John Fitzgerald Off Zero

[victor333]

The confederacy started as a response to the northern states refusing to return run away slaves, so how anyone in their right fucking mind can say it isn't racism is beyond me. Open fucking history book you dumb fuck!

his story or the real story?


the confederacy stood for more than slavery...� but that the details of that isnt in most textbooks...

lincoln was a tyrant who gave a fucc not about freeing the slaves...� that part was just an accepted collateral...� � �

Bull fucking shit. This is some serious factless revisionism. Lincoln was an abolitionist who was from a one issue party, that issue was abolitionism. He said a lot of things because he took a moderate approach to slavery and hoped to end it over time with a platform of no slavery in new established states. All sides knew that eventually the non slave states would eventually outnumber the slave states (there was an exact balance at the time), which would eventually lead to an end to slavery. That is why the south seceded, with the first secession occurring two months after his inauguration, specifically as a reaction to it. Lincoln fought the war to maintain the union, not fight slavery, which is why there are quotes floating around like "If I could save the union without freeing a single slave I would do it," because his number one goal was maintaining the union, as his new state policy was designed to work to end slavery without splitting the union, which was obviously already on the verge of happening. Of course� the whole quote includes him saying something along the lines of, "if I could save the union and free every slave I would do that too..."� When the union split his number one goal was to bring the union back together, even if that meant abandoning his abolitionist ambitions, but Lincoln WAS an abolitionist, and the south did secede to maintain slavery. In the end, Lincoln did push for abolition, even though it actually made reconstruction a far more contentious problem.
Let me decode all of the bullshit reasons people give for you....
"States rights"- States rights to do what? Oh, that's right, maintain slavery
"economic issues"- What was the economic engine of the south? Slavery, they feared with Lincoln in office their economic engine was endangered
"Tax issues"- Aside from the falsehood of this overall, southern states had actually written the most recent tariff laws, the south was scared that taxation would be used as an anti-slavery tactic, though it never was.
"Social differences"- The idea that the south had formed its own society which did not like its association to the north wouldn't have been an issue if the main institution holding the society together, slavery, did not appear to be threatened.

In the end, the main issue around the civil war is slavery, pure and simple. It was more than a moral issue, as genuine social, economic, and political differences arose as a result of slavery, but it should be clear, the south seceded to maintain slavery.

^ronald reagan knows his shit

many states seceded from the union before his inauguration.

And a lot of what Reagan said was superfluous and didn't really pertain to the subject in question:

was Lincoln the great emancipator many claim him to be, or was it simply a power move/acting in line with what his party wanted?

If you ask a lot of different people, you'll get a lot of different answers. However, it is to be noted that his stance on slavery and what not was always rather shaky. And his main goal, first and foremost, with the Civil war was to restore the union as quickly as possible.

Tyrant who didn't give a "fucc" about slaves? No. Great emancipator? No. He's in the middle somewhere. Where in the middle all kinda depends on where/who you're getting your information from.

[Thrillho]

Chris Cole and the new summer line.

[Mundungus]

Chris Cole and the new summer line.

Omit?

[Thrillho]

Chris Cole and the new summer line.

Omit?

I think it's actually an Omit COLLABO with some church group Jamie is involved with.

[Harem]

Excuse my ignorance but, who or what is a Josiah?

[Beeda Weeda]

its a combination of a little boy named joey, and the mesiah...that skates.

[vegasboy]

who gives a fuck about some fucked up teeth, shitty style kid who won a stupid contest. the guy has the wackiest doo doo style. jamie thomas supposely kicked him off because john wanted to get more money because a few other companies offered him 1500 a month. thomas said he had to film a full part first. john is not loyal at all. jamie is. i wish i could quit you jamie!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shit_for_brains]

i'm getting really confused in this ridiculous thread. john fitzgerald was in the confederate army? i thought he was from california.

[chris311x]

They kicked him off to flow me boards, see below dudeZ

[fatuglyjohnjohn]

who gives a fuck about some fucked up teeth, shitty style kid who won a stupid contest. the guy has the wackiest doo doo style. jamie thomas supposely kicked him off because john wanted to get more money because a few other companies offered him 1500 a month. thomas said he had to film a full part first. john is not loyal at all. jamie is. i wish i could quit you jamie!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you think john sucks, you obviously don't know anything

[TheRealDeal]

There are many popular myths about the cause of the War Between the States. Just as the Bolshevik Revolution is commonly believed to have been a spontaneous mass uprising against a tyrannical aristocracy, so, too, it is generally accepted that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. That, at best, is a half-truth. Slavery wan anissue, but the primary force for war was a clash between the economic interests of the North and the South. Even the issue of slavery itself was was based on economics. It may have been a moral issue in the North where prosperity was derived from the machines of heavy industry, but in the agrarian South, where fields had to be tended by vast work forces of human labor, the issue was primarily a matter of economics.

The relative unimportance of slavery as a a cause for war was made clear by by Lincoln himself during his campaign for the Presidency in 1860, and he repeated the message in his first inaugural address:

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered...I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

And to get to the quote that Gipper took a stab at... Even after the out break of war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He declared:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or 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 do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

It may come as a surprise to learn that, by strict definition, Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist. In his fourth debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, he addressed the subject bluntly:

"I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equity of the whited and black races...that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

[TheRealDeal]

But, if Lincoln's primary goal in the War was not the abolition of slavery but simply to preserve the Union, the question arises: why did the Union need preserving? Or, more pointedly, why did the Southern states want to secede?

[via]

Can we get some citations in here?

[TheRealDeal]

1. Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and writings, 1859-1865
(New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 215.

2. Quoted by Robert L. Polley, ed., Lincoln: His Words and His World (Waukesha, Wisconsin: Country Beautiful Foundation, 1965), p. 54.

[victor333]

But, if Lincoln's primary goal in the War was not the abolition of slavery but simply to preserve the Union, the question arises: why did the Union need preserving? Or, more pointedly, why did the Southern states want to secede?

- The southern states also generated a lot of revenue for the north, as well. Products of the south were exported through ports in the North

- The south had the nation's cotton supply; it was abundant and at home. If the south broke off, the North would be fudged - probably charge them an arm and a leg. Other crops as well.

- why did the southern states want to secede? The southern way of life was constantly being threatened. Acts were being put in place that stopped the spread of slavery. Slaves were not being returned, such and stuff (I don't remember all the details). So, when Lincoln was going to be put into office (a northerner, whose party's agenda was in favor of the northern way of life) the south said "we're going to keep getting fucked over. Peace. I'm out".

[TheRealDeal]

Really, it's important to understand the history and hard fought battles against central banks, fractional-reserve banking, the Rothschild Formula and how it came to the United States.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  Find a copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island"  by G. Edward Griffin or watch one of Bill Still's documentaries, like "Money Masters".

So after a hard fought battle, the creature that was The Second Bank of the United States was slain.  But banking was very much still alive. The nation was nearing the end of the boom phase of a designed boom/bust cycle. When the inevitable contraction of the money supply came, politicians began to offer proposals on how to infuse stability into the banking system. None dealt with the real problem, which was fractional-reserve banking itself. they concentrated instead on proposals on how to make it work.  (much like today with the fed).  Anyway, all these proposals were tried and they failed.

These years are sometimes described as a period of free banking, which is an insult to truth. All that happened was that banks were converted from corporations to private associations, a change in form, not substance. They continued to be burdened by government controls, regulations, supports, and other blocks against the free market.

The economic chaos and conflict of this period was a major cause of the civil war. The basic problem was that North and South were dependent on each other for trade. The industrialized North sold its products to the South which sold its cotton to the North.  The South also had a similar trade with Europe, and that was an annoyance to the North. Europe was selling many products at lower prices, and the North was losing market share. Northern politicians passed protectionist legislation putting import duties on industrial products. This all but stopped the importation of European goods and forced the South to buy from the North at higher prices. Europe retaliated by curtailing the purchase of American cotton. that hurt the South even more. It was a classic case of legalized plunder, and the South wanted out.

Meanwhile, there were powerful forces in Europe that wanted to see America embroiled in civil war. If America could be split into tow hostile countries, there would be less obstacle to European expansion on the North American continent.  France was eager to capture Mexico and graft it onto a new empire which would include many of the Southern states as well. England, on the other hand, had military forces poised along the canadian border ready for action. Political agitators, funded and organized from Europe, were active on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.  The issue of slavery was but a ploy.  America had become a target in a ruthless game of world economics and politics. 

[frank gerwer's nose]

But, if Lincoln's primary goal in the War was not the abolition of slavery but simply to preserve the Union, the question arises: why did the Union need preserving? Or, more pointedly, why did the Southern states want to secede?

- The southern states also generated a lot of revenue for the north, as well. Products of the south were exported through ports in the North

- The south had the nation's cotton supply; it was abundant and at home. If the south broke off, the North would be fudged - probably charge them an arm and a leg. Other crops as well.

- why did the southern states want to secede? The southern way of life was constantly being threatened. Acts were being put in place that stopped the spread of slavery. Slaves were not being returned, such and stuff (I don't remember all the details). So, when Lincoln was going to be put into office (a northerner, whose party's agenda was in favor of the northern way of life) the south said "we're going to keep getting fucked over. Peace. I'm out".

Are you fucking retarded? The north would be fucked over because they didn't have cotton? The Northern states had industrialized much quicker than the Southern states and this is a factor in their victory over the south. More factories = more production = more stable economy. Meanwhile, by the end of the war, the confederacy could barely support itself.

[doomstation55]

I thought it was a well known/documented fact that the civil war was started by gay mexicans?

[brent]

wait i thought they were fighting for money i.e. silver, hence the "silver wars" 

[Donkey Lips]

The civil war didn't even happen. It was a marketing ploy to sell tours of Gettysburg.

[Tuna]

Thanks for the history lesson guys, finals are next week and i needed the review for it pretty badly since i missed a couple of my America during the Civil War classes. Boy, you guys are a lifesaver.

By the way, can you go over the Battle of Antietam while you're at it?

[TheRealDeal]

Funny you should bring up Mexico, doomstation55.  

In addition to the conflicting interests between the North and South, there were other forces also working to split the nation, like I stated earlier. Those forces were rooted in Europe and centered around the desire of France, Spain, and England to control markets of Latin America. Mexico was the prime target.  This was the reason the Monroe Doctrine had been formulated thirty-eight years previously. President James Monroe had put the European nations on notice that the United States would not interfere with their affairs, and that interference by them in American affairs would not be tolerated.  In particular, the proclamation said that the American continents were no longer to be considered as available for colonization.

None of the European powers wanted to put this issue to the test, but they knew that if the U.S. were to become embroiled in a civil war, it could not also cross swords in Latin America. To encourage war between the states, therefore, was to pave the way for colonial expansion in Mexico. The Americas had become a giant chess board for the game of global politics.  

The global chess match between Lincoln on the one side and England and France on the other was closely watched by the other leaders in Europe. One of the most candid observers at that time was the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck. Since Bismarck was, himself, deeply obligated to the power of international finance, his observations are doubly revealing. He said:

"The division of the United States nto federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe.  These bankers were afraid that the U.S., if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over Europe and the world.  Of course, in the "inner circle" of Finance, the voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, burdened with debt to financiers,...in place of a vigorous Republic sufficient wunto herself. Therefore, they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the Union....The rupture between the North and the South became inevitable; the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about an to turn it to their advantage.

The strategy was simple but effective. Within months after the first clash of arms between North and South, France had landed troops in Mexico. By 1864, the Mexicans were subduded, and the French monarch installed Ferdinand Maximilian as the puppet emperor. The Confederacy found a natural ally in Maximilian, and it was anticipated by both groups that, after the successful execution of the War, they would combine into a new nation--dominated by the financial power of Rothschild, of course.  At the same time, England moved eleven thousand troops into Canada, positioned them menacingly along the Union's northern flank, and placed the British fleet onto war-time alert.  The European powers were closing in for a checkmate.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

But, if Lincoln's primary goal in the War was not the abolition of slavery but simply to preserve the Union, the question arises: why did the Union need preserving? Or, more pointedly, why did the Southern states want to secede?

Here is an explanation for secession by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, its famously called the "keystone speech,"
Guess what he says is the keystone to southern society? I'll let you look
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
(I'll give you a clue, its slavery)
That's a primary source from one of the people who started the war, not a person living 150 years later who realizes that people might not look well upon the idea that the south started a war to maintain slavery and tries to flip the story to make his side not look as bad.
I already explained it clearly- the south did not trust Lincoln to maintain slavery due to his abolitionist platform and seceded upon his election. Lincoln wanted to Maintain the Union and End slavery. He made many speeches and committed to many actions that were to appeal to the center while still hopefully maintaining his goal of abolition.
I already destroyed your constantly falsely used Lincoln quote, so I don't see why you posted it.
His political platform was abolition, and he hoped to do so in a moderate way that would maintain the union. You are trying to cloud the issue. Alexander Stephens wasn't, because he was there at the time and didn't realize how bad everybody in the world would look back at it

Lincoln was elected November 6th, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede on December 20th, 1860. As pointed out, this is slightly under two months after Lincoln's election. If you guys are reading this whole thing, completely discount the retarded dipshit who tried to get in on the conversation by claiming states seceded before Lincoln's election. That is very clearly out there and is undisputable.
Here is a list of state secession by date:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/secession_order.htm
Its a pretty plain site because those dates aren't controversial at all.


Want to know what is funny? Even time magazine acknowledges that all of the bullshit excuses for the civil war are just that:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2063869,00.html


Its not controversial amongst historians- The south fought the war to maintain slavery, the north fought it to maintain the union. While a union logo is not anti-slavery, a confederate one is pro-slavery or pro-ignorance.

[victor333]

But, if Lincoln's primary goal in the War was not the abolition of slavery but simply to preserve the Union, the question arises: why did the Union need preserving? Or, more pointedly, why did the Southern states want to secede?

- The southern states also generated a lot of revenue for the north, as well. Products of the south were exported through ports in the North

- The south had the nation's cotton supply; it was abundant and at home. If the south broke off, the North would be fudged - probably charge them an arm and a leg. Other crops as well.

- why did the southern states want to secede? The southern way of life was constantly being threatened. Acts were being put in place that stopped the spread of slavery. Slaves were not being returned, such and stuff (I don't remember all the details). So, when Lincoln was going to be put into office (a northerner, whose party's agenda was in favor of the northern way of life) the south said "we're going to keep getting fucked over. Peace. I'm out".

Are you fucking retarded? The north would be fucked over because they didn't have cotton? The Northern states had industrialized much quicker than the Southern states and this is a factor in their victory over the south. More factories = more production = more stable economy. Meanwhile, by the end of the war, the confederacy could barely support itself.

I guess "fucked" is too strong a word.

However, it would certainly be a detriment, to say the least. All those mills in the North East? You know what they were doing? Textiles. What do you need for textile mills? Cotton.

Cotton was huge. Like, really huge. Also, it's not just cotton. The south had fertile soil and other valuable crops and agriculture whatnot. But, like as I alluded to before, there was a certain symbiotic relation between the north and south, and at the end of the day, the north would be hurt if the southern states were to become their own nation.

[victor333]

But, if Lincoln's primary goal in the War was not the abolition of slavery but simply to preserve the Union, the question arises: why did the Union need preserving? Or, more pointedly, why did the Southern states want to secede?

Here is an explanation for secession by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, its famously called the "keystone speech,"
Guess what he says is the keystone to southern society? I'll let you look
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
(I'll give you a clue, its slavery)
That's a primary source from one of the people who started the war, not a person living 150 years later who realizes that people might not look well upon the idea that the south started a war to maintain slavery and tries to flip the story to make his side not look as bad.
I already explained it clearly- the south did not trust Lincoln to maintain slavery due to his abolitionist platform and seceded upon his election. Lincoln wanted to Maintain the Union and End slavery. He made many speeches and committed to many actions that were to appeal to the center while still hopefully maintaining his goal of abolition.
I already destroyed your constantly falsely used Lincoln quote, so I don't see why you posted it.
His political platform was abolition, and he hoped to do so in a moderate way that would maintain the union. You are trying to cloud the issue. Alexander Stephens wasn't, because he was there at the time and didn't realize how bad everybody in the world would look back at it

Lincoln was elected November 6th, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede on December 20th, 1860. As pointed out, this is slightly under two months after Lincoln's election. If you guys are reading this whole thing, completely discount the retarded dipshit who tried to get in on the conversation by claiming states seceded before Lincoln's election. That is very clearly out there and is undisputable.
Here is a list of state secession by date:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/secession_order.htm
Its a pretty plain site because those dates aren't controversial at all.


Want to know what is funny? Even time magazine acknowledges that all of the bullshit excuses for the civil war are just that:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2063869,00.html


Its not controversial amongst historians- The south fought the war to maintain slavery, the north fought it to maintain the union. While a union logo is not anti-slavery, a confederate one is pro-slavery or pro-ignorance.

You said inauguration. Go back and reread.

[TheRealDeal]

Gipper, I sincerely hope you are not doomed and destined to be duped by misinformation, conditioning and propaganda your entire stay here on this planet.  Time magazine? come on man.  Godspeed brother.

[pile]

this thread has taken so many different turns in unrelated directions.

[Turtle Boy]

So still no idea why he left/was kicked out of Zero?
I'm not a fan but Zero team changes are always polemical

[Zurg]

so is Lincoln on fucking ZERO or what?

[Monty Burns]

so is Lincoln on fucking ZERO or what?

fucking hell haha .


This thread is so far off course its incredible .