and not one thing i said in there was to flame or  anything if u wanted me to flame i would call u something like a eccentric little pric who doesn't know his history or the world history

Go back to school and learn some history or watch the history channel sometimes most of what is in my post is right from the history books and none of it is pointed toward anyone its examples

Slavery in Canada - We were not tought this in school.

Right, but the real problem is, the candidates you are allowed to choose from have already been chosen by the "powers that be."  In other words, the big corporations and the super-rich could care less which of the two candidates (democrat or republican, Obama or McCain) you choose - they've already bought both of them, and they control them both.  This is why nothing ever changes.

Agree - wrong, dead wrong.  Whoever thinks the president doesn't hold the power hasn't been watching what's happened to our government the last 150 years - the creation of an "imperial president."

The president does whatever he wants, whenever he wants.  Nobody can stop him.  Nobody dare try.  The congress is a meaningless rubber stamp.  Bush totally ignored congressional laws against wiretapping (FISA), in fact broke them knowing he was breaking them.  Congress did nothing.  Bush also eviscerated the Constitution (no more habeus corpus - the crowning achievement of western civilization, over 1000 years in the making).  Bush Justice Department guys (John Woo, etc.) declared to the congress (I saw it on national TV) that Bush could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, and nobody could stop him.  When one senator asked whether Bush could have the testicles of the boy of a terrorist suspect crushed in front of the terrorist suspect in order to get him to talk, Woo said "yes."

Bush set the precedent, and now Obama is following it.  Obama has declared that he can have any american citizen killed, anywhere, at any time, with no arrest, no trial, no jury, no verdict, no nothing, merely on suspicion of "being a threat."

1. That was a long time ago.  Things have changed.

2. If you hadn't noticed, they don't even bother declaring war anymore.  The congress has basically given up its power to declare war.  The president just sends troops whervever he wants, whenever he wants.

If I could rip out part of your sentence and modify it as such, I would in large part agree with it: "A big part of the the reason for the civil war was the South saw the wealthy, industrialized Northern states as trying to ...[deleted]... keep the South poor so they could control the economy."

At any rate, the real and only reason for the civil war was that the south seceded, and the north forced them back into the union by force.  Something like half a million people killed just to prevent half the country, who didn't want to stay, from leaving.  So much for "freedom of association," I guess.

EDIT: The term "Civil War" is actually a misnomer.  A civil war is where two or more sides are fighting to control the same government.  But the south didn't want to control the US government.  It left and formed its own government and country.  I prefer the term "War of Secession."

The north used slavery more then the south.  The war had nothing to do with slavery.  The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

All 100% correct.

I agree, but I'll go you one better than that.  If the north hadn't made war on the south after the south seceded, then the war would not have occurred.  Sounds simple enough to me.

It has always failed me why people think that Lincoln fought the war over slavery.  I guess the victors of a war always write the history - in this case the north.  At any rate, Lincoln said time and time again that he was not fighting the war over slavery, rather he was fighting the war to save the Union.

One of his quotes on why he was fighting the war:

"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."

source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

Some "racist" or "white supremacist" quotes from Lincoln, and I have read many more:

"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." [referring to negroes]

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white 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."

"I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."

"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougeism as this?"

"You and I are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other races. Whether it be right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

Ok, now having read all comments, I have 2 observations:

1. I am impressed with the knowledge and insight of most of the posters.  While I can see Sin's aversion to making this about slavery, at least those discussing it seem to be doing so in a rational and intelligent manner.

2. Agent's post on 9-11 was a trolling post!  But very well done as it got some heated discussion going.

Kudos to most all posting here.  The comments are well worth the read .

I am safe in affirming, that the proofs of genius given by the Indians of North America place them on a level with whites in the same uncultivated state. The North of Europe furnishes subjects enough for comparison with them, and for a proof of their equality. I have seen some thousands myself, and conversed much with them, and have found in them a masculine, sound understanding. I have had much information from men who had lived among them, and whose veracity and good sense were so far known to me, as to establish a reliance on their information. They have all agreed in bearing witness in favor of the genius of this people. As to their bodily strength, their manners rendering it disgraceful to labor, those muscles employed in labor will be weaker with them, than with the European laborer; but those which are exerted in the chase, and those faculties which are employed in the tracing an enemy or a wild beast, in contriving ambuscades for him, and in carrying them through their execution, are much stronger than with us, because they are more exercised. I believe the Indian, then, to be, in body and mind, equal to the white man. I have supposed the black man, in his present state, might not be so; but it would be hazardous to affirm, that, equally cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so.  -Thomas Jefferson

"Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of color in the white race, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black that covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, and their own judgment in favor of the whites, declared by the preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Orangutan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? . . .

"They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep. . . . They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous. . . . The Indians will astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, and their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration. . . .

"In music, they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time. . . . I believe that disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favor no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favor of others. . . Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity. The opinion that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations . . . where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them."

Thomas Jefferson--From Notes on Virginia, 1785

I do like Jefferson because of his duality. The equal rights of man while owning slaves, the Louisiana Purchase while knowing a large republic is not good and went against the constitution. I am trying to find the quote where he said having 1000 representatives will get nothing done and it will only be ruled by a few anyway.

"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389

The rich are an argument for another thread, and you are correct for the most part.  However, Washington did use his wealth for the new nation (for the most part) and yes, he sure used Martha's as well.  There are other examples of what you describe, but I think GW is a bad one.

Your supposition about GW aside, I agree again.  Today it is instant gratification, not working for the goal.  Then credit was not something on a card, and most did not have access to it readily.  We are distracted by what we are supposed to want, but in reality do not need.  There is no hunger that the founders had to get what the Jones have.  instead, Ye Olde Banke can lend you the money to get it now (instead of working for it) and no need to fret about the Jones having more (until the bill comes due).

We are being told, willingly I will add, that we want and need all this fooferaw.  When in reality, we do not.  But it is nice to have it, even if you are a wet behind the ears 18 year old that has no skills or training for an occupation much less a career.

Jefferson did pull one illegal maneuver but it was so beneficial it is overlooked.. The Louisiana purchase was done without the approval of Congress...We actually have a lot to thank Haiti for on that one.. Napoleon had just bought Louisiana from the spanish and was going to move 8,000 troops there.  At this time Haiti was having their revolution against france..They defeated the first 8000 that were supposed to go there so the other 8000 that were supposed to go to louisiana were then sent to Haiti.  they were defeated too and Haiti won its independence.  Because of this Napoleon decided to sell louisiana to us since he couldn't effectively defend it and needed more cash for his war in Europe. 

Kharma -

Much as I've disagreed with you on other subjects, on this you are mostly dead on.

My only quibble is your politicization/bias concerning Bush.  He didn't 'eviscerate the Constitution' - he merely enforced the distinction as to whom it applied, appropriately in my view, denying its protections & benefits to non-citizens.  FDR did precisely the same thing, on a far greater scale.  As for the right of habeus corpus, Bush did not suspend it for US citizens... that was Lincoln.

No, and I did not want to get into this on this thread (preferring to try to keep to the theme of the OP).  What I meant is that there are some who are born to wealth and do not have to earn it (that is what I thought you were saying).  While there are not many, there are some, and while I do not cotton to their way of life, I will not try to confiscate what their ancestors created for them (it is a slippery slope that I do not want to start).  Studies have shown that most of the wealthy earned it, but until (and hopefully never) there is 100% inheritance tax, there will always be those who do not earn it.

The Chicken or the egg.  I say it is the egg, you the chicken.  I believe easy credit is the catalyst for the instant gratification that we see today.  When you remove the puffery and hyperbole, easy credit is just putting a higher price on a good or service.  The time value of money says that a dollar today is worth more than tomorrow.  Banks know this so that is why interest rates are usually higher than the devaluation of money.  Thus, while that new car you want has a sticker of $25k, when you factor in the devaluattion of the money and the finance rate, it is closer to $26k in today's dollars.  Still it is not going to cost you the $30k (all numbers are just for example) that you actually shell out over the life of the loan, due to the fact that your money today is worth more than it is tomorrow.  Most people do not actually think about it at all, and just see how much they can afford.  But that is what is driving the money lenders as they have to think about it.  And in actual fact, people do make decisions based upon economics, they just do not realize they are doing it.

As an anecdote, I graduated back in the 70s when interest rates went through the roof!  I had student loans (which of course seemed onerous at the time), but the rate on them was 3%!  My new wife wanted me to pay them off as soon as possible, but I told her with Inflation going at 10%+, the loan was actually saving us money!  As even passbook savings were paying 5% and more at the time.