even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery

ya know, my daddy warned me never
to trust a Marxist.

he was right ;)

It was about the belated enforcement of the Constitution for which the US was the subject of much embarrassment abroad. Remember, the was the Age of Reason and the world was aflame with liberal ideas and the rise of civilisation, commerce and trade, and was rejecting feudalism.

Thats an irrelevancy. More important are the logical facts in this debate.

but hey
let's just throw away a legal contract
signed in another country shall we ?

ironic that one of the signers of the
Constitution and first President Washington
was a slave trader.

I don't believe in conspiracies. Human nature is contrary enough without the need for mumbo jumbo.

Washington honored those
contracts made in other countries
or else he would not have signed
the constitution.

So I guess the US would enforce all manner of foreign legal contracts on its soil. Thats a specious argument, friend.

In any event, it manners not a whit who signed the Constitution. What matters is the feudal British context which demands only one objective to make sense of the document, the republican structure and of course, the war.

lmao

so you think the Act of 1871 is a mumbo
jumbo conspiracy ???

here's you a link to the text
of the Act of 1871 as shown
in the Congressional Archives.

[link to www.nikolasschiller.com]

but hey, don't mind me
I'm just spreading fictional
conspiracies right ???

George Washington did !!!

matter of fact, you ought to check out
how Washington got his muskets for his
assault over the Delaware.

hint: they were illegally purchased guns
from France through Ben Franklin.

However, a contract is a contract.
It was made in France.

Haha .... you must be a lawyer or a very intelligent person because you are destroying this mans argument

Which leads me to my next question....

Why then are you a Marxist =)

Anglo-Saxon constitutional law has its layers. It's forms. I would suggest getting a book from your local library and reading up on it rather than some laymans interpretation of fairly complex rules.

BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT.

It was a Northern War of Aggression to Federalize/Nationalize the wealth of the Southern States.

The Southern states contained the true riches of the new world. Millions of acres of productive agricultural land that could produce 'endless' amounts of cotton, tobacco, maize. etc.,

You're conveniently forgetting that in 1860 most of 'settled' America was an agrarian economy; - they relied on the exports of the Southern states for a huge percentage of their GDP/exports which basically financed the US adoption of the fruits of the European Industrial Revolution - mechanization of key industries that drove US growth and eventual domination from the 1850's to today.

Burn your high-school history books, FFS. Do you seriously believe that Federally-sanctioned BS?

Lincoln was a reasonable thoughtful individual and he understood what the progressives in america understood in the Sixties ... If you want to change a culture then the most successful way is through gradual change

Lincoln wanted to gradually change the entrenched idea that slavery was ok ... his ultimate goal was the abolishment of slavery but he was willing to see it happen through patient wisdom ....

The south pushed his hand and so he emancipated the slaves

Last Edited by Simple_Man on 11/15/2012 05:25 AM

Ideologically, I am a Marxist as I understand material dialecticism and realise the soundness of Marx's analysis of history. Personally, I day trade for a living. My personal objects do not intrude on my intellectual understanding

flogging cannot be compared with ownership
of property. there is no contract between
persons in a flogging case.

interpretation ???

WTF ???

it's straight out of the Congressional Text.
straw man indeed

We are all slaves now to the banking cartels that can print money and buy our time. It costs them nothing.

Hardly. Lincoln had been corresponding with some of the greatest minds in Europe at the time and was fully aware of the farce that the South was making of the republican ideals of America's founders. America it must be remembered, was a beacon of hope at the time and there you had the South behaving like one of those kingly European states...you should remember that racism then and as we know it today, was of a different calibre then and the rise of Reason gave rise to a rejection of all forms of land based inequity. This is what merit based capitalism (the North), which incidentally is a revolutionary system for this fact, replaced.

In my own opinion ...

Marx looked at the recorded history of human civilization and at the current Governments of his time and and as an atheist he believed that therehad to be a better way for human beings to exist

he saw all of the greedy capitalist and warmongers .....he saw the inequities in life for a lot of human beings ....especially the common man and so with atheistic humanism as his benchmark ... he came up with a well thought out forms of human governance

but as a Christian I disagree with his benchmark and I don't ever believe in a " utopia" here in this life

I respect the fact that he was trying to better the human experience for the common man ... I just disagree with his avenue

Last Edited by Simple_Man on 11/15/2012 05:35 AM

there is some differences between
the slavery of the Civil War and
the financial slavery by TPTB today.

during the Civil War the slaves were of
legal age in Africa and had a choice
of selling their freedom.

today:
we are made slaves at Birth with a Birth Certificate.
there is no consent given. thereby rending
the contract null and void. This is not to
mention that a conspiracy of illusion was
produced to get the families' consent for
this illegal sale. They did not know that
by signing a birth certificate that it
relinquishes their children's freedom.
A contract by deceit in not a contract
but a con/scam.

The Good Book does not forbid slavery - it condones it:

Exodus 21:1 "Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them.

Exodus 21:2 "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.

Exodus 21:3 "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.

Exodus 21:4 "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

Exodus 21:5 "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,'

Exodus 21:6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

The War Between the States was over MONEY - not states rights.

The north was charging import tariffs on goods imported from Europe. The north exported nothing. The import tariffs supported their federal government.

The South, which was an exporting nation, exported goods to Europe. The Europeans imposed import tariffs on Southern exports to them in response to the north's imposing import tariffs.

The South broke away to avoid having tariffs imposed on goods they exported to Europe.

Last Edited by DSL Connector on 11/15/2012 05:40 AM

The mere fact that he posted an incidental piece of Federal municipality by-lawish (understandable when sorting out the substance of your capital...the Aussies have something similar) stuff which presumably for him is intended to symbolise that America is some sort of corporate by-product I guess shows just how stupid you people are. Just go and read a basic text book for crikeys sakes.

the mere word CERTIFICATE
implies ownership

You're full of shit.

I'll answer tomorrow.

Your choice of 'forum-id' speaks volumes, however.

Why should I share my hard-earned wealth with others?

oh really ??
so please post a book or link reference
which shows that the Act of 1871 does
not exist as a law.

good luck with that one
hahaha

Thats not quite correct. He redefined dialecticism which in effect is cause and effect. For example, if someone in your locality behaved in a certain way, after a while, his behaviour, if its effects were widespread enough, would trigger an outcome and then a result.

Marx, who saw capitalism as a progressive development on the reign of kings said that in due course, it would run its course and change to something else and that workers would be the agents as they have no real investment in the system.

He wasnt against the idea of a god so much as the abuses of organised religion. He never really said much about personal religious beliefs but objected to the church and its abuses.

But in all of this, it must be remembered that the way we choose to live will have results and in time will drive us to change just as a household that lived beyond its means would ultimately have to make changes.

Thats how I see it which is why I can do one thing for a living but still have my own intellectual understandings.

Did I say it wasnt a law? Read my comment and think about it.

just more proof that we are a corporation
is the mere fact that the IRS is NOT a Gov entity
and all taxes paid to it goes to the Vatican Bank
and NOT the US Treasury when our constitution
specifically gives the US Treasury the right
to print it's own money. Yet we pay interest
to the Fed for it's use. And the Fed is privately
owned. The only way that can happen is through
corporations and contracts.

I am not asking you to share your wealth. Merely pointing out that a document which was drafted in revulsion to the entrenched privilege of British nobility is hardly going to countenance the same on its own soil.