The GOP has turned its back on Reagan and Lincoln

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from RCG Trader:

When the SHTF we (the union) will be directing the fan, PT. Have no doubt about that.

yeah , idiots like you mistakenly think the gubbermint is on your side just because you've imbued it with parental control and responsibility for your welfare.

It's a huge mistake to assume the govt will manifest the benevolent familial responsibility you imagine to be present.

 

[budcampbell]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

yeah , idiots like you mistakenly think the gubbermint is on your side just because you've imbued it with parental control and responsibility for your welfare.

It's huge mistake to assume the govt will manifest the benevolent familial responsibility you imagine to be present.

Isn't it interesting how these two think they are now part of the
"protected class", after years of legislation and nanny state coddling.
They hope DHS will save their ass when SHTF.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Funny how the idiots who rail against freedom and individual choice are the same ones who want to have govt meticulously control every aspect of your life. Then they have the gall to paint themselves as "anti-evil"
and wrap themselves in the flag and Patriotism.

 

[CaptainObvious]

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

This speech was given by the V.P. of the Confederate Republic, Alexander Stephens, on March 21, 1861 and was declared the "immediate cause" for secession from the Union.
There were several reasons, mostly economic in nature, that drove the Southern States to desire their own Constitution and be a seperate State, but to say that slave labor was not a central issue to their economic arguments is to ignore the facts. The ability to maintain slaves was paramount to their economic success at the time. While it is true that most Southerners who went to war did not own slaves, like so many of our current day warriors, they fought so that the elites could maintain the power garnered by slave labor, while sacrificing their own lives for something for which they would realize little personal gain. They too were suckered by a Flag and political idealogy which used them as cannon fodder.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

This speech was given by the V.P. of the Confederate Republic, Alexander Stephens, on March 21, 1861 and was declared the "immediate cause" for secession from the Union.
There were several reasons, mostly economic in nature, that drove the Southern States to desire their own Constitution and be a seperate State, but to say that slave labor was not a central issue to their economic arguments is to ignore the facts. The ability to maintain slaves was paramount to their economic success at the time. While it is true that most Southerners who went to war did not own slaves, like so many of our current day warriors, they fought so that the elites could maintain the power garnered by slave labor, while sacrificing their own lives for something for which they would realize little personal gain. They too were suckered by a Flag and political idealogy which used them as cannon fodder.

That's just a BS excuse.
It was the equivalent then of the govt outlawing and confiscating combustion engines of all types today without compensation .
Plus making the North pay 80% of all taxes.

1)Of course it would ruin the economy.
2) Of course people would rally around support for the gasoline combustion engine vs the less concrete issues of limits to federal power, freedom of economic choice etc etc.

The notion that the civil war boiled down to slavery is a silly and childish explanation. Just like the "taxation without representation" was equally silly but what simpletons still gravitate towards.

ODD how gubbermint schools teach both of the silly reasons without fail
1) The revolutionary war was fought as repudiation of monarchical rule in general and an end to mercantilism specifically.
2) The war of northern agression was fought over: taxation issues, Imperial central govt rule, property rights, right to self determination, preservation of the current economic structure.

No society can just change it's economic structure overnight by govt mandate. Expecting it to happen and the citizenry to just blithely accept it,is pretty fucking stupid.

Eventually slavery would have been dropped by CHOICE because it's an inefficient use of resources.

now bang away with your silly propaganda routine

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's just a BS excuse.
It was the equivalent then of the govt outlawing and confiscating combustion engines of all types today without compensation .
Plus making the North pay 80% of all taxes.

1)Of course it would ruin the economy.
2) Of course people would rally around support for the gasoline combustion engine vs the less concrete issues of limits to federal power, freedom of economic choice etc etc.

The notion that the civil war boiled down to slavery is a silly and childish explanation. Just like the "taxation without representation" was equally silly but what simpletons still gravitate towards.

ODD how gubbermint schools teach both of the silly reasons without fail
1) The revolutionary war was fought as repudiation of monarchical rule in general and an end to mercantilism specifically.
2) The war of northern agression was fought over: taxation issues, Imperial central govt rule, property rights, right to self determination, preservation of the current economic structure.

No society can just change it's economic structure overnight by govt mandate. Expecting it to happen and the citizenry to just blithely accept it,is pretty fucking stupid.

Eventually slavery would have been dropped by CHOICE because it's an inefficient use of resources.

now bang away with your silly propaganda routine

"Eventually" isn't soon enough if you happen to be the slave, and it would have been a long time coming seeing how slave labor is really hard to beat economiclly, technology or not. If that wasn't true, labor would never be offshored to China/India/Mexico, etc. It would just be done here with more efficient methods and machinery using fewer workers, but the work itself would never leave the country. Further, to argue that slavery is OK until it becomes inefficient, which basicly is your position as you're stating it, is completely unacceptable for a civilized society.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

"Eventually" isn't soon enough if you happen to be the slave, and it would have been a long time coming seeing how slave labor is really hard to beat economiclly, technology or not. If that wasn't true, labor would never be offshored to China/India/Mexico, etc. It would just be done here with more efficient methods and machinery using fewer workers, but the work itself would never leave the country. Further to argue that slavery is OK until it becomes inefficient, which basicly is your position as you're stating it, is completely unacceptable for a civilized society.

lots of silly arguments and assumptions there cap.
Name another nation that required an internecine war to resolve the slavery issue.

That you cannot do so, should tell you something.
NOW PISSOFF

 

[budcampbell]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

"Eventually" isn't soon enough if you happen to be the slave, and it would have been a long time coming seeing how slave labor is really hard to beat economiclly, technology or not. If that wasn't true, labor would never be offshored to China/India/Mexico, etc. It would just be done here with more efficient methods and machinery using fewer workers, but the work itself would never leave the country. Further to argue that slavery is OK until it becomes inefficient, which basicly is your position as you're stating it, is completely unacceptable for a civilized society.

Let us be clear......slavery has never been ok, whether it was Hebrews in Egypt, or the indentured servant of more modern times.
With that being said, there were northern slave owners, but being an industrial society with" no need for slave labor", unlike the agrian South, there were far fewer. If Northern climate allowed for growing cotton, I suspect history would have been completely different. The issue rests on the fact that Southern merchants were trading with outside partners, and the North became threatened(cotton supply). It is hypocritical and fallacious to believe slavery was the primary reason for the Northern War of Aggression. Yet, this line is parroted over and over again. History shows the issue to be far more complex, politics and economics playing a huge role on both the Blue and the Gray. It was a scenario ripe for exploitation from a less than honorable Lincoln, who thought nothing of spilling the blood of over 600,000 Americans. "Reap what you sow" Lincoln reaped his at Ford Theater.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from budcampbell:

Let us be clear......slavery has never been ok, whether it was Hebrews in Egypt, or the indentured servant of more modern times.
With that being said, there were northern slave owners, but being an industrial society with" no need for slave labor", unlike the agrian South, there were far fewer. The issue rests on the fact that Southern merchants were trading with outside partners, and the North became threatened. It is hypocritical and fallacious to believe slavery was the primary reason for the Northern War of Aggression. Yet, this line is parroted over and over again. History shows the issue to be far more complex and ploitics played a huge role on both the Blue and the Gray.

I didn't say that it was the primary issue. Economics was the primary issue, and slave labor was a central part of that argument. The North was industrialized and merchants in the South couldn't compete without the very proftitable way of doing business with slave labor. They chose slave labor, and justified it by believing that the Negro was a lesser being than white folk. They stated it so themselves. No one put words in their mouth. You cannot pretend that slavery did not play a pivotal role.

 

[budcampbell]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I didn't say that it was the primary issue. Economics was the primary issue, and slave labor was a central part of that argument. The North was industrialized and merchants in the South couldn't compete without the very proftitable way of doing business with slave labor. They chose slave labor, and justified it by believing that the Negro was a lesser being than white folk. They stated it so themselves. No one put words in their mouth. You cannot pretend that slavery did not play a pivotal role.

The south was "agrian", there was no "industrialization" of the South in 1860. Please, spare us the hypocrisy that" only" Southerners considered black folk inferior, at the time. It some ways, it still hasn't changed.