Freedom To Fascism

[JPH]

I would like to post this link to this video for the review and comment of the members of this forum.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

That is the link to the film, which is 1h49m in length.

It starts out on one subject and morphs into a different but related topic as the film progresses.

I would be interested in what those wiser and more experienced members of this forum have to say about both quality of the film and the information presented within.

JPH

Edit: More information as requested however I did leave it vague as to not sway opinions or provide any bias framework.

This film talked about the tax code, RFID chips, globalization, world banking and other related topics. It touches on a long list of other topics but doesn’t go in to detail on them so I will not list them.

If more info is required or requesting I will gladly provide it.

[Kyobanim]

How about a little more description of what it's about.

[Peregrino]

Time to put a foot down. Lately there seems to be a spate of inviting people to explore/share controversial opinions about the state of the Republic and components thereof. If you don't like the way things are/are going, VOTE. GET YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE. As one lightning rod I know of says - "fight the soft fight now so the hard fight won't be necessary later". In the meantime this board is not about tin-foil hats and black helicopters "coming to take you away". There are other places on the internet to engage in conspiracy theories and seditious behavior. Let's get back to the original intent. Peregrino

[tk27]

delete

[JPH]

If you don't like the way things are/are going, VOTE. GET YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE. As one lightning rod I know of says - "fight the soft fight now so the hard fight won't be necessary later".

There are other places on the Internet to engage in conspiracy theories and seditious behavior. Let's get back to the original intent. Peregrino

First off I love this country and understand that even if the first half of that film is true, this country still needs an income to provide the services that we enjoy everyday. My goal here is not to engage in conspiracy theories or the like.

My goal is to discuses, with educated people who do not engage in name-calling or other forms of schoolyard debate, how we the people can with our vote and other constitutional rights prevent the fall of this country. Although this film WAS NOT the light that showed me that neither party, Republican or Democrat, is truly on the right track IMO, it did spark me to post in this forum and seek the opinions and advice of those my senior.

I have voted in every election that I have been of the legal age to vote in. I have driven my friends to get registered to vote and then driven them to the polls… So I feel I have fulfilled the “vote. get your friends to vote” requirement above.

With all that said, I would like to prevent, by every legal means at my disposal, what is in my view the socialization of The United States of America. That would include preventing RFID chips, National ID cards, Amnesty for illegal aliens, The export of American jobs, and the total reliance on foreign resources of food, energy, or technology…

I do not believe we should be isolationist, I understand that we must be players in the global economy, but to what extent, at what point are we letting outsiders write our laws?

Again if this is a discussion that you all whish not to have in your house I respect that but again let me make it clear that I am not looking to talk about conspiracy theories. Instead I would like to have a civil adult conversation on what we the people can do today, in 08 and beyond to preserve what so many on this board have fought to protect. And to my knowledge this is the only online forum that I have ever been to that is capable of having such a discussion.

With all do respect,
JPH

[Warrior-Mentor]

"If Fasicm ever came to America,
it would be called Anit-Fascism."
- Huey Long

Any video that starts with questioning the legality of taxes is out there...

If one thinks you can live in a civilized society for nothing, they are sorely mistaken.

Roads, schools, public transit, trash collection, postal services...[insert endless list here]

who's to pay for them?

Gotta do better than a fringe, fruitloop video...

[The Reaper]

Not to put on a tinfoil hat, but how long do you think we have had a personal income tax?

How were services funded before that?

Do you think it is more efficient to hire a garbage collector yourself, or to have the government collect your money and do it for you?

The vast entitlement programs (and the ponzi scheme of Social Security and Medicare) would not be possible without it.

Are schools better now than they were before income taxes were established? They are tremendously supported by Federal tax money today, but without results based accounting.

And the process of taking it out of your paycheck (as a convenience) before you get it makes it more palatable, because you never see the money.

If more Americans had to stroke a check every year for 28-45%% of their income to the Federal Government, 5% more for SS and Medicare, and another 5-15% to the State and local governments, there would be a lot of political changes and more accountability in spending.

Just my looney fringe opinion.:rolleyes:

TR

[tk27]

"If Fasicm ever came to America,
it would be called Anti-Fascism."
- Huey Long

What does it imply then if we say we are fighting "Islamofascism"?

[Warrior-Mentor]

What does it imply then if we say we are fighting "Islamofascism"?

It paints the terrorists with the Nazi paint brush.
Makes it appeal to the "Greatest Generation."

[Warrior-Mentor]

Not to put on a tinfoil hat, but how long do you think we have had a personal income tax?

How were services funded before that?

Do you think it is more efficient to hire a garbage collector yourself, or to have the government collect your money and do it for you?

The vast entitlement programs (and the ponzi scheme of Social Security and Medicare) would not be possible without it.

Are schools better now than they were before income taxes were established? They are tremendously supported by Federal tax money today, but without results based accounting.

And the process of taking it out of your paycheck (as a convenience) before you get it makes it more palatable, because you never see the money.

If more Americans had to stroke a check every year for 28-45%% of their income to the Federal Government, 5% more for SS and Medicare, and another 5-15% to the State and local governments, there would be a lot of political changes and more accountability in spending.

Just my looney fringe opinion.:rolleyes:

TR

There is no doubt that private industry is exponentially more efficient that the governement in running commercially profitable programs. Look at low income housing. Government run results in "The Projects." Government incentivized [to private investors] results in efficient, affordable (yet profitable) low-income housing.

Who would have had the vision [and the funding] in the 1960's to start a complete the space program. How many benefits have globally grown out of that program?

I am no friend of government entitlement programs. It [the entitlement mentality] is the bane of our nation. Yet the very sound of it, creates a palatable sound byte for politicians.

Taking it out of your pay check was an efficient necessity of WWII.

America NEVER promised an entitlement.
It only promised an OPPORTUNITY.
That is the foundation of the American Dream.
Somewhere that message has been lost.

Who would fund our national defense without income tax?

[The Reaper]

Who would fund our national defense without income tax?

I ask you again, how long have we had a personal income tax?

Where did the federal funding come from before that?

TR

[Peregrino]

With all do respect,
JPH

JPH - You did ask and you do deserve a considered reply. The Libertarian "expose'" in the video that started this thread is correct. It is also irrelevant. As WM and TR have pointed out - taxes are necessary. As TR is driving home, they've been around a long time. Few complained because early collections weren't payroll taxes imposed on the average citizen. Today, the majority of this country cannot exist/function without the services the government provides. Many of those services are "extra-Constitutional". Again - it really doesn't matter the way the conspiracy theorists would have people believe. The People have the government they want/deserve. If you disagree, and want an accountable Congress, responsible to whatever you perceive the "Will of the People" to be, then the only legal option is to participate fully in the political process. As you implied in your post, simply voting is not really enough. Push for a Constitutional Amendment forced from the State level imposing term limits on the congresscritters. In the meantime, you're beating a dead horse.

As for the larger issues - welcome to the pendulum theory of societal evolution. (I prefer the wheel as an analogy; pendulums never go anywhere whereas (living) cultures are in constant motion. The same point of a wheel always comes around; it's just a little further down the timeline - always similar, never the same. And lessons from the past still influence the present/future.) The country has not "fallen", nor is it going to fall. It's just going to continue evolving. Some of us don't/won't like the direction but it can only happen IAW the "Will of the People". When enough of us don't like the direction, it will change. The only issue in doubt is the mechanism.

FWIW you can trace the overt decline of the Republic to "The War of Northern Aggression". The measures Lincoln instituted to preserve the Union (suspending the Constitution and usurping the will of the people and States Rights by force of arms) were as pivotal as throwing a switch in a rail yard. The train is on a different track and has been moving away from the "original intent" for at least 160 YEARS. The next major turning point (in my mind) was FDR and the Great Depression. Enter Socialism (actually it can be argued that it's the American Fascism your video complains about). As the pace of society increases so too do the opportunities to "influence" the train's route, e.g. Johnson's "Great Society". Since the original usurpation, whenever a decision point has been reached, it has become easier to shift further from individual freedoms (and responsibilities)/States Rights and closer to a tyrannical (as defined by the Libertarians) stateist regime.

"The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played upon by some fact with more fiction, they have been the dupes of artful manoeuvres, & made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves."
- Thomas Jefferson

Returning to the path envisioned by the Founding Fathers will require a profound shift in the American psyche. Change is either evolutionary or revolutionary. We've gotten where we are today as the result of a perfectly natural evolution. We no longer have the government the Founding fathers envisioned, mainly because the vast body of "the People" don't want it. (Most of them have no understanding of it, nor do they care so long as their lives aren't inconvenienced.) Maybe it will come back around though probably not in our lifetimes. Freedom exists best on a frontier. We'll need a new one before conditions exist again to foster the "rugged individualism" that is the antithesis of modern society yet is required for true freedom to thrive. A few points to ponder:

If you’re insistent on exploring the Libertarian mindset, check out Backwoods Home Magazine at http://www.backwoodshome.com. Two of their authors, John Silveira and Claire Wolfe regularly contribute thought provoking (regardless of your political orientation) articles. Both have decidedly Libertarian viewpoints and they do their homework. Expect to be forced to think, and to examine why you believe whatever you do. Unfortunately most will respond with a “knee jerk”.

You should also read more by Alexis de Tocqueville. For a 19th century Frenchman he had an amazing grasp of the motivating forces behind democracies in general and America in particular. Applicable quotes really are too numerous to repeat here.

He's not the only one. "The fate of every democracy, of every government based on the sovereignty of the people, depends on the choices it makes between these opposite principles, absolute power on the one hand, and on the other the restraints of legality and the authority of tradition."
John Acton

You might also want to examine lessons learned from the "Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic". IMNSHO there are a lot of parallels.

The only important question is: “where do you draw the line and what price are you willing to pay to hold it”?

FWIW - Peregrino

[The Reaper]

Couldn't say it better myself, other than to add the quote that the fall of the Roman Empire began when the people discovered that they could vote to give themselves money from the public coffers.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

FWIW you can trace the overt decline of the Republic to "The War of Northern Aggression". The measures Lincoln instituted to preserve the Union (suspending the Constitution and usurping the will of the people and States Rights by force of arms) were as pivotal as throwing a switch in a rail yard. The train is on a different track and has been moving away from the "original intent" for at least 160 YEARS.

"War of Northern Aggression," LMAO!

BTW, do states have the right to enslave people by majority vote? :munchin

[kgoerz]

I just stroked a check for $22000.00. I use to get money back. But work harder and longer to provide a better life for the family and this is what you get. What ever happened to the flat tax across the board some politicians were proposing except for the multi rich. Always sounded like a good idea to me. Most of us PMC guys make a little over 100,000 a year which puts us in the lowest end of the highest tax bracket and it hurts. Even claiming every bullet and pen I buy it seems like I am paying to much. The CPA I use said thats just the way it is, a lot of PMC guys use the CPA I use and are in the same boat as far as giving up 20 to 30 percent of your check to the Govt. Sometimes I think getting a job around Bragg that pays less will actually pay more in the long run with out having to deploy half the year. Just my thoughts on freaking TAXES and Govt wast.....

[Sdiver]

FWIW you can trace the overt decline of the Republic to "The War of Northern Aggression". The measures Lincoln instituted to preserve the Union (suspending the Constitution and usurping the will of the people and States Rights by force of arms) were as pivotal as throwing a switch in a rail yard. The train is on a different track and has been moving away from the "original intent" for at least 160 YEARS.

Whoa.....I can't see how "Sherman's night out with the boys", could be that pivotal, as you say. I just think you "Johnny Rebs" are still bitter you LOST. :D


The next major turning point (in my mind) was FDR and the Great Depression. Enter Socialism (actually it can be argued that it's the American Fascism your video complains about). As the pace of society increases so too do the opportunities to "influence" the train's route, e.g. Johnson's "Great Society". Since the original usurpation, whenever a decision point has been reached, it has become easier to shift further from individual freedoms (and responsibilities)/States Rights and closer to a tyrannical (as defined by the Libertarians) stateist regime.

This, I totally agree with. Hit the nail right on the head.



Returning to the path envisioned by the Founding Fathers will require a profound shift in the American psyche. Change is either evolutionary or revolutionary. We've gotten where we are today as the result of a perfectly natural evolution. We no longer have the government the Founding fathers envisioned, mainly because the vast body of "the People" don't want it. (Most of them have no understanding of it, nor do they care so long as their lives aren't inconvenienced.) Maybe it will come back around though probably not in our lifetimes. Freedom exists best on a frontier. We'll need a new one before conditions exist again to foster the "rugged individualism" that is the antithesis of modern society yet is required for true freedom to thrive.

Do you feel that the "Revolution" of the 60's has any impact on the "evolution" of the govt today? Most of the govt officials today, are from that "revolution", and are making their impact felt today.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I just think you "Johnny Rebs" are still bitter you LOST.


+1 :D

[Peregrino]

OK you clowns :p - keep fishing and you're gonna catch a "Dupont Lure". I stand by my assertion that the CW marked the end of the original Republic. The damage done to the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, has (IMO) proven irreparable. To bolster my argument with a sledgehammer I need only point to the diminished (might as well not exist) status of the 10th Amendment. (Wish I could afford a Lexus Nexus subscription - I'd get in way too much trouble.) Yes, the CW was a national tragedy, and we lost for a multitude of reasons, none of which included being wrong about the right to secede. Despite his methods, the country as a whole owes Lincoln an immeasurable debt. America would not have achieved nearly its present greatness had he allowed the South to go its own way unmolested.

RL - Shame on you. Any good lawyer knows when it comes to a representative democracy, it's not the majority vote - it's "the right vote". How else do you explain the power Nancy Pelosi wields despite representing a tiny fraction of the population, one that entertains values/mores substantially different from the mainstream? Quit clouding the issue, which was the rule of Constitutional principles.

Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

LOL, I am largely a "states rights" guy, but I also think Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President in the history of this country.

And I don't like grits or sweet tea. LMAO

[Sdiver]

....And I don't like grits .... LMAO

Try them with some Maple Syrup and sugar. ;)

[bandycpa]

RL - Shame on you. Any good lawyer knows when it comes to a representative democracy, it's not the majority vote - it's "the right vote". How else do you explain the power Nancy Pelosi wields despite representing a tiny fraction of the population, one that entertains values/mores substantially different from the mainstream? Quit clouding the issue, which was the rule of Constitutional principles.


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather
an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in
people's minds.." --Samuel Adams


I think I see smoke on Capitol Hill.

Bandy

[Roguish Lawyer]

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather
an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in
people's minds.." --Samuel Adams


I think I see smoke on Capitol Hill.

Bandy

LOL, I see that Peregrino's diversion worked. Not a big surprise, since he's a QP and all.

OK, everyone ignore the fact that there was institutionalized slavery in the South! :)

[Peregrino]

LOL, I see that Peregrino's diversion worked. Not a big surprise, since he's a QP and all.

OK, everyone ignore the fact that there was institutionalized slavery in the South! :)

Bandy’s comment is well taken; you’re the one who insists on returning to the slavery issue. Despite what your Yankee sensitivities and a perverted education would have you believe, slavery was a peripheral issue of the Civil War. Lincoln didn’t even bring it onto the table until Nov, 1863 – after two years of fighting. And then only because he was losing public support and needed a diversion from the ineptitude of his generals. He still had to wait until Meade got lucky at Gettysburg.

The rights/wrongs of slavery were not the point of my assertion. Besides, slavery was not unique to the southern states. FWIW - legal slavery still exists today; and surprise, surprise it's happening in Africa (and clandestinely throughout Muslim countries); and nobody is doing anything effective to stop it! In fact all ancient and most early modern European societies appear to have gone through a period where (some form of) slavery was accepted/commonplace (serf = slave for all practical purposes). Even the North had them until the early 1800's. While we’re on the topic, let's not forget the appalling conditions of indentured servitude experienced by European immigrants into the industrial centers of the North. (Where were the abolitionists fighting for the Irish?) Yes, slavery is still a morally repugnant institution. It’s also about economics. So was the American Civil War. Pre-mechanized agrarian societies (like the American South) required large quantities of unskilled labor to cultivate the land. Slaves were (initially) the cheapest way to meet the requirement. Changing American law and the British, with their national policy and control of the sea lanes had already removed most of the economic incentive from the slave trade – much to the annoyance of certain Yankee trading consortiums. The South was already realizing that slavery was a losing proposition economically. (Sharecropping was a much less capitol intensive system that exploited far more efficiently – thank you Yankees for the idea.) It would probably have disappeared sooner had Eli Whitney not introduced the cotton gin with its resultant effect on Southern economics. At that point it became a battle of conflicting economic necessities. The North was far more concerned about enacting high tariffs (with ruinous effects on the Southern economy which relied on trade with Europe) to protect their fledgling industrial base than they were about freeing Southern slaves. I love listening to people condemning the South for slavery and racism. They always get so incensed when reminded of the institutional racism in the Northern States during the same period. Riots, lynching, and assorted other unpleasantness that Yankees hesitate to acknowledge. Northern workers certainly didn’t want to encourage a flood of ex-slaves into the Northern cities jeopardizing their jobs. (Funny, that’s exactly what happened after the CW. The results are still indelibly scribed in Northern cities today.) The entire issue is far more complex than our “sound bite” culture can deal with. Maybe someday the country will be able to honestly examine what really happened and move past it. My .02 - Peregrino

Editorial note: Yes I know I'm guilty of gross simplifications - I'm not typing all night to clarify needlessly. :p

[Roguish Lawyer]

LOL, I hereby acknowledge that neither you nor any other Southerner on this Board is either a racist or pro-slavery.

But it is pretty fun to watch you get defensive about it. :D

[Peregrino]

The sacrifices we make in the pursuit of truth and enlightenment. ;) Peregrino

[The Reaper]

LOL, I see that Peregrino's diversion worked. Not a big surprise, since he's a QP and all.

OK, everyone ignore the fact that there was institutionalized slavery in the South! :)

Hmm, did they swim here, or did some Yankee merchants haul them here in chains and sell them to the Southerners?

BTW, nice dodge on Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus, denying representation, and eliminating Constitutional rights to the States they forcibly retained in the Union.

Counsel, surely you are aware that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, permitting Union slave holding states to continue to possess and employ slaves.

TR

[sg1987]

Counsel surely you are aware that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, permitting Union slave holding states to continue to possess and employ slaves.

TR

...which they did until the 13th Amendment was passed in Feb. 1865. (A little later than the Lincoln's proclamation in July 1862 and the start of the war as well.) All well planned strategy to keep England from supporting the Confederates.

[Martin]

I am a little confused on what you learn in school in the US. After talking to Roycroft on Skype previously, it appears most teaching is a recital of events and no discussion around it, for example the circumstances surrounding the writing of the constitution.

So for the civil war and colleges or universities, the latter two being known to be of high quality, I would guess the situation is different and more critical thinking should be allowed (though, after reading MITs reading list for political science, I am unsure) and later permeate down to HS level, and lower level history classes.

I have a couple of times previously done searches on the civil war, and your points about secession seems quite common place - after all, it's no secret. Is it based on your own studies or do you get to read and draw your own conclusions in college or HS, or would the liberal professors get upset as have been mentioned elsewhere? Where did you do your research? :munchin

[The Reaper]

I hate to say it, but IMHO and experience, most public schools and universities teach a party line that the Civil War was fought because the Southern states were comprised of evil plantation owners with lots of slaves who wanted to perpetuate slavery as an institution.

The political issues of states rights and whether a state which freely joined the association of the US could equally freely depart the Union.

Until the War, the States were more powerful than the Federal government.

After the War, the Federal government became (IMHO) focused on maintaining and expanding its powers.

Lincoln bears a share of the responsibility for that, but I am sorry that he did not survive to help with the post-War period. It would have been interesting to see the approach he would have chosen. Then we would have seen if he were truly a great President or not. Many have won wars without winning the peace. We are seeing some of that today.

Reconstruction was ugly for everyone involved and the post-War treatment of the South is, I believe, a primary cause of the animosity today between Southerners and Yankees.

TR

[Pete]

....Until the War, the States were more powerful than the Federal government.

After the War, the Federal government became (IMHO) focused on maintaining and expanding its powers.....TR


I was going to jump in on Peregrino's post at the top of the page but you had a better hit on the head of the nail.

As has been noted about in more than a few places, the cause(s) of the War Between the States were many. Economic power was a big player coming from many angles.

One of the key points of the war was that America went in as a collection of states and came out a Nation. Many southern military leaders resigned from the US Army and followed their states into the war, Gen. R E Lee from VA as just one of many.

That "Nation" concept laid the foundation for the building of bigger government.

OK, off the soap box.

Pete

[Martin]

Reconstruction was ugly for everyone involved and the post-War treatment of the South is, I believe, a primary cause of the animosity today between Southerners and Yankees.
You learn something new every day! I thought the animosity was actually (90%) jesting, with some play on current political divergence. :o


I tend to come closer to your side of the story, as it is more nuanced and fits better with my limited understanding of politics. More as a curious thought: Do you think also the placement of the capital and congress proportions (even term limits?) had any effect on the decision to secede through want of power to influence, rather than a constitutional structure error? I remember reading about the situation during the Lewis and Clark expedition, with Virginian plantations and coming expansion, sort of hints of some interests.

I need to read up more on this... some day.

[jasonglh]

I am a little confused on what you learn in school in the US. After talking to Roycroft on Skype previously, it appears most teaching is a recital of events and no discussion around it, for example the circumstances surrounding the writing of the constitution.


Martin I have a varied experience with learning history at school. Most of it has been this is the way it is and I don't remember any critical thinking until I started Nursing school. Most people are not prepared for critical thinking they need things spelled out for them.

During the 1978-80 time frame I was in 2-3rd grades in Birmingham Alabama. I remember in 3rd grade we learned about the history of the State of Alabama from the beginning to present time.

1981 for 4th grade I was in public school in Kentucky and instruction of history was recital of events and no discussion.

1982-1985 5-8th grades I was at a private Catholic school where my 8th grade class graduated 9 people. It was not until 7th grade we learned about the history of Kentucky. I was probably at a high school level understanding of historic events. Some teachers who were knowledgeable in history were open for debate and I remember my 5th grade teacher as the best teacher I ever had. My interest in history is mainly due to her.

1986-1989 I was at a public high school grades 9-12th with around 1200 students. It was a giant step backward for me in learning. I made bad grades and got in trouble mainly due to boredom. I was relearning the same material at a much much slower rate and I did not want to be there. High school at the time required only a World Civilization class (world history in 1 year of instruction) and a US history course (again covered in a years time). I'm pretty certain 90% of my Catholic school classmates could have tested out of that wasteful 4 years of high school.

I got my Associate Degree from the community college here and took 2 US history classes as my electives for my Associate Degree Nursing. The classes were split from beginning of the 13 Colonies - the lead up to the Civil War and Civil War- present day. I had a good community college teacher as well. He has his Doctorate in History and has written several books about the State of Kentucky History.

[Pete]

You learn something new every day! I thought the animosity was actually (90%) humoring, with some play on current political divergence. :o
......
I need to read up more on this... some day.

It is interesting to note that other than Sherman's march from Atlanta to the sea and then up through the Carolinas and the Shennandoah Valley Campaigns by both sides the majority of land mass of the south was untouched by the War. The land and people were hit hard due to shortages of material and manpower but the average southerner did not see a Yankee.

It was under reconstruction that the average Southerner saw the "Yankee Government" for the first time. And the "animosity" has become something of a cultural icon.

But look to the Missouri/Kansas area of the war. That areas saw much more conflict at the local level. Much more "bad blood" between sides and some real hate. Real nasty stuff, and yet you do not find the level of animosity today that you will in GA, AL, SC and NC.

Again the above is a simple version of facts.

Sherman's Army covered a 60 mile +/- front in two general wings as it advanced with foragers stealing everything they could lay hands on for miles around in every direction. Animals were colllected from farms and towns then slaughtered just so Southern forces could not use them.

The War between the States was very different based on location, which side you were on and what year and season it was. If you notice the guys here are staying real general in the replies. People who throw out one "fact" and say "This is the way it was" are generally pushing an agenda.

Pete

Edited for a few facts - On Feb 1, 1865 Gen Sherman had reduced his ranks to 60,079 officers and men. For the march to the Sea he reduced his baggage train to 2,500 wagons pulled by six mules each, 600 ambulances with two horses each and 68 field pieces with eight horses each. He departed with "an ample supply of ammunition for a great battle" but only 7 days forage, 20 days hard bread, coffee, sugar and salt plus some beef cows. Each wing stretched for 10 miles on good roads so whenever possible each of the four Corps marched by it's own route. Kilpatrick's Cavalry was used to screen the main columns. All in all it was a great undertaking.

[PSM]

...and eliminating Constitutional rights to the States they forcibly retained in the Union.

TR


I believe the argument was that the original 13 colonies probably possessed the right of succession since they were wholly owned “corporations” prior to ratification of the Constitution. Subsequent territories (the future states) were purchased with the “blood and treasure” of the total union of states. Perhaps these states and territories could have bought their “freedom” from the union…sort of like indentured statehood. ;)

Pat

[Martin]

I got my Associate Degree from the community college here and took 2 US history classes as my electives for my Associate Degree Nursing. The classes were split from beginning of the 13 Colonies - the lead up to the Civil War and Civil War- present day. I had a good community college teacher as well. He has his Doctorate in History and has written several books about the State of Kentucky History.
I take this to mean you got a balanced presentation and chance to ask contrary questions?

Pete and everybody, thanks. :munchin

[Warrior-Mentor]

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. I.
Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States


Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

By my count, the right to tax was imposed by the Constitution.

Digressing, why don't we have a FIXED TAX RATE, instead of the current graduated?

Why shouldthe Rich pay more, percentage wise than the poor?

Shouldn't we all pay the same %?

[The Reaper]

It is interesting to note that other than Sherman's march from Atlanta to the sea and then up through the Carolinas and the Shennandoah Valley Campaigns by both sides the majority of land mass of the south was untouched by the War. The land and people were hit hard due to shortages of material and manpower but the average southerner did not see a Yankee.


Pete:

No looking to quibble, but the home territory of virtually every state of the Confereracy was touched significantly by Union troops before the end of the war, starting with the Federal installations in the South that remained intact, like Fort Monroe, Norfolk, the Keys, etc., those that were quickly subject to early Union invasion like the border states of Kentucky and Missouri, as well as the remaining states such as Tennessee, Missisippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, etc. Once the Mississippi fell, all of the adjacent states had the majority of their commerce controlled by the Federals.

Virtually the only states not quickly invaded or partially occupied were the interior states of South Carolina and Georgia, and they were subject to a naval blockade, as well as partisan activity.

Agree that border states Like Missouri, Kansas, and Kentucky had feelings running the strongest and got the most personal, IMHO due to the guerrillas and partisans attacking opposing civilian targets. The Federal imprisonment (and subsequent death) of familiy members of Confederate Missourians and the raid by Confederate partisans on Lawrence, Kansas remain hot topics today.

Martin, one of the primary causes of the War was the delicate proportion of industrial non-slave states to the agrarian slave holding states.

The free states were going to be little affected by the emancipation, but in the slave states, there were going to be major problems. The Southern states were concerned about tyranny of the majority in Congress, where a free state majority would have been able to Federally pass emancipation, taxes on cotton and other agricultural products, etc., which impacted severely on the rights of the Southern states to choose their own destiny and possibly to remain solvent. Hence the battle over states rights where the individual states were responsible for policies within their borders, and the Federal government was responsible only for interstate and international laws and regulations.

If you do some reading, the admission of Kansas in January 29, 1861 as a free state tipped the balance toward secession, the further secession of West Virginia from Virginia, quickly followed by their admission to the Union and the admission of Nevada later during the War, both as free states, sealed the political end of the slave holding states, less the possibility of a Confererate victory.

The curious thing was that several of the Confederate states had considered outlawing slavery, as had the Confederate government. The biggest issue was how to continue to economically produce labor intensive products and what to do with the slaves after emancipation were the primary unresolved issues. Most of the upper Confederate states had relatively small slave populations, mostly concentrated on plantations along the major waterways. States like NC, which had relatively few slaves, took a long time considering whether to secede or not, and only did so ultimately because of their belief in states' rights and the fact that most of their neighboring states had already seceded. In some states, like SC and Mississippi, slaves actually outnumbered the non-slave population. Most Southern states had areas of Union loyalists which obstructed, if not actively opposed the Confederacy, such as the western part of NC.

Today's public schools largely gloss over these details in favor of the summary which I gave earlier, unless it is to mention the action of some special person.

The SCV, the GAR, and other veterans groups promote the better education of schoolchildren on the details of the War, which ultimately changed America.

Here is a link with some of the more impressive casualty figures for the War.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

Hope this helps.

TR

[The Reaper]

I believe the argument was that the original 13 colonies probably possessed the right of succession since they were wholly owned “corporations” prior to ratification of the Constitution. Subsequent territories (the future states) were purchased with the “blood and treasure” of the total union of states. Perhaps these states and territories could have bought their “freedom” from the union…sort of like indentured statehood. ;)

Pat

Then of the 13 original colonies, why were:

#4 Georgia January 2, 1788
#8 South Carolina May 23, 1788
#10 Virginia June 25, 1788
#12 North Carolina November 21, 1789

not allowed to secede?

TR

[lksteve]

If you do some reading, the admission of Kansas in January 29, 1861 as a free state tipped the balance toward secession, the further secession of West Virginia from Virginia, quickly followed by their admission to the Union and the admission of Nevada later during the War, both as free states, sealed the political end of the slave holding states, less the possibility of a Confererate victory.further, if you look into the admission of Nevada in 1864, two elements were at play...reelecting Lincoln and a supply of cash (silver, from the Comstock Lode)v to help continue the war effort...shortly after the War of Northern Aggression, many in Congress wanted to strip statehood from Nevada, as population levels (probably exaggerated during the WNA) had dipped well below the requisite levels for admission to the Union...

[PSM]

Then of the 13 original colonies, why were:

#4 Georgia January 2, 1788
#8 South Carolina May 23, 1788
#10 Virginia June 25, 1788
#12 North Carolina November 21, 1789

not allowed to secede?

TR

Would they have? And, it reverses my "indentured statehood" dilemma. It would seem that they might have argued that they deserved a refund on their investment.

Pat

[sg1987]

Man, you guys are just killing the ignorant Southerner stereotype….

[jasonglh]

I take this to mean you got a balanced presentation and chance to ask contrary questions?

Pete and everybody, thanks. :munchin

Definitely. Before that we learned X happened on X date. For instance before college I knew WWII began when Pearl harbor was attacked on Dec 7, 1941. During my college course we learned about the events leading up to the attack. While he did not condone what the Japanese did he did explain why they felt the need to attack when they did.

[Sionnach]

Peregrino, TR, et. al, thanks for stepping in and educating our non-Southern neighbors concerning the War of Secession. I found it interesting the the US supported Macedonia's right to secede from Yugoslovia, but fought like hell to keep the South from doing the same. Just stirrin' the puddin' ;)

Getting back to the Tax discussion:

Have any of you examined John Linder's "Fair Tax" bill? I've done my homework, read him and Boortz's book, check out the arguments for and against the bill, and I think it's the most incredible piece of tax legislation put forth since the 16th Amendment. What are your thoughts?

www.fairtax.org

[The Reaper]

Would they have? And, it reverses my "indentured statehood" dilemma. It would seem that they might have argued that they deserved a refund on their investment.

Pat

Well in case you missed the news flash, all four of those states' elected representative bodies voted to secede, and were treated just like the rest of the Confederate states.

Clearly, their former status as original colonies and as taxpayers meant nothing more than any other rebellious state.

TR

[Peregrino]

Definitely. Before that we learned X happened on X date. For instance before college I knew WWII began when Pearl harbor was attacked on Dec 7, 1941. During my college course we learned about the events leading up to the attack. While he did not condone what the Japanese did he did explain why they felt the need to attack when they did.



Now now! If you're going to pretend to an education, you've got to be a little more worldly. Yes, the US declared war against the Axis (two seperate declarations) following Pearl Harbor. However, WWII had been going on for a while before that. The US (overtly) joined the fight "fashionably late". Ask the Chinese or Koreans when the war with Japan started. I'm sure our European friends would give you an earlier start date for the war against Germany too. :munchin Peregrino

[jasonglh]

Poor choice of words on my part. WWII began for the American public on Dec 7, 1941. Before that I don't think the general public paid that much attention to what was going on outside the USA.

[lksteve]

Man, you guys are just killing the ignorant Southerner stereotype….as we should...

[The Reaper]

Poor choice of words on my part. WWII began for the American public on Dec 7, 1941. Before that I don't think the general public paid that much attention to what was going on outside the USA.

I disagree.

The war in Europe was being watched closely by most Americans. The war in Asia was being monitored to a lesser extent, except for the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The desire to join the war may have been distant prior to that, but Americans knew what was going on and were concerned.

TR

[Sdiver]

I disagree.

The war in Europe was being watched closely by most Americans. The war in Asia was being monitored to a lesser extent, except for the West Coast and in Hawaii.

The desire to join the war may have been distant prior to that, but Americans knew what was going on and were concerned.

TR

Exactly. The Isolationist movement was huge in the US prior to our involvement. In fact, I believe that FDR promised that the US would not get involved in the European problem or the Japanese expansion.

IMO, although privately, he was hoping that the attack on the USS Kearney and the sinking of the USS Reuben James, prior to the Japanese attack of 7Dec41, would inflame the nation into wanting to go to war. He knew that the Isolationists were very strong in this country and knew that the only way for the US to get involved in the war, is if we, or our military were attacked in some manner. It is also my opinion that he and his administration knew of the pending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Pete]

.....Not looking to quibble, but the home territory of virtually every state of the Confereracy was touched significantly by Union troops before the end of the war ...TR

No quibbling from me. Even here in NC the northern half of the coastal area was occupied for almost the entire war. Major and minor skirmishing up and down the inlets and rivers. Lots of bushwacking in the western mountains also. VA east of Petersburg and south of Washington another bloodbath.

I was talking about the majority of the land mass. Even Sherman going from Atlanta to the Sea and back up through the Carolinas covering a 20 to 60 mile front only touched a small part of the true area.

The campaigns in the mid-section, TN, targeted Major cities, rail centers, rivers and similar lines of communications. Again only a small part of the true area.

Along the Mississippi large sections were occupied after the fall of New Orleans and Vicksburg.

One of the reasons Sherman did away with his supply tail was to cut down on guarding it. As the Union cut deaper into the South more and more troops were detailed to guard the supply lines/rail lines. Attacks by small forces on a larger Army's supply lines?

The point I was making was that the parts with longer, stronger occupation seem to have less of the modern animosity than the deep south states.

Pete

[PSM]

Well in case you missed the news flash, all four of those states' elected representative bodies voted to secede, and were treated just like the rest of the Confederate states.

TR


I am aware of that. The lack of a rhetorical question mark on my keyboard is a handicap.

I do believe that those four states had the right to secede. They were in communication with the other states in rebellion. If the other states had declined to secede, I wonder if those Southern founding States would have followed through with their vote. We can not know the answer, but, since that period of our history is so pivotal, we continue to analyze it...as we should.

Pat

[Peregrino]

Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but from what I have read in Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom," and from what I know, the income tax has been ruled legal and constitutional multiple times, but the thing is that the amount of income tax needed for the government to fund the national defense and take care of infrastructure that the market doesn't handle, and to protect our freedoms in general, is far less than the amount of income tax that people actually pay. He said that income tax is far higher because of the increased size and power of the Federal Government and all the various social programs they have that they need to fund.


That brings us back on track. Some rambling thoughts:

The Constitution empowers the federal government to do four things:

Regulate interstate commerce;
Conduct foreign affairs;
Provide for the common defense;
Collect taxes to pay for the first three.

Everything else was left to the states. Somewhere in the last 200+ years we've wandered pretty far afield. Most of what the government does today is extra-constitutional (and expensive).

What is the Bill of Rights worth today? The Ninth and Tenth Ammendments might as well not exist, the Second is under continuous attack, the First has been abridged, the Fourth and Fifth only count if you have a great (expensive) lawyer and the rest are so obscure I can't remember them off the top of my head. (That ought to incite comment :p )

Conspiracy theories are a waste of time. Who was it that said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity (or words to that effect)"? As I've already pointed out, the people have the government they want/deserve. Until the "people" want something different, this is the path we'll follow.

I'm having a great time watching the first season of HBO's Rome series. We saw an episode at a friend's house (don't get HBO at home) and the wife promptly ordered the DVDs from Amazon. A lot of interesting parallels. Hopefully our Republic (what's left of it) doesn't follow the same path into decline.

FWIW - Peregrino

[Martin]

Sir TR, and others who want to answer, why is it not possible to consider the decision to secede as an usurpation of power (or other threat to internal stability, making a precedent) which the union should legitimately react to for its preservation? I need to re-read the constitution to recall what it says about secession, insurgency and internal instability, but the above question is reasonable after coming halfway through the Federalist Papers. I understand the secession had big backing from the people of seceding states, though.

On animosity: Was the conduct in Union territory markedly different on both sides, resulting in lesser degree of continued animosity?

[Martin]

That brings us back on track.
Well, sorry 'bout that. :)

Disregard my post if you want to stay on topic.

[The Reaper]

On animosity: Was the conduct in Union territory markedly different on both sides, resulting in lesser degree of continued animosity?

The North was not occupied for 12 years, with to more or less degree, appointed leadership and loss of a significant part of their Constitutional rights.

Look up "Reconstruction".

The sad part is that Lincoln would have been quicker to heal the wounds, had he not been assassinated.

TR

[CRad]

... but how long do you think we have had a personal income tax?

How were services funded before that?

TR

1861 - it paid for one side of the War between the States.

The North needed to pay for a bond issue and income tax guaranteed a source of income.

The South used loans and the printing press.


The Tax History Museum is a wonderful thing.
http://www.tax.org/Museum/default.htm

[CoLawman]

This seems to be an appropriate area for this news piece.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17009569/


Updated: 12:49 p.m. MT Feb 6, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday that Congress should consider a tax to fund the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending.

A former Democrat who supports the Iraq war and backs President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, Lieberman said the proposed increase in the Pentagon's budget for next fiscal year will squeeze funding for critical domestic programs.

"I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. "I mean people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it."