Is this governement run the way it was meant?

FarmerJamie

Mr. Sensitive
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
2,077
Points
363
BarredBuff said:
In regards to the Civil War, I say that by how the governement was intended it should have been perfectly legal for states to secede. As far as slavery, it should have been done away with and would have been as the industrial revolution set in. HOWEVER one can tell that this was not President Lincoln's agenda by the fact that when he issued the Emancipation Proclomation (1863) he only freed the slaves in the 11 Confederate States (which truly, did he have jurisdiction?). That left the Slaves in Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland enslaved. So no I don't think that was the true cause for the Civil War, maybe a mask for the true purpose.

The Federal Reserve is also unconstitutional, considering it is operated by outside powers and banks :rolleyes:

So many injustices...
:hu true purpose? :hu

10 States - FL, AL, MS, GA, LA, TX, AR, SC, NC, VA. TN was not included since TN (and what is now West Virginia) was mostly under Union control the EP was for territory NOT under Union control. Sorry, like to be precise.. :p

Slavery was in decline. Early on, Lincoln was a supporter of sending slaves out of the country. Lincoln's own words My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. Yes, this is from Wikipedia because I don't have the entire quote memorized. ;) He wanted the carnage to stop.

The history of the country through the Nullification Crisis in 1830's I think disputes your notion the legality of States to secede. :D But what do I know, I'm a Yankee.
 

FarmerJamie

Mr. Sensitive
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
2,077
Points
363
Mr.Andersson said:
Imho, the civil war would have happened eventually. The ratification of the 17th adm. was the final blow to states rights. I'm shocked that this did not start CWII. This adm. should be null and void, 100% unconstitutional. That would make all that follow as well...
I would keep the 19th however!
Someone needs to hit the Reset button!:hide
The States themselves committed suicide on this one. It went through the legal amendment process, so it is constitutional, I believe.
 

baymule

Sustainability Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
6,973
Points
363
Location
East Texas
Fire them all. Elect new ones until we get what we want. Back to the Constitution.
 

Mr.Andersson

Power Conserver
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Points
44
Location
Concorde, MA
baymule said:
Fire them all. Elect new ones until we get what we want. Back to the Constitution.
The history of the 17th is very disturbing, this is where lobbying really reared it's ugly head. Im not trying to offend, but we have too many Liars (Lawyers) in office. They are paid Liars! We need term limits etc...
I'm not taking or blaming sides, or anyone in particular.
 

Wannabefree

Little Miss Sunshine
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
13,394
Reaction score
702
Points
407
Candy said:
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians?
really?
Yes really. I was more referring to special interest groups, lobbyists, lawyers, and the like who have been given more power than necessary and run amock in Washington. People who shouldn't have so much power, have it, and those who should, have lost it. The voice of the general population has been lost because we're too quiet and all the drama queens are being heard because they squeal louder. Washington is like a pack of crazy hormonal teenagers drunk on power and off their meds. Of course nothing is getting done. The focus should not be on any one group, but the whole, and they have completely lost sight of that. We are systematically dividing ourselves.
 

FarmerChick

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
11,417
Reaction score
9
Points
248
Wannabefree said:
Candy said:
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians?
really?
The voice of the general population has been lost.
I so agree. The general population has absolutely no say in the running of the govt. it is all behind the scenes and they throw a tidbit out to us thati s in our interest etc. just to be content. It won't change.

oh and it is not just the ol' USA. It is everywhere.
 

luvinlife offthegrid

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Points
64
I explained to my in-laws from England that when the U.S. Was a new nation, the general principal was for it to operate much like the European Union is today. I said, "someday the other members of the EU will be your fellow countrymen". she didn't like that very much. :lol:

As far as the country changing and shifting, some has been for the better and some has not. I am not so much a nitpicker about states rights vs federalism, but I can certainly see how arguments can be heated because I respect and agree with points from both perspectives.

My overlying opinion about politics is that each party has its own marketing psychologists working for it, and that no matter what color the Koolaid is that youre drinking (party's color) it's poison.

(if you're to young to know what it means when someone says "its too bad you drank the Koolaid" it means you've been brainwashed and following orders blindly. Google "Jonestown".)
 

raro

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
160
Reaction score
1
Points
59
One thing that has surprised me was realizing that after the Civil War, the Republicans and Democrats were exactly opposite of what they are now. (I know that's a simplistic way of putting it)...it was the Republicans who wanted to build schools and hospitals for the freed slaves, and it was the Democrats who opposed that and were trying to limit the government's power. I know political parties evolve, but it struck me as pretty funny that they evolved into each other, in a way.
 

~gd

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
2
Points
99
raro said:
One thing that has surprised me was realizing that after the Civil War, the Republicans and Democrats were exactly opposite of what they are now. (I know that's a simplistic way of putting it)...it was the Republicans who wanted to build schools and hospitals for the freed slaves, and it was the Democrats who opposed that and were trying to limit the government's power. I know political parties evolve, but it struck me as pretty funny that they evolved into each other, in a way.
Then I suppose you don't klnow that they started out as the same party? The Federalists were the opposing [and only]party founded by Hamiliton [Washington didn't have a party]. Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic-Republican Party in 1791. In 1824 It split into 4 parties. Jackson headedthe Democrats, J.Q. Adams and Clay= National Republicans,>>>Whigs,which broke over the slave issue. The Democrats took the slave south route. Lincoln was a Whig but was elected in 1860 as a Republican but was Union Party in 1964 because the GOP split over the war and reconstruction. As you might guess I am a history wonk.
 
Top