether West Virginia, which had seceded from the State of Virginia, would be allowed to remain a separate state and President Lincoln stated that it would. Lincoln had once been a strong proponent of secession, and as a first-term congressman from Illinois, he spoke in a session of the House of Representatives in 1848 and argued that:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." (emphasis supplied).

Lincoln recognized the right of West Virginia to secede but refused to recognize the right of the South to secede. Mr. Hunter indicated that President Lincoln’s proposal amounted to an unconditional surrender but Mr. Seward responded that the North would not be conquerors but rather the states would merely have to recognize national authority and the execution of the national laws. The South would regain full protection of the Constitution like the rest of the states.

President Lincoln returned to the question of slavery stating that he thought the North would be willing to be taxed to compensate the Southern people for the loss of their slaves. He said that he had many conversations to the effect that if there was a voluntary abolition of slavery the American government would pay a fair indemnity and specified that four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) would probably be appropriated for this purpose. Mr. Seward said that the Northern people were weary of the war and they would be willing to pay this amount of indemnity rather than continuing to pay for the war.

Mr. Stephens wrote that the entire conversation took about four hours and the last subject was the possible exchange of prisoners. President Lincoln stated he would put that question in the hands of General Grant and they could discuss it with Grant as they left. Finally, Mr. Stephens asked President Lincoln to reconsider stopping the hostilities for a period of time so that the respective sides could "cool off," and while cooling off, investigate further possibilities for ending the war other than by simply having the South pledge to rejoin the Union. President Lincoln stated he would reconsider it but he did not think his mind would change on that point. Thus, ended the Peace Conference and the Confederates returned to meet with General Grant and were escorted back to the Confederate lines.

In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war.

It was generally recognized in both the North and the South by 1865 that slavery was a dying institution, not just in America, but throughout Western Civilization. It was also obvious to both the North and the South that slavery would be hard to maintain in a separate Confederate South without the constitutional and statutory fugitive slave provisions which had required free states to return escaped slaves. In fact, many abolitionists had advocated Northern secession before the war as a means to end slavery by depriving the Southern states of the benefits of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution and the laws relating thereto. The offer of the North to pay for the freed slaves was merely an added inducement to rejoin the Union but Lincoln had always been willing to accept slavery where it already existed if the South would remain in, or later, rejoin the Union. The right of a state to secede clearly had been accepted in the North and the South at the time of the formation of the Union and up until the time of the War Between the States. For example, the New England states frequently asserted the right of secession and threatened to use it on five occasions: in 1803 because of President Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase; in 1807 over the Embargo Act; in 1812 over the admission of Louisiana as a state; in 1814 at the Hartford Convention because of the War of 1812; and finally, in 1845 over the annexation of Texas.

If the agricultural South rejoined the industrial North, they would again be subject to economic exploitation of the protective tariff, which was paid primarily by the South and was by far the main tax to operate the central government in Washington, D.C. The North, due to their increased representation in Congress, was able to control where the money was spent, which was primarily for internal improvements in the North, a practice the South considered unconstitutional. The protective tariff and internal improvements had been two of the key problems between the two sections since 1828, along with the general disagreement about the size and power of the central government in Washington.

Finally, in order to bring into clear focus the significance of the Hampton Roads Conference, it should be recalled that on April 4, 1861, before the start of the war on April 12, the Secession Convention in Virginia, which had convened in February of 1861, sent a delegate to visit President Lincoln in the White House to discuss the results of the action recently taken in Virginia. When the State of Virginia originally voted on its ratification ordinance approving the U.S. Constitution, it contained a specific clause protecting their right to secede in the future. The delegate was Colonel John B. Baldwin, who was a strong opponent of secession by Virginia, although he recognized the right. His message communicated privately to the president on April 4, was that the convention had voted not to secede if President Lincoln would issue a written pledge to refrain from the use of force in order to get the seceded states back into the Union. President Lincoln told Colonel Baldwin that it was four days too late now to take that action. Unknown to all except a few insiders of the administration, meaning that members of the Congress did not know, the president had already issued secret orders on April 1, to send a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter in order to provoke the South into firing the first shot in order to start the war. (For more details see my chapter "Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception" in the book Reassessing the Presidency.) Lincoln stated that he could not wait until the seceded states decided what to do and added:

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?"

Baldwin replied:

"Yes sir, until they can be peaceably brought back."

Lincoln then replied:

"And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten percent tariff . . ." (as opposed to the much higher forty percent Federal tariff). "What then would become of my tariff?" (For more details on this meeting and a subsequent meeting with President Lincoln by other delegates of the Virginia Secession Convention, again see my chapter "Lincoln and the First Shot")

The original Constitution, still in effect before the war, prohibited all "direct" taxes on the people, i.e. income, estate, gift, etc., so almost all the revenue to operate the Federal government in Washington was derived from an "indirect" tax on imports. The South, being agricultural, had to import almost all manufactured goods from Europe (primarily England) or buy the products from the North. The higher the tax on imports, the more protection the North got to raise its prices for its manufactured goods and for this reason a high import tax was called a "protective tariff." As long as, the import tax was ten percent or less it was classified as a "revenue tax" to which the South did not object. In fact, the new Confederate Constitution adopted in March of 1861, placed a maximum tax on imports of ten percent. However, when an import tax or tariff exceeded ten percent, it became known as a "protective tariff" for the protection of domestic (Northern) industry. Shortly before the war, the Chicago Daily Times was only one of many newspapers predicting a calamity for federal revenue and business in the North if the South was allowed to secede with its ten percent limit on import taxes which would attract trade, especially from abroad, to the South rather than the North. In an editorial it stated:

"In one single blow our [Northern] foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade will pass into other hands . . . We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories will be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue (ten percent or less), and these results would likely follow."

In a debate in England, two notable British citizens, Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill, took opposing views on the cause of the American War Between the States with Mill stating that the purpose of the war was the abolition of slavery and Dickens maintained that "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

The meeting at Hampton Roads in 1865 and the meeting with Colonel Baldwin in 1861 both showed that President Lincoln’s concern was preventing the secession of the South in order to protect Northern manufacturers and to retain the tax source for the Federal government. The abolition of slavery was not the purpose of the war. In his Inaugural Address he promised he would invade the South for the purpose of collecting taxes and recovering the forts but he would support the first 13th amendment which protected slavery in the states where it already existed.

The War Between the States was not a noble war to abolish slavery, but instead was a war of conquest to require the Southern states to continue paying the taxes which paid for the federal government and to change the system of government given to us by our Founders and instead replace it with a strong national government thereby removing most of the political power from the states and the people. When the famous British historian, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee after the war, in a letter dated November 4, 1866, he inquired about Lee’s assessment of the meaning of the war and the result that would follow. Lord Acton’s letter stated, in part, that:

"I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . . Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."

Lee replied in a letter dated December 15, 1866, and stated, in part, what the result would be:

" . . . [T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it." (emphasis supplied).

Never have truer words ever been written or spoken.

Rarely do any governments, or the politicians, intellectuals and news media who support their wars, tell the truth about the real motives for the wars. After all, the citizens must be convinced either that their safety is being protected from an aggressor or that the war serves some noble purpose, because it’s the citizens who fight, die and pay the taxes. The Orwellian historians have falsified the true purposes or motives behind most of America’s wars, and have instead given us glorified accounts designed to mislead the public in order to justify the sacrifices the people have made. All wars, whether won or lost, tend to centralize and increase the power into the national government, increase the debts and taxes and diminish the civil liberties of the citizens. It is time we begin to see through the myths and false propaganda about American wars so that we can prevent future wars. Americans have a strong tendency to accept as true the false wartime propaganda which now appears in the history books and which is repeated by politicians and intellectuals to the effect that all of America’s wars have been just, necessary and noble. This tendency of the Americans to accept this false propaganda tends to prevent them from questioning the alleged reasons for current wars. There is also a strong tendency by Americans to measure a person’s patriotism by how much that person supports an American war rather than how much the person supports the concept of American freedom and the ideas of our Founders, which includes a noninterventionist foreign policy

It is time that Americans learn the truth about the real reasons behind our wars, and particularly, the War Between the States, because of the price that we have paid in the long-term loss of liberty in that war. The deaths of over 600,000 American young men in that war is not exactly inconsequential. This high death total is more than the total of all the deaths of American soldiers in all the other wars America has fought. The Hampton Roads Peace Conference is a necessary piece to the puzzle of learning that truth.

The abolition of slavery by the 13th amendment was a great step forward in the struggle for individual freedom and it eliminated a horrible evil in America which had been practiced for centuries throughout the world, but the passage of that amendment was not the purpose of the war and slavery would certainly have died soon without a war as it did elsewhere throughout Western Civilization without wars. It is the War Between the States which was the first great turning point in American history away from the system of government and the individual freedom that our Founders provided for us. We need a new "Reformation and Renaissance," but this time, it needs to be about government, especially the American government. We need a new "turning point" to go in the right direction to recover the original ideas about individual freedom advocated by our Founders before it is too late; or have we already passed the point of no return?

January 10, 2006

John V. Denson [send him mail] is the editor of two books, The Costs of War and Reassessing the Presidency. In the latter work, he has chapters especially relevant for today, on how Lincoln and FDR lied us into war.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

 

[plumr2003]

So you see it was in the interest of the british to encourage the south to secede ; because , presumably it would increase their trade with the south , without the protective tariff imposed by the north. At the same time they were financing the war effort in the north thru the City Of London bankers in a perfect Hegelian dialectic ( problem- reaction- solution ). They played both ends against the middle insuring their profit either way.

 

[Goodieluver]

you think your views get attacked constantly, try being like the only african american under the age of 45 in the state of Florida that is a republica, i think one day that i am goign to get assasinated or somehting

Oh i have black republican friends so i seen them be attacked verbally. I recall walkin with a said friend, and someone asked him who he was votin for,he said bush(vs dole) and the guy said "Why the hell u votin for bush, you're black"

yeah needless to say that bothered me. I made a comment sayin, "why do some people vote for dole and are white?"