Revisiting the US Civil War 1861–1865

I have read that the corporation filed bankruptcy in 1933 and/or during or after the civil war. Do you know what's accurate and how would that realte to what you've written?

The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for secessionist agitation in some southern states.

The Morrill Tariff and the secession movement

The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for secessionist agitation in some southern states. The law's critics compared it to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations that sparked the Nullification Crisis, although its average rate was significantly lower.

Slavery dominated the secession debate in the southern states,[19] but the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the conventions of Georgia and South Carolina. On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South." Anti-tariff sentiments also appeared in Georgia's Secession Declaration of January 29, 1861, written in part by Toombs.

...

Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms. Economist William Stanley Jevons denounced it as a "retrograde" law. The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[14] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.


[link to en.wikipedia.org]



DB, I asked this up thread. Do you know the answer?

Were the tariffs imposed, that the south objected to, taxes on goods or raw materials exported from the south to Europe or the northern states or both? I understand the money was used to industrialize the north.

HOLY FUCK, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

1) IT WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN AGRARIANISM/INDUSTRIALISM.

2) SLAVERY HAD FUCK ALL TO DO WITH IT. SLAVERY WAS THE MEANS BY WHICH THE NORTH WAS ABLE TO INDUSTRIALIZE ITSELF. THE MILLS/DISTILLERIES AND CITIES OF THE NORTH WERE THE HUNGRY MAW THAT DEPENDED UPON SLAVERY IN ORDER TO FEED ITSELF. ONCE THE MECHANIZATION PROCESS INTRODUCED MACHINES LIKE HARVESTERS AND GINS, SLAVERY WAS DESTINED TO END. USING SLAVES WAS A PAIN IN THE ASS FOR THE SOUTH AND ANYONE WHO HAS EVER READ ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS OF THE PERIOD KNOW THAT IT WAS SLAVE OWNERS WHO BEMOANED THE PRACTICE FOR PRACTICAL REASONS (SLAVES WERE INEFFICIENT, REQUIRED INTENSIVE SUPERVISION, WERE PRONE TO ALL TYPES OF MISBEHAVIOR AND YET STILL HAD TO BE FED AND CARED FOR. THE MYTHS OF SLAVE DRIVERS BEATING AND AMPUTATING THEM WILLY NILLY FOR ENJOYMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING. THEY WERE SELF REPRODUCING TOOLS, NO MORE, NO LESS. ONCE TOOLS CAME INTO EXISTENCE THAT REQUIRED LESS TIME/EFFORT AND ENERGY TO KEEP IN WORKING ORDER THAN SLAVES, IT WAS PREORDAINED TO COME TO AN END. ANYONE TELLS YOU DIFFERENT IS FULL OF SHIT.

THE NORTH WAS THE EARLIEST FORM OF THE NWO, DEPENDENT UPON CAPITAL, HUGE INFUSIONS OF CHEAP FOREIGN LABOR (ALSO KNOWN AS SLAVES, BUT OF A DIFFERENT RACIAL MAKEUP, NAMELY EASTERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPEANS)AND COMPLETE SUBMISSION TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE SOUTH REPRESENTED THE REPUBLICAN IDEALS OF YEOMAN FARMERS, INDEPENDENT, SELF SUSTAINING, FREE- THE EXACT KIND OF ENEMY THAT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN TO THE WOODSHED IF GLOBALISM (IMPERIALISM) WAS TO SUCCEED.

IT WASN'T A "CIVIL WAR" BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, IT WAS A CONQUERING OF INDEPENDENT NATION STATES (BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE "STATES" WERE UNTIL THAT ERA) BY A LARGER, MORE INDUSTRIALIZED IMPERIAL POWER WHO HAD THE ABILITY TO FILL IT'S ARMIES WITH NEWLY ARRIVED IMMIGRANT MERCENARIES IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE IDEA THAT MEN COULD BE FREE. SINCE THAT DATE WE HAVE ALL BEEN SLAVES, SANS IRON CHAINS.

HTH

Most interesting subject, for several reasons leading to some quite interesting conclusions.

In my experience, excuses and obvious reasons for any conflict usually carry no importance whatsoever. People tend to grab onto the obvious, and completely overlook the overall backdrop of the times.

Just for example, around that same time, in Europe...

"At around the same time, British legislation was similarly freeing the corporation from the shackles of historical restrictions. In 1844 the British Parliament passed the Joint Stock Companies Act, which allowed companies to incorporate without a royal charter or an Act of Parliament.[17]

Ten years later, limited liability, the key provision of modern corporate law, passed into English law: in response to increasing pressure from newly emerging capital interests, Parliament passed the Limited Liability Act of 1855, which established the principle that any corporation could enjoy limited legal liability on both contract and tort claims simply by registering as a "limited" company with the appropriate government agency.[18]"
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Then we enter the period of Civil War, 1861-1865.

Nothing of much importance happens for the following 6 years, until...

'An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,' is passed in 1871:

"'Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.'

'Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144] extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.'
[link to www.abodia.com]
(while the site's title is misleading, since United States of America and UNITED STATES are two separate entities, it has some very good links)

As far I could find, the Act of 1871 has been changed a couple of times, but its meaning has not changed.

If we try to strip down all the "lawyer talk", it seems to me that the outcome of the Civil War was creation of the UNITED STATES Corporation, which in and of itself doesn't have much importance.

What is important, though, is that the forementioned corporation is situated in Washington DC, and that it provides services to "rightful subjects of legislation within said District".

Now, there's just one piece of information that I simply couldn't find anywhere on the net, but which is of crucial importance to linking all of these pieces into a full picture.

That piece of information is this - do politicians, that is "people's representatives", sign any kind of contract with the District of Columbia, that is, with the UNITED STATES corporation?

If they do, and I suspect they do, since no one can be officially recognized as a Representative (especially in Congress) if they don't sign some kind of legal obligation to hold that title, that would mean, by extension of law, that everyone they represent are also the subjects of the UNITED STATES corporation.

If you're having problems following this line of reasoning, here's a simpler example.

Let's assume that you are summoned to a trial. Now, you have two (legal) options to defend yourself:

a) You represent yourself.

Nothing to it, you may think. Well, the kicker is that by representing yourself, you are actually withholding your recognition of the law practiced by the court you are standing before. Just by appearing before the court does not constitute its acceptance by you. After all, you may have been brought in by force, and, both legally and literally, you have not given your consent to being there in the first place.

In other words, you are free, at any point, to state that you don't recognize that court of law. Now, in most cases such statement will kick off some kind of brute force exercise against you, under the excuse of "contempt for the court" or some other.

Simply put, you've just hit the border of the law, which no one is allowed to cross, and brute force is the only means to bring back within "the rule of law".

Or,

b) You will choose, or will be given, a representative in the court, that is, a lawyer who has some kind of signed contract with that court of law.

By accepting a representative, and by extension of law, you are also officially accepting that court of law. From that point on, any attempt to deny that court constitutes a breach of contract, for which you will be (severely) punished.

Either way, whoever may be representing you, the judge, who is obliged to do so, will at some point ask you to plead your guilt. If you do so, you are recognizing that court. So, once your plea is officially noted, you are subjected to the laws of the court you have just recognized.

Still confused? Well, "lawyer talk" was not invented for no reason.

The simplest explanation would go like this:

- In the United States of America, every 2+2 years elections are held.

- Elected Representatives (almost certainly, but someone should check that out) sign some kind of contract with the District of Columbia, that is, with the UNITED STATES corporation. Signing of that contract effectively and immediately makes those Representatives (both the President and the Congressmen, mind you) employees in the UNITED STATES corporation.

- As the Act of 1871 clearly states, the Representatives become the subjects of the court of law of the District of Columbia.

- As the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states, elections constitute a non-signed contract between the people of the United States of America and the Government of the United States of America, that is a contract between the People and the Representatives.

- Add 2 and 2, and quite unsurprisingly, you'll get 4.

- The conclusion is the following:

a) The people of the United States of America are, by extension of law, subjects of the UNITED STATES corporation.
b) All Representatives, both the President and the Congressmen, are playing the role of "lawyers" in the court of law of the UNITED STATES corporation.

Any proof for this conclusion?

If this court will allow me, I will present a clear case of all people of the United States of America being "employees" in the UNITED STATES corporation.

[link to hubpages.com]

Wars are indeed waged over wealth and not over morality. The greatest wealth being the territory of the United States of America, which was lost to its owner less than 100 years before.

So, the main question is this - who owns the UNITED STATES corporation?

And now, back on the thread's subject.

Question no. 1 - who provoked South into secession in the first place?
Question no. 2 - what were Lincoln's options at the time?

I wouldn't put much importance on Lincoln's talks of "white supremacy". At the time, he wouldn't have gathered much support (and money) if he had spoken differently. War was unavoidable, and whatever helped win it was almost certainly seen as acceptable, regardless of one's own personal beliefs.

Which brings us to the very core of the topic - advancement of the warfare, both technologically and intellectually.

If one took a closer look at it, one could almost see a thin line connecting all the great wars of the 19th and 20th century. Almost as if someone had a clear goal in mind, specifically dealing with the advancement of the warfare. It's almost as if someone actually wanted to bring civilization up to some very advanced war technology.

For what reasons it may have been done, we can only speculate. But there are usually only two outcomes of such rapid technological advancement.

a) Enough war capability is gained to wage one final war, or...
b) Enough war capability is gained to wage one final war.

They sound the same? Well, the only difference is in who that one final war will be waged against. Against oneself, or against one's true enemy?

A significant difference, don't you agree?

:applause2 & thanks.

lawful....legal



I have thought of these two words alot since you posted them a couple of days ago....


which one 'superceeds' the other....


or are they the same at heart....


i wonder....



No, they are not the same.

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

[link to inclusion.semitagui.gov.co]

There is a painting in a dome in Washington DC depicting George Washington as god...McCormick is in the painting with him.

McCormick's factory was burned down during the Chicago Riots and fire...a riot said to be started by either the Pinkerton's or Baldwin Felts...both companies were Security companies for railroads.

McCormick was going to donate an observatory to Washington & Lee University. The fire prevented it.

AND...

The Union forces did burn down the entire Shenandoah Valley except for one place...The University of Virginia.

This war of ours, in its magnitude and in its duration, is one of the most terrible. It has produced a national debt and taxation unprecedented, at least in this country. It has carried mourning to almost every home, until it can almost be said that the 'heavens are hung black'.

Abraham Lincoln, 1864, Speech at Great Central Sanitary Fair, Philadelphia, PA




at least in this country ??

just what is Lincoln trying to tell us here....

George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters (1857).
TEXT SOURCE: Woodward, C. Vann, ed. Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters: George Fitzhugh. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. pp. 15-19, 217-218, 220-221, 223-224.

WEB SOURCE: [link to docsouth.unc.edu]

[link to www.indiana.edu]

...
Chapter 1, The Universal Trade

We are, all, North and South, engaged in the White Slave Trade, and he who succeeds best, is esteemed most respectable. It is far more cruel than the Black Slave Trade, because it exacts more of its slaves, and neither protects nor governs them .... But we not only boast that the White Slave Trade is more exacting and fraudulent (in fact, though not in intention,) than Black Slavery; but we also boast, that it is more cruel, in leaving the laborer to take care of himself and family out of the pittance which skill or capital have allowed him to retain. When the day's labor is ended, he is free, but is overburdened with the cares of family and household, which make his freedom an empty and delusive mockery. But his employer is really free, and may enjoy the profits made by others' labor, without a care, or a trouble, as to their well-being. The negro slave is free, too, when the labors of the day are over, and free in mind as well as body; for the master provides food, raiment, house, fuel, and everything else necessary to the physical well-being of himself and family. The master's labors commence just when the slave's end. No wonder men should prefer white slavery to capital, to negro slavery, since it is more profitable, and is free from all the cares and labors of black slave-holding.

Now, reader, if you wish to know yourself -- to “descant on your own deformity” -- read on. But if you would cherish self-conceit, self-esteem, or self-appreciation, throw down our book; for we will dispel illusions which have promoted your happiness, and shew you that what you have considered and practiced as virtue, is little better than moral Cannibalism. But you will find yourself in numerous and respectable company; for all good and respectable people are “Cannibals all,” who do not labor, or who are successfully trying to live without labor, on the unrequited labor of other people: -- Whilst low, bad, and disreputable people, are those who labor to support themselves, and to support said respectable people besides. Throwing the negro slaves out of the account, and society is divided in Christendom into four classes: The rich, or independent respectable people, who live well and labor not at all; the professional and skillful respectable people, who do a little light work, for enormous wages; the poor hard-working people, who support every body, and starve themselves; and the poor thieves, swindlers and sturdy beggars, who live like gentlemen, without labor, on the labor of other people. The gentlemen exploitate, which being done on a large scale, and requiring a great many victims, is highly respectable -- whilst the rogues and beggars take so little from others, that they fare little better than those who labor.

....





[link to www.youtube.com]

Back in my younger days I neglected to pay income taxes for one year. Why I did this is not really important now. But the fact is they did eventually take notice, and I did eventually pay.

I've got too much to lose now to fight the man on his own turf. If you've "won" then I expect that you really didn't have that much to lose in the first place. But I've got a family to feed and simply can't get lost in what are essentially abstract concepts.

The Corporation doesn't care how or whether you understand it. And even if you think you've outsmarted it legally, or understand organic law in a correct sense, they can always just go out and f*ck with you, or kill you. How's that for sovereignty?

Take care out there my friend.


You are right. In 1980, I met many leaders of the constitutional and common law movement. Brilliant people who spent years in study before acting. The feds steamrolled and railroaded them, putting some in prison. Without FULLY INFORMED JURIES and corrupt judges, convictions are easy. Or as you said, they'll kill you.

This is where choose your battles comes into play. You may be right but when you're dealing with the Mafia you have finding other strategies and they CAN be found.

Unless [...] sovereign, interest free, currency is 100% backed by gold and silver, then it's subject to inflation. The allowing congress to borrow money was a huge mistake, imo. I suppose the reasoning was that Europe (enemies and potential enemies) were able to do so from the Rothschilds, so they thought they needed credit in the event of war. The only way I can see for a country that allows a public debt to survive is for it to be directly taxed to pay for all of it's spending. Once the people are getting a direct bill for whatever it is they or the government wants, once they see 60 or 70% of their wealth taken DIRECTLY, not through inflation, they have a clear idea of what things cost. In that event I would see a country that would give a resounding no to wars of aggression. When spending goes on the credit card, people don't fully comprehend their personal losses (which is, of course, why progressives love the banksters).

CW first: Lincoln went through 8 commanding generals in about 4 years. Reasons given were: moved to slow, didn't move fast enough, drank too much, didn't drink enough, had to many casualties, didn't have enough casualties; posture to good, slouched all the time. He changed generals like he changed underwear. Probably set some kind of precedent.

In 1858, Lincoln is nominated to oppose Stephen Douglas for the Senate. The Lincoln Douglas debates [link to en.wikipedia.org] follow and Slavery is quickly seized as a central part of their debate.

The main contention was a State centered power base, known as popular sovereignty, where each state could decide for themselves what the fate of slavery should and could be verses Lincoln's contention that Douglas was part of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery.

Of central importance is what slavery represents to the Northern more commercialized region verses the Southern in terms of economics. Allowing new states to determine for themselves the status of slavery would serve to undermine the economic agenda of the North, whereas abolishment would undermine the economic agenda of the South. Each vied for control or a sustainable status quo. The Lincoln - Douglas debates set the backdrop for this building confrontation in the simplified talking points of slavery. It was not due to the morality of the slave system, but the effects on labor, wealth, tarrif law etc and the building conflict of ecnomic interests between Northern and Southern objectives.

Lincoln thus begins to symbolize all the South is against. Within 2 years a divided country on a split ticket will elect Lincoln and war will be mere months away.

I don't think many of you understood how Lincoln spoke....how 'bull-shit' free his verbiage was (is)....


He wasn't some 20th century TV commercial politician....


and when it came to the 'tuff' decisions THRUST on him....he weighed EVERY option heavily....and those he decided against for what ever reason....they always weighed in his heart....

AND every time he made a 'controversial' decision, he went out of his way to JUSTIFY it by telling everyone he could....

He never had absolute power over everything....he knew exactly who was who when it came to actual power in DC....and did everything that was PRACTICAL to account for it....




We can go over every second of his presidency and dissect each and every decision he made if you like....word by word....letter by letter....day by day....it has been done many times before by those seeking to discredit the man....


Lincoln wins every time....I'm telling you....the S.O.B. crossed his t's and dotted his i's ....to a level not equaled by any president before or since....

he made a very precise record of his presidency, and used the media many times to 'say stuff' he wasn't supposed to....to make some sort of record of it....like in 1864 and the issue of the war debt....

he knew the English played both sides and made a fortune off the war....and wanted to scream about it....but he couldn't....so he left us little 'digs' here and there when he could....

Lincoln ordered Sherman to basically exterminate every living soul in Georgia. I'm not really a fan.

Lincoln ordered Sherman to basically exterminate every living soul in Georgia. I'm not really a fan.


hello

this is the ambiguous area if any....


Lincoln ordered 'total war'....a practice used successfully against the Japanese and Germans....

but the CONTENT of every decision was 100% Lawful....there is NO QUESTION....why ?? because he told anyone and everyone....

Lincoln ordered Sherman to basically exterminate every living soul in Georgia. I'm not really a fan.


hello

this is the ambiguous area if any....


Lincoln ordered 'total war'....a practice used successfully against the Japanese and Germans....

I doubt that the former residents of Atlanta, Dresden, or Hiroshima were ambiguous.

True....thats my point....

but as a matter of public record; Atlanta, Dresden, and Hiroshima were/are Lawful acts....

True....thats my point....

but as a matter of public record; Atlanta, Dresden, and Hiroshima were/are Lawful acts....


According to the victors.