US Civil War: Fed vs. states

[Valerie]

Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
For the Independent Journal

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.


The Federalist Papers No. 6

 

[rightwinger]

You really don't understand America do you? The Government did not have anything to do with the Railroads. It was the railroads that were buying right of ways.
Ma Bell not the government started the communcation system in America Dams and the power grid all done by private ventures not the government.

Good start..

Now imagine if each railroad had to negotiate state by state, each with a separate gauge requirement, each with different safety and engineering standards. Same with communications and power grids. If each state developed its own standards for switching and routing you could have never developed and integrated network.

The railroads negotiated with land owners not the state. unless it was a path through Indian Territory. The standards were set by the railroads. There wasn't any government over sight for building any railroads.

No they didn't. Most of the land was federal land and they received sweetheart deals from the feds to lay critical routes. Yes, initially standards were set by each of hundreds of individual railroads. The result was that when you moved from one rail line to another the gauge would not line up.
There were also lax safety standards (guess where? The states right south) that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in rail disasters

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
For the Independent Journal

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.


The Federalist Papers No. 6

FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
For the Independent Journal.
James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good start..

Now imagine if each railroad had to negotiate state by state, each with a separate gauge requirement, each with different safety and engineering standards. Same with communications and power grids. If each state developed its own standards for switching and routing you could have never developed and integrated network.

The railroads negotiated with land owners not the state. unless it was a path through Indian Territory. The standards were set by the railroads. There wasn't any government over sight for building any railroads.

No they didn't. Most of the land was federal land and they received sweetheart deals from the feds to lay critical routes. Yes, initially standards were set by each of hundreds of individual railroads. The result was that when you moved from one rail line to another the gauge would not line up.
There were also lax safety standards (guess where? The states right south) that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in rail disasters

OH BOY do you have it wrong. Federal lands? back when America was young in the old west their was no governmen control of lands Ranchers and settlers owned the land.

 

[Charles_Main]

YouTube - ‪US Civil War: Fed vs. states‬‎

yeah I got on the news guys with something I talked about on my youtube channel. hope I did ok

Unless the Fed had the support of at least some of the states. They would not get to far in a war with the States. The Men and Women of the US military would never fight against all the States combined for the FED. The Fed would fall.

 

[rightwinger]

The railroads negotiated with land owners not the state. unless it was a path through Indian Territory. The standards were set by the railroads. There wasn't any government over sight for building any railroads.

No they didn't. Most of the land was federal land and they received sweetheart deals from the feds to lay critical routes. Yes, initially standards were set by each of hundreds of individual railroads. The result was that when you moved from one rail line to another the gauge would not line up.
There were also lax safety standards (guess where? The states right south) that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in rail disasters

OH BOY do you have it wrong. Federal lands? back when America was young in the old west their was no governmen control of lands Ranchers and settlers owned the land.

Sorry reb...back to skool for you!

Those were federal territories and most of those lands are still owned by the Federal Government.

 

[Gunny]

YouTube - ‪US Civil War: Fed vs. states‬‎

yeah I got on the news guys with something I talked about on my youtube channel. hope I did ok

Oh goody. Yet "another" Neo Civil War thread.

 

[Valerie]

The railroads negotiated with land owners not the state. unless it was a path through Indian Territory. The standards were set by the railroads. There wasn't any government over sight for building any railroads.

No they didn't. Most of the land was federal land and they received sweetheart deals from the feds to lay critical routes. Yes, initially standards were set by each of hundreds of individual railroads. The result was that when you moved from one rail line to another the gauge would not line up.
There were also lax safety standards (guess where? The states right south) that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in rail disasters

OH BOY do you have it wrong. Federal lands? back when America was young in the old west their was no governmen control of lands Ranchers and settlers owned the land.

n May 1869, the railheads of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads finally met at Promontory Summit, Utah Territory.

It has been well noted in history that these two railroads were given land grants, low interest-rate loans, and direct subsidies by the federal government. The subsidies were graduated according to the difficulty of the terrain being traversed with $16,000 paid for construction over an easy grade and up to $48,000 for grades in the mountains. Additionally, changes to the Pacific Railroad Act allowed payment of subsidies for grading which could extend as far as 300 miles ahead of the tracks being laid.

The Myth of the Great Railroad Meetup - Mark A. Pribonic - Mises Daily

 

[JWBooth]

The Men and Women of the US military would never fight against all the States combined for the FED. The Fed would fall.

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No they didn't. Most of the land was federal land and they received sweetheart deals from the feds to lay critical routes. Yes, initially standards were set by each of hundreds of individual railroads. The result was that when you moved from one rail line to another the gauge would not line up.
There were also lax safety standards (guess where? The states right south) that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in rail disasters

OH BOY do you have it wrong. Federal lands? back when America was young in the old west their was no governmen control of lands Ranchers and settlers owned the land.

n May 1869, the railheads of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads finally met at Promontory Summit, Utah Territory.

It has been well noted in history that these two railroads were given land grants, low interest-rate loans, and direct subsidies by the federal government. The subsidies were graduated according to the difficulty of the terrain being traversed with $16,000 paid for construction over an easy grade and up to $48,000 for grades in the mountains. Additionally, changes to the Pacific Railroad Act allowed payment of subsidies for grading which could extend as far as 300 miles ahead of the tracks being laid.

The Myth of the Great Railroad Meetup - Mark A. Pribonic - Mises Daily

I guess those cattlemen and ranchers had no lkand did they?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H67jv52inR4 The Men and Women of the US military would never fight against all the States combined for the FED. The Fed would fall.

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

I would make that bet. They cannot be forced to obey an unlawful order.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H67jv52inR4 The Men and Women of the US military would never fight against all the States combined for the FED. The Fed would fall.

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

Wrong. Anyone that would carry out an unlawful/unconstitutional order against the citizens of the United States are called "targets."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

YouTube - ‪US Civil War: Fed vs. states‬‎

yeah I got on the news guys with something I talked about on my youtube channel. hope I did ok

Oh goody. Yet "another" Neo Civil War thread.

Be nice plaese.
One I was told to be nice to the mods
two if you watch the video I also added you would see that its not what you think it is.

 

[JWBooth]

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

Wrong. Anyone that would carry out an unlawful/unconstitutional order against the citizens of the United States are called "targets."

Ahh by then any resistance will be nothing more than "home grown" terrorists. The sheeple will buy it because state collaborative media said so. The professional soldier will do as told, because he has been conditioned to do so, and all the evidence presented to him will back up the legal claim that he is doing right.

 

[Gunny]

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

Wrong. Anyone that would carry out an unlawful/unconstitutional order against the citizens of the United States are called "targets."

Ahh by then any resistance will be nothing more than "home grown" terrorists. The sheeple will buy it because state collaborative media said so.

Those "home grown terrorists" won the American Revolution.

I didn't know a lot of sheeple in the military. We swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution ... not a bunch of dink politicians and the sheeple that hack along after them, grabbing whatever scraps they could.

 

[JWBooth]

Wrong. Anyone that would carry out an unlawful/unconstitutional order against the citizens of the United States are called "targets."

Ahh by then any resistance will be nothing more than "home grown" terrorists. The sheeple will buy it because state collaborative media said so.

Those "home grown terrorists" won the American Revolution.

I didn't know a lot of sheeple in the military. We swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution ... not a bunch of dink politicians and the sheeple that hack along after them, grabbing whatever scraps they could.

Sheeple ~ public

We swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution ... not a bunch of dink politicians and the sheeple that hack along after them, grabbing whatever scraps they could.

And ended up in a lot of shit holes getting shot at over geopolitics that had nothing to do with the defending Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

wrong. Anyone that would carry out an unlawful/unconstitutional order against the citizens of the united states are called "targets."

ahh by then any resistance will be nothing more than "home grown" terrorists. The sheeple will buy it because state collaborative media said so.

those "home grown terrorists" won the american revolution.

I didn't know a lot of sheeple in the military. We swore to uphold and defend the us constitution ... Not a bunch of dink politicians and the sheeple that hack along after them, grabbing whatever scraps they could.

exactly

 

[Charles_Main]

The Men and Women of the US military would never fight against all the States combined for the FED. The Fed would fall.

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

No way man, I know a lot of Military, have always know a lot of Military. These are volunteer Professional Soldiers who take pride in Defending the American People. If all 50 States were against the FED. I have no Doubt the US military would not turn their weapons on American People.

Now give the Fed the support of a block of states and maybe.

 

[Gunny]

Ahh by then any resistance will be nothing more than "home grown" terrorists. The sheeple will buy it because state collaborative media said so.

Those "home grown terrorists" won the American Revolution.

I didn't know a lot of sheeple in the military. We swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution ... not a bunch of dink politicians and the sheeple that hack along after them, grabbing whatever scraps they could.

Sheeple ~ public

We swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution ... not a bunch of dink politicians and the sheeple that hack along after them, grabbing whatever scraps they could.

And ended up in a lot of shit holes getting shot at over geopolitics that had nothing to do with the defending Constitution.

Correction ... defending political agendas of jacked up politicians. That's a WHOLE lot different than telling us to open fire on our own.

Kind of amusing though. You lefties that whined your asses off about Kent State all of a sudden think it's okay for the military to go after conservatives.

Not much hypocrisy there ....

 

[JWBooth]

The Men and Women of the US military would never fight against all the States combined for the FED. The Fed would fall.

Dont bet the rent money on it. For the most part they will point their weapons where ordered.

Look up what happened to the bonus army sometime. It may have been a long time ago, but, those were WWI vets, many of them decorated vets that they went after.

No way man, I know a lot of Military, have always know a lot of Military. These are volunteer Professional Soldiers who take pride in Defending the American People. If all 50 States were against the FED. I have no Doubt the US military would not turn their weapons on American People.

Now give the Fed the support of a block of states and maybe.

There will never be a block of states that will try to go out on their own. Too wedded to the govt. teat.