Erasing the past-Year Zero is upon us

[OldBillParticipant]

Astro wrote:

OldBill: Just to let you know, I added to my origional post.

Nothing you added makes any difference to the point I’ve been trying to get across for several posts now.

States printed their own money? Who f~~~ing cares. They could do that up until the Federal Reserve Act of 1914. Banks could print money too.

The CSA named it’s armies after states? Again, who f~~~ing cares. The Union named armies after rivers and monitors after Indian tribes. None of that matters one f~~~ing bit to the question Greg asked.

The Founders’ intentions? Who f~~~ing cares. Lee’s beliefs? Who f~~~ing cares. What Mary Todd Lincoln used for tampons? Who f~~~ing cares because none of it matters. All of that and all the rest s~~~ dredged up are just the usual excuses and distractions people use to avoid acknowledging what I’ve been saying all along.

Once again, the men who chose secession, treason, and war trumpeted to the world their reasons for doing so and you can read their own words today. That is, you can read them if you want to.

They repeatedly said in 1860 and 1861 in their ordinances and proclamations of secession that the reason was slavery.

When you say it wasn’t slavery, you are calling them liars and calling the words they willingly put down for posterity false.

That’s it. That’s all I’ve been saying. That’s all that Greg asked. All the rest of s~~~ that has been dredged up is moot.

Greg asked what the war was about. I told him what the men of 1860 and 1861 said, wrote, and thought it was about. I gave him links to their words, the word they recorded, printed, and disseminated at the time. They said it was about slavery and I take them at their word. I’m not going to call them liars.

What men presently think does not matter. What men thought after the war doesn’t matter. The only thing that matter is what the men of the time thought. Live with it.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 1]

OldBill wrote:

Once again, the men who chose secession, treason, and war trumpeted to the world their reasons for doing so and you can read their own words today. That is, you can read them if you want to.

Yes, but the reasons for Secession are not the cause of the war. The United States Reaction to the Secession was the cause of the war. It takes two to fight. Walking away from the Union did not cause the war. The invasion of the South to Force them back into the Union was the cause of the War.

[Jim01Participant 6678]

Trump’s Press Conference Leaves Reporters ‘Shaken,’ ‘Rattled’

wow

the muslims are going to eat these f~~s in the msm alive when they take over

I don’t know enough about US history to comment on the stuff going on in this thread but either way – historical monuments should never be removed. It is what ISIS or the Taliban do

[NomadicExpatParticipant 1785]

Anonymous wrote:

OldBill wrote:

Once again, the men who chose secession, treason, and war trumpeted to the world their reasons for doing so and you can read their own words today. That is, you can read them if you want to.

Yes, but the reasons for Secession are not the cause of the war. The United States Reaction to the Secession was the cause of the war. It takes two to fight. Walking away from the Union did not cause the war. The invasion of the South to Force them back into the Union was the cause of the War.

Heavicidal is right on the money!

Blaming the south because they wanted to go their own way is like blaming Travis Alexander for his own brutal murder by Jodi Arias.

Liberal mentality:

“If he would have just stayed with her and married her, she wouldnt have “had” to stab him 27 times and shot him in the face. ”

The motive doesnt lie with the victim, it lies solely at the feet of the aggressor and invader. OldBill is using the “he made me do it” excuse, and it works so well in the modern era, 100’s of years later because slavery is obviously out of fashion.

The South started Secession. The United States started The War. So lets look at what the aggressor had to say, as we keep wanting references from the time period:

I quote DIRECTLY from Abraham Lincolns Inaugural Address, March 4th 1861:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

They invaded for Power and Money. They didnt want European influence on this side of the Atlantic and the South was heavily in bed with the English and French. The south had great Ports and could easily exist without the north. The same could not be said in reverse. The norths economy would have been crippled without the south.

Dont go looking for motive in the victims trashcan. Look for it in the words and deeds of the aggressor.

[Greg HondaParticipant 6406]

Thanks for all replies.

It seems I stirred up a hornet’s nest with this one. I for one am totally against any kind of slavery and always have been. However, I accept that at the time this was still seen as a legitimate ecconomic activity in some parts of the world, and also goes on today (even here in the UK, but not normally by English Nationals).

I tend to agree that as slave ownership was limited to a tiny minority of the Southern Elite, the ordinary man would not rush to defend that right. I find it more plausable that the average volunteer was motivated by State pride and an unwillingness to surrender soveriegnty to Federal rules.

Old Bill, I did read the link you posted. What struck me was the following paragraph:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

This leads me to beleive that the States were originally intended to be independent, except when threatened by a Foreign power.

Abhorent as it is, Slavery seems to be a catalyst for uniting opinion against the independence of States, and was used to justify a war against those who defied Federal rule.

This was the motivation for my post. I am a beleiver in the therory that the Elites wish to disolve all National boundaries and bring the whole world under the rule of one tiny group of people, The NWO. I see the tearing down of monuments to the past as part of that strategy. I am therefore against it.

In future I’ll tread carefully on issues relating to the Civil War. I can see that feelings on both sides still run deep. As an outsider though, I’m gratefull for the opinions and sources quoted in this post. I intend to study this part of history further, but will avoid mentioning it again on this site.

Thanks to all.

Greg.

It's Time to get Wise

[OldBillParticipant]

Greg Honda wrote:

This leads me to beleive that the States were originally intended to be independent, except when threatened by a Foreign power.

Yes, that was the intent and it quickly failed in practice.

The Constitution replaced the earlier Articles of Confederation, which was an even looser form of federal system. The AoC soon proved unworkable and the same movers and shakers who had passed the Declaration of Independence and fought the war of independence knew something had to happen fast.

On big problem was that some states were more equal than others. A few were lapsing into failed state territory thanks to war debts and the better managed ones were looking to take advantage of that. Then there was the fact that the new country was surrounded.

In defiance of treaty provisions, the UK was still occupying what now called the old Northwest – basically everything north of the Ohio River and south of the Great Lakes – and was arming the Indians there. Spain, as silly as it seems to current Americans, was a huge threat to the west and south. At this time, Spain owned what would become the Louisiana Purchase along with Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Spain also had garrisons in Tennessee who required Americans moving there to swear allegiance to the Spanish crown. Andrew Jackson of all people swore one of those oaths.

The upshot was that the 1780s were growing increasingly dangerous, foreign powers were “fishing”, several states were becoming “failed” states, and it looked like the nation was going to fracture with states going every which way including back to being European colonies.

So the Founders worked a shell game. They called a convention not to write a new constitution, but to fix the AoC. Everybody worthwhile knew what was really going on, but the fiction let the convention be called without arousing the stupider and more pigheaded types. A lot of horsetrading went on but the convention produced a document which began as one thing and then could change and grow through law and precedence into something else.

That’s what most morons today can’t understand. The Founders were living under the failure of a weak, loosely centralized government and knew a somewhat stronger more centralized, government was needed but had to get a document which provided that past their own collection of morons. To accomplish that, they deliberately created a new federal government which by being slightly more powerful than the previous one while also providing mechanisms which allowed that government to grow in power.

The Federalist Papers, which no one responding to me in this thread has ever read, offer an almost stark realpolitik explanation of what the Constitution was at the time and what it was meant to become in the future.

Very early on, the new Federal government began taking powers onto itself which the new Constitution didn’t exactly say it could. However, because most of those new powers had to do with the sale of lands from which the states profited, no states complained and the precedence was set.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[OldBillParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but the reasons for Secession are not the cause of the war.

That’s like saying the reasons for the cancer were not the cause of the death.

You’re not that stupid so quit pretending you are in order to “defend” the decisions made by men over a century dead.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

I agree with Old Bill on this one. You can claim the civil war was about freedom and sovereignty but freedom and slavery to do what? Own slaves of course.

It doesn’t really matter anyway… what matters is that history is being erased. When history exists we can have a great intellectual debate about it, just like we are doing here, about the causes, the consequences, the meaning of it all. But as we become more ignorant and lose these symbols of the past, this will no longer be possible.

[OldBillParticipant]

NomadicExpat wrote:

I quote DIRECTLY from Abraham Lincolns Inaugural Address, March 4th 1861…

This will be the second time I explain to you the meaning of that quote. PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME.

During the campaign, after his election, and during his inaugural, Lincoln pledged not to touch slavery where it exists. “Where is exists” is the important part of that statement because the slave holding states weren’t worried about where slavery existed as much as they were eagerly contemplating where slavery could exist.

Why was the South so eager about where could slavery could exit? Two words: Dred Scott.

With a majority of seven to two, the 1857 US Supreme Court ruling on the Dred Scott case destroyed every previous national compromise on the issue of slavery and handed the South a complete legal victory.

Chief Justice Taney and his “learned” brethren ruled that:

Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.

The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.

This ruling threw out the compromises made since 1820; Missouri, the 1805, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It stripped free blacks in the North of their citizenship. Most importantly, under the 5th Amendment, the ruling barred “any law that would deprive a slaveholder of his property, such as his slaves, upon the incidence of migration into free territory.”

The last part is the most important. It meant a slave owner could take his slaves anywhere in the US he pleased and no federal or state laws could stop him.

When Lincoln pledged not to touch slavery where it existed, he was not pledging to support slavery where it could exist in the future. That was the South’s great fear. Not that Lincoln would interfere with slavery in the South, but that he would not allow the South to export slavery throughout the Union as the Dred Scott decision would allow them to.

These are the facts. Ignore them if you wish, but don’t claim they’re false.

And don’t ever insult me again by comparing me to Jodi Arias, you profoundly and pathetically ignorant f~~~.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Daryll55Participant 2958]

XackStryker wrote:

NomadicExpat speaks amazing truth! Well said brother!

Just remember “History is written by the victors!”

The losers never get to tell their side of the story. Victors write what goes in peoples mind, period.

Indeed, well said.

I have been reviewing history of WW2 , and I find it does contradict modern history of the era. Most telling was a 1950’s collection of interviews of native Germans that participated in the Nazi Third Reich.

I don’t completely believe anything for certain anymore. There is always a bias favorable for the viewpoint being presented.

Marry again, Hell NO ! ( Even JESUS was hung on a cross just once)

[Daryll55Participant 2958]

NomadicExpat wrote:

MGTOW TIMEOUT:

We’ve just been on a daylong heated discussion about the finer points of what started the Civil War.

Gentlemen, this conversation could NEVER happen when women are present. They would f~~~ it up. They would ruin it. You can’t get this s~~~ anywhere else. Not the Civil War specifically, but good dialogue between Men is becoming ever more rare. I wish we were all discussing this over cigars and whiskey.

Here ,here….
around a quiet,crackling fire on a cool/clear night.

In a mature, respectful manner without evoking fits of emotion from one-another. Women think from emotion and act,sometimes without the wisdom of perspective. MEN rationalize and reason: learning from one-another. I personally appreciate the rich depth an intelligent, thoughtful conversation among many can bring about.

Marry again, Hell NO ! ( Even JESUS was hung on a cross just once)

[AstroParticipant 2045]

Greg Honda wrote:

It seems I stirred up a hornet’s nest with this one.

Not really, recent events have stirred up the nest. There are some people on both sides that seem to want to recreate the civil war but the vast majority in the USA do not (myself included). Like the song says: “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong”. My 2nd wife is black and I am by no means “racist” but as a man living in the south who voted for Donald Trump, I must be. I think that sometimes it is best to let the sleeping dogs lie but recent politics will not allow that. I have no wish for violence in the streets of the USA but I will not ignore others that wish to do harm.

[Greg HondaParticipant 6406]

Astro wrote:

Greg Honda wrote:

It seems I stirred up a hornet’s nest with this one.

<iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/gp5JCrSXkJY?start=13&feature=oembed” allowfullscreen=”” width=”500″ height=”375″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

Not really, recent events have stirred up the nest. There are some people on both sides that seem to want to recreate the civil war but the vast majority in the USA do not (myself included). Like the song says: “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong”. My 2nd wife is black and I am by no means “racist” but as a man living in the south who voted for Donald Trump, I must be. I think that sometimes it is best to let the sleeping dogs lie but recent politics will not allow that. I have no wish for violence in the streets of the USA but I will not ignore others that wish to do harm.

Excellent Song and I totally concur with your thoughts on this matter Sparky

Greg

It's Time to get Wise

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

This is actually an interesting discussion. As long as people don’t get too personal or make assumptions.

(i.e. as long as people don’t act like women)

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[Author]

Posts