Certainly that is truth, it is just such an exodus will be difficult when they control all the strings, that was sort of why Charter Schools came into being, and they still stick their greedy claws into them...

Yes, and the "good" part of him is what was emphasized in my schoolbook. But I found out about his anti-Semitism later, from a book in the Waynesboro library. And later I read some really shocking stuff (some of it in The Objectivist magazine, which carried some chapters from The Ominous Parallels by Peikoff, before it came out as a book). And I've read other stuff, too.
But my point about him was merely: the we have an educational "establishment" in this country, which is another sort of establishment leading to thought control. And I don't think it is going to be reformed from within, but by a sort of exodus from it (that is, if we're lucky).

Well he certainly was, and he also wandered around in his position, and I would have to say it sounds a lot like the Christian/Muslim war today. He did a lot to break the corrupt Church of it's stranglehold on power and wealth though.

I do not really like Martin Luther much, because he
was so bigoted and anti-Semitic; I believe he even
went along with executing Baptists. But I kind of respect him, because he did a lot to break the former near-monopoly, whatever that's worth.

If you want to start a thread based on that book, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But you are presenting that book and its conclusions as the only possible truth, ignoring the documents written by the people who were actually involved at the time. And then you have the gall to suggest that anyone who doesn't take this book as "gospel truth" to be ignorant savages unworthy of a discussion - that they can't possibly be objective. I'd be very careful making such claims when they are so apt to bite you in the face.

Absolutely! And that was likely only about another twenty years in the future. The steam engine had already been invented, but its size and weight made it cumbersome to employ in mobile pursuits (such as farming). Those hurdles would be overcome early in the 20th century - set back by decades due to the war.

At the time of the signing of the Constitution, everyone there knew and agreed that slavery was on a decline and would naturally die out. Why? Because cotton only grew in the deep South and was labor intensive to produce - that labor being supplied primarily by slaves. Then someone found a new strain of cotton that could grow outside the deep south and Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Now suddenly cotton could not only be processed more efficiently, but be grown in a wider variety of climes. Slaveholding States were presented with an excuse to press for more States to own slaves and to perpetuate this offense against natural rights. And this is precisely what we saw in the early 1800's to 1840's - political conflict arising from a desire to protect through government an industry that should have died due to competitive forces.

Another thing that should be noted is that political influence during the Declaration of Independence and Constitution relied heavily on Virginia. The combined vote of the South - especially Virginia - could block any major legislation. As immigration picked up, however, it was vastly to benefit the Northern States in population - and therefore voters and voting power. The House saw its representation slowly creep toward those favoring Abolition. The trend was indisputable and the 3/5 Compromise was a last-gasp effort to buy time for the South to change while it could. Instead, however, they merely entrenched themselves. They failed to innovate and adapt and more importantly they failed to live up to their own standards in the Declaration of Independence.

I agree that the slaves were an integral part of the economy of the South. That does not ignore the facts however that those in the Southern States persisted in supporting an industry that violated natural rights and they were perfectly aware of this fact. That they had to be forced to change their minds through bloodshed was a product of their own doing. They could have forged a different path, but their ideology was far more important to them than freedom and equity. Even if Jefferson Davis had been elected President of the United States instead of Lincoln, it wouldn't have changed the demographic trends. It would only have stalled the inevitable another four years. Indeed, a census would have taken place in 1860 had not the nation split. Thus the vitriol and hate for Lincoln is sorely misplaced. If not him, it would have been the next abolitionist elected President - likely in 1864.

It was best demonstrated by hillary’s Slogan “stronger together”. The biggest gang. Gets the goodies that are out there is what she meant- and she was the biggest gangster of all. I don’t remember her talking about people making themselves stronger by working at all. She fed off other people with the Clinton foundation, selling favors from the government she was going to run- and she attracted followers who thought they would share in the loot

And you are ignoring the other sources that have been carefully researched by a respected historian that disagree with your opinion. Waste of time talking to you on a subject that you are closed to objective discussion. Keep on talking though you are ignored.

I'm reading from the letters published by the seceding States declaring their intents and perceived offenses. This isn't any kind of revisionist history and you are disingenuous to suggest any such.

All of the history you cite comes from the sources controlled by the victors of the war who have a vested interest in making themselves appear to be heroes regardless of the facts.
You have to consider the rest of the story that has been suppressed because it is an embarrassment to the state and that has been published in DiLorenzo's books.
Until you open your mind to that we have nothing to discuss. I won't respond to more of the same. It's a complete waste of time.

It's part of the downside of being a social animal, Whether it's herd or pack, acceptance by others of our kind is part of what keeps us sane and confident. The challenge is to make the fine distinction between independence and isolation. Independent thought and action by individuals is necessary for the betterment of the group, while isolation serves neither the individual nor the group.

Yet everything is geared to "groupthink". Kids are worried about what others think, advertising drives to that insecurity in everything from clothes to music to entertainment, to products. It is hard to tell people to stand on their own and stop worrying about everyone else, when they have been bred to "belong".

Blarman, your statement of facts to point to the fact they spoke of slaves, however, remember, slaves were considered to be like tractors. When you spoke of them, you spoke of property as well as the ability to even farm at all. With cotton being the primary cash crop and export, they HAD to have slavery to make it work. Ergo, abolishing slavery, would abolish the plantation, and thus a major chunk of the economy. The emotional aspect was that everyone was attached to slavery as a de-facto right, natural order of things, like item. I think the 2 were synonymous.

Interesting. Now, supposed Eli Whitney came alongwith a cotton picking machine instead of the gin, the gin sped up processing and so the demand for cotton rose, and output doubled every 10 years from 1800, so by 1850, the pressure was huge to grow and pick cotton, the one thing that only human labor could do. Prices fell as volumes increased, making it even harder to keep the south going.

Yes, I just aw a couple specials on Martin Luther, and he had to use the Bible itself and the church's obvious abrogation of it, for the rebellion. Look at how bad the rebellion was, too, it was very violent, and killed many people. One would have to fight with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and people would defend it with the million pages of laws made since, with "these laws were made from that" making them just as good, even when bad.

That seems to be a real problerm, in that outside and global pressure is totally counter to Objectivism, as it encourages group think, group action group everything. Success is measured in groups and numbers. Politics is based on groups and damn the individuals rights. Reminds me of an episode on the Orville (Fox) where they landed on a planet where everything was based on each person up voting or downvoting, which seemed a lot like what we see today, the mob mentality at it peak.

Yes, I think there is a great deal to that. I remember
how "college, college, college" was pushed on me when I was in high school. But when I saw it was not going to get me the career I wanted, I decided not to go.
Ayn Rand seemed to think that people should go to fight the educational establishment "from within", but, excuse me, I did not intend to go just for a crusade, if it was not career-oriented.
But if this country is to be saved, I do not think the educational establishment will be reformed from within.(Not to be religious, but Martin Luther saw he could not reform the Catholic Church from within, so he left and started his own). I think that if this country is to be saved, the home-schooling movement will play a significant part. And then there are private-enterprise schools.
I remember how my classmates in grade school stumbled and stumbled over words in reading; I could read easily, since my mother, a high school drop-out, had taught me phonics before I went to school.

Here's a great website with timelines and reasons for the Civil War: http://www.civil-conflict.org/civil-w...

I would clarify my words: No state "officially" seceded until after the election, but several had already brought such motions to their States' legislatures for ratification and had published their full intention to secede. The official declaration was merely a formality. Seven states formally announced secession prior to Lincoln's inauguration in March - five of those within a month of the election results. They had made up their minds. Lincoln's election was the last inch on the football field - not a drastic and decisive revolt against oppression and tyranny.

If you go here (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777..., you can read South Carolina's letter, which talks not a word about tariffs, but dwells exclusively on slavery.

Next, the Georgia letter also dwells most heavily on slavery, and curiously even admits that during the signing of the Constitution it was acknowledged that slavery was to be done away with.

Mississippi's letter again spends its time in the historical grievances of slaveholding States towards their anti-slaveholding brothers. Not a hint of economic considerations.

So tell me: what am I missing here that is more important than what the actual people involved in the secession chose to make part of their official declarations?

I don't hate Lincoln. I didn't know him to hate him. You haven't read DiLorenzo's books on the cause of the war. Until you have taken time to read the evidence there is no point in further discussion.
No states seceded before the election. None.

That's nonsense. Several States in the South had seceded prior to the election even taking place. What happened was that the vote was split between FOUR candidates, of which three were essentially the same platform - support for slavery. Lincoln won with only 30% of the vote as member of a brand new party: the Republican Party. And following the election and prior to inauguration, several more States seceded. The Civil War started before Lincoln ever took office.

Don't let your hate of Lincoln get in the way of objectively looking at the Civil War. If one looks at the political history going back to the 1820's leading up to the Missouri Compromise and later the Kansas-Nebraska Act, one can see that slavery was the primary motivator for many political decisions for decades before Lincoln ever got involved in politics. You can look no further than Georgia's letter of secession (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777...) to see that the South's desire to maintain slavery was still the primary cause of their gripes - not tariffs. The truth was that the South had pigeon-holed themselves into a single industry and economic life: cotton raised on slavery. They were getting competed out of business by the North who was technologically superior and had developed machinery and mechanized industry which was far superior and efficient than the hand-labor the South depended on.

Xenophobia, the fear of that which is different, is an innate part of human survival instinct. In primitive circumstances, it engenders caution when dealing with new vegetation/fungus/fruit (is it edible or will it kill me?), new animals (is it edible, or will it kill me?), and other humans that look/sound/smell different (less emphasis on edible, but the same uncertainty about a potentially deadly enemy). Without xenophobia, we run the risk of dying before we know what's going on.

Because it's so much a part of our primitive instincts, manipulating people by relying on the fear motivation is easier than influencing by reason. Whether or not the arguments about how dangerous a particular segment of the population is pass the logical test is less important to our primitive brain than to our higher intellect.

Creating an educational system that emphasizes our victimhood undermines our self confidence, which is a product of logical thinking. That societal tool, convincing the population that they are vulnerable and somewhat helpless is what makes it easy to identify a segment of our neighbors as "dangerous." It also makes it easier to convince the "victims" that their glorious leader is the only one who can save them.

Only by reinforcing a populace's sense of empowerment and confidence can we make them less likely to fall for identity politics. Educating Americans about the strength of individual freedom inherent in American culture can serve that purpose.

The universities are part of the whole machine, that says your useless, bigoted education endows you with special qualities that a normal person does not. That lie has been perpetrated since the end of WW2 when the GI bill made degrees easy and free, and all of a sudden, within 5 years, it went from something the top 2-3% had to what 30-40 % had.

The cure? Individualism. How to get people to accept it? It won't be easy, and it won't be soon, but
perhaps a nationwide boycott of the universities. But who would join such a boycott? Perhaps many young people who see that it is not a good idea to get all indebted, with very little chance of
getting a job out of it.

Nothing's really changed, "it" all started from our childhood when we first started playing "it". Remember "You're It"? Today "it" is more prevalent and fine tuned by the democrats and the left, and now we're all just more aware of "it". I think "it" might have really intensified right around the time that Bill Clinton tried to redefine "is".