Did the Civil War create world Socialism?

[BrianMcCandliss]

Events of the 20th century have, in hindsight-propaganda, been attributed to various causes-- none of which make much real sense, or carry much factual accuracy.
It's a fact, that socialism swept over most of the world during the 20th century, and resulted in the deaths of over 1/10 the world's population through starvation, war, and outright murder. Likewise, this threatened most of the world population with nuclear annhilation-- and now results in a corporate and military industrial super-complex which has become an unstoppable juggernaut.

However, socialism only results from severe destabilization of national economic and political infrastructures, as to lead them to extremes; this is precisely what the post-Civil War US agitated in the 20th century.
Without the Civil War and resultant forcing of the states into a single pseudo-nation, the individual states became helpless to oppose both a central bank, and their forced intervention into self-serving escapades by special interests. For example, the Federal Reserve Act, the income tax, and the US intervention into WWI resulted in the Great Depression, the sacking of Germany, and the creation of the USSR, as well as the rise of the socialist Japanese Worker's Party; this devastation and empowerment likewise quickly led to the rise of worldwide socialism, leading to Third Reich, as well as the Rape of Nanking and the forced US entry into WWII-- basically gifting Stalin with half the globe, and nuclear weapons-- likewise resulting in the Cold War.

Without the Civil War, the states would have remained sovereign, and thus would have no indvidual interest in a common central bank; nor would they allow their citizens to be drafted to die on behalf of intervention in foreign squabbles. As a result, the Great Depression would have been circumvented entirely via simple free-market self-correction mechanisms, while WWI would have resulted in a simple standoff, and the probably decline of socialism out of its inherent inefficiency. In short, WWI would have fizzled.

In contrast, US intervention upset the balance of power in Europe, touching off a blaze which consumed the world in mass-socialism-- as well as current debacles in the Middle East from lingering fascism there, as well as land-struggles between oil-rich muslims and religious conflicts, thanks to conflicts between fanatical muslims and post-holocaust displacement and US government-created oil-addiction.

This isn't surprising, since the US had such great wealth and potential, which was turned to evil via the Civil War; it's only natural that this would lead to economic and political devastation during ensuing years. Likewise, the totalitarian control of information, which was likewise covert via the front of "free speech" (which meant speech with supported corporate statism), resulted in a self-perpetuating disaster.

[williamlayton]

NO!
Blessings

[BrianMcCandliss]

And upon what reasoning and argumentation, do you make such an absolute denial?

And where do you find fault with mine?

[williamlayton]

There is evidence and history of many socialist societies since the written recorh was created.
Blessings

[BrianMcCandliss]

There is evidence and history of many socialist societies since the written recorh was created.
Blessings

Indeed; as early as 400 BC, Aristotle expicitly states, in his famous book "Politics," that communism doesn't work. This is PRECISELY why it would take a mass-intervention to CAUSE it to prosper so violently in such an advanced age as the 20th century!

Thus, I'm talking about the tide of world socialism which swept the globe during the 20th century: Bolshevism, Naziism, Communism, and general modern liberalism in the West. All of this was permitted by the Civil War's consolidation of the free and independent states, into a single sovereign empire.

Consider: Lincoln's Whig-party agenda was no secret, being crafted in 1842 under Henry Clay as a "mutual cooperation" between business and government-- i.e. socialism. This surfaces as state-control of all private property-- beginning with the indidual states; this served as a premonition of the later consolidation of the Balkan states under Bolshevism in 1917-- which, not coincidentally, coincided with US entry into WWI, tipping the balance-of-power against Kaiser Wilhelm, costing him the  armistice against Lenin.

This likewise resulted from the formation of the American Central bank via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, along with the Income Tax Amendment ratified in the same year; these events were only made possible via consolidation of the states via the Civil War.

Likewise, this resulted in the Great Depression; these events so  de-stabilized the region to create both the formation of the USSR and the Third Reich; likewise, our later alliance with Stalin, sealed the fate of the Eastern Hemisphere.

Since communism doesn't work, this would have all been impossible without US intervention-- which took place primarily due to the same type of corruption and special-interests which caused the Union to attack the South in the first place. There was NO legal authority-- this was simply a trumped-up excuse to further Lincoln's socialist agendas and serve his supporting special-interests.

[BrianMcCandliss]

There is evidence and history of many socialist societies since the written recorh was created.
Blessings

My point exactly-- but to the opposite effect: as early as 400 BC, Aristotle expicitly states, in his famous book "Politics," that communism doesn't work. This is PRECISELY why it would take a mass-intervention to CAUSE it to prosper so violently in such an advanced age as the 20th century!

Thus, I'm talking about the tide of world socialism which swept the globe during the 20th century, raping the planet and murdering TENTHS of the population: Bolshevism, Naziism, Communism, and general modern liberalism in the West. All of this was permitted by the Civil War's consolidation of the free and independent states, into a single sovereign empire.

Consider: Lincoln's Whig-party agenda was no secret, being crafted in 1842 under Henry Clay as a "mutual cooperation" between business and government-- i.e. socialism.

 This surfaced as state-control of all private property-- beginning with the indidual states; this served as a premonition of the later consolidation of the Balkan states under Bolshevism in 1917-- which, not coincidentally, coincided with US entry into WWI, tipping the balance-of-power against Kaiser Wilhelm, costing him the  armistice against Lenin.

This likewise resulted from the formation of the American Central bank via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, along with the Income Tax Amendment ratified in the same year; these events were only made possible via consolidation of the states via the Civil War.

Likewise, this resulted in the Great Depression; these events so  de-stabilized the region to create both the formation of the USSR and the Third Reich; likewise, our later alliance with Stalin, sealed the fate of the Eastern Hemisphere.

Since communism doesn't work, this would have all been impossible without US intervention-- which took place primarily due to the same type of corruption and special-interests which caused the Union to attack the South in the first place. There was NO legal authority-- this was simply a trumped-up excuse to further Lincoln's socialist agendas and serve his supporting special-interests.

[maggot]

You're right on BrianMcCandliss!!!

[BrianMcCandliss]

It's unfortunate that we have the standard version of history regarding these events, i.e. "a bad person in another country did it."

Kinda like cheap science-fiction, where every inexplicable or unfortunate event is rationalized as "an evil wizard did it."

The result, is now we have a control-freak mentality in the US, dominated by a paranoid warmongering mindset of the world being a place that seeks to devour us if we let our guard down; that's why now we have military control everyplace on the globe in order to prevent it.

Not only does that make every nation hate the US, but it also places a great drain on our resources-- as well as our freedom.

No one wants to look at the facts, and realize that "we has met the enemy, and they is us."

However, anyone who analyzes the evidence objectively, can see this plainly-- however one must start from the point of accepting that the US invasion of the Confederate states was an ILLEGAL and imperialist act.

[JBMauser]

"Thus, I'm talking about the tide of world socialism which swept the globe during the 20th century, raping the planet and murdering TENTHS of the population: Bolshevism, Nazism, Communism, and general modern liberalism in the West. All of this was permitted by the Civil War's consolidation of the free and independent states, into a single sovereign empire. "

Boy is this an exercise in self importance (US ego  as self)  Our civil war was a blip on the world scene.  Other than a forum for rapid arms development and the resultant change in troop deployment and tactics.  WE Made No real difference to the Real Power of the planet.  Europe (where all other afore mentioned ism's bloomed) was in it's slow progression from the French Rev.  The industrial revolution and the ability to create wealth outside of the land.  through in the various wars and consolidations that occurred there after our civil war.  Then the Big one where lives were not only wasted but on a level of loss that was beyond rational consideration.  This coupled with world depression created a backlash to the Old systems and turned power upside down.  Now if you said there was no First World War then you could say there would be no Russian Rev and Bolshevism would not have the traction sto survive and there would not have been  a treaty of Versailles (sic) and no punishment of Germany and the National Socialist could not have rose to power.  I guess you have to consider the world by trying to remove events and then consider the change.  If you removed OUR civil war would the events in Europe have changed, I think not.  The Franco Prussian war would still have occurred which was the festering wound that could be seen as the prelude to the big one.  But take the First World War off the table and most of the ism,s would not have gained traction.  The elements of socialism, communism and National Socialism have been with us as noted for years but they would have remained factions and not forces if not for the first world war, not the American Civil War.  IMHO  JB

[BrianMcCandliss]

"Thus, I'm talking about the tide of world socialism which swept the globe during the 20th century, raping the planet and murdering TENTHS of the population: Bolshevism, Nazism, Communism, and general modern liberalism in the West. All of this was permitted by the Civil War's consolidation of the free and independent states, into a single sovereign empire. "

Boy is this an exercise in self importance (US ego  as self)  Our civil war was a blip on the world scene.

More like yours is an exercise in the small-minded, myopic view of history as a series of isolated incidents, rather than continuous stream of cause-and-effect. National authority over the states, had HUGE impact on world events in the 20th century, since it basically stemmed from the US becoming a socialist emire-- compared to a union of FREE AND INDEPENDENT states-- touching off a global blaze of world-socialism in the following century.

Other than a forum for rapid arms development and the resultant change in troop deployment and tactics. WE Made No real difference to the Real Power of the planet.

What? "No real difference?" The US controlled more wealth during the 20th century, than most of these other WWI nations combined!  And this wealth was likewise consolidated under federal control, thanks to the Civil War! Otherwise, every state would have remained a sovereign nation unto itself.

Unless you're under the delusion that war has nothing to do with economics, then it's clear that the US had a MAJOR impact on Europe due to both military and economic intervention (WWI, the US and world bank, WWII etc).
I don't like saying this, but you REALLY need to start doing your homework, since you're WAY off on all of this.

Europe (where all other afore mentioned ism's bloomed) was in it's slow progression from the French Rev.  The industrial revolution and the ability to create wealth outside of the land.  through in the various wars and consolidations that occurred there after our civil war.  Then the Big one where lives were not only wasted but on a level of loss that was beyond rational consideration.  This coupled with world depression created a backlash to the Old systems and turned power upside down.  Now if you said there was no First World War then you could say there would be no Russian Rev and Bolshevism would not have the traction sto survive and there would not have been  a treaty of Versailles (sic) and no punishment of Germany and the National Socialist could not have rose to power.  I guess you have to consider the world by trying to remove events and then consider the change.  If you removed OUR civil war would the events in Europe have changed, I think not.

You can say that again-- you DON'T think. If the states had remained sovereign, then US involvement in WWI would not have occurred, due to the lack of a central bank, a federal income-tax, or a federal draft-- or the ability of the US to force individual states into a war against their will by federal fiat, drafting their citizens to fight on foreign shores in foreign wars which held no US interest etc.
Rather, states could have NULLIFIED the federal income tax, bank and draft-- or SECEDED ENTIRELY.
However, the Civil War made the Union into an empire-- an EVIL empire.

This is really pretty obvious, since many states considered seceding over the war of 1812-- which other states had provoked, embroiling them in such entanglements.

If the US had stayed neutral in WWI rather than getting into it via special-interest meddlings-- mainly JP Morgan, and chairman Benjamin Strong of the US Federal Reserve-- not to mention one President Woody Wilson, the biggest dictator since Abe himself-- then WWI would have ended much sooner, and with much less cost.
Also, you seem to treat the Great Depression like some sort of natural disaster or "act of God," and completely remove the Civil War as the primordial cause. By consolidating the states under quasi-socialism, the central bank and Federal Reserve systems were created-- which previously had been blocked by anti-federalist forces within the various states.
Afterward, however, the states had no sovereign power to oppose such usurpations by absolute supreme central control over the now-national economy, and so the Federal Reserve system was able to commandeer the econonomy, having full power with zero accountability-- even Franklin said "the king's cheese is 9/10 wasted, but no matter, 'tis made with the people's milk."
This was precisely the case with the Great Depression, which even liberal economists now admit was caused by the Federal Reserve and socialized fiscal-policy.
If not for the Civil War, this could not have happened, since the states would have remained sovereign-- hence preserving free-market forces which would have precluded such a calamity via forcing natural corrections in the market and economy-- corrections that were instead sold out to political expedience by the federal government, resulting in tapping out the entire US economy to junk-loans at home and abroad, basically hanging the world-economy by a thread, particularly after the devastation due to US intervention in WWI.
And threads break.

As such, the devastation which created both Bolshevism and Naziism-- as well as the socialist upsrisings in Japan-- would have never occurred, if the US had remained a union of sovereign nation-states.

You, like too many, are clearly illiterate with regard to politics and their various economic underpinnings-- but rather seem to take a "Forrest Gump" view that life is a box of chocolates, and "things just happen," i.e. history is controlled by an idiot.

On the contary, the US easily controlled more wealth during WWI than all the other nations combined; this is precisely WHY the Great Depression caused such global havoc, since they were so indebted to the US bank; as such, when their loans were called in, entire economies collapsed into socialism-- particularly due to WWI war-debts, which were so exacerbated due to US involvement prolonging the war.

The Franco Prussian war would still have occurred which was the festering wound that could be seen as the prelude to the big one.  But take the First World War off the table and most of the ism,s would not have gained traction.  The elements of socialism, communism and National Socialism have been with us as noted for years but they would have remained factions and not forces if not for the first world war, not the American Civil War.  IMHO  JB

Um... NO. Remove AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT, and socialism wouldn't have gained traction. All offensive wars are fought for profit; hence, US involvement turned it into a DEFENSIVE war on more than one front, by fiancing continued action far beyond the perceivable gain on either side, and turning a termination by conditional cease-fire, into one by unconditional surrender.
Simply put, the war cost a LOT MORE due to US involvement-- because it COULD cost more, once the US started shelling out.

It  only stands to reason that wars only last so long as at least one side perceives an economic benefit of some sort. As such, the US intervention in a purely domestic matter involving the balance-of-power between European nations, completely tipped this balance against Germany-- and in favor of Lenin and Stalin.
This permitted Bolshevism to succeed-- likewise, this and the devastation caused by the Great Depression also fueled socialism, and  the Third Reich rose as a counter-measure to the threat of Soviet invasion in German-bloc nations... and history proves that, in spades.

It would be quite foolish, to suggest that Soviet plans for world-conquest began only after WWII-- particularly since socialism is inherently imperialistic, consuming everything in its path; this is, in fact, the reason for the US involvement in WWI. While popular myth holds that the US was "helping its allies," the reality is that these "allies" got themselves into trouble, and the US was simply expanding its power by using the war as a means to expand its influence and claims overseas, thus likewise engaging in masked imperialism.

So to recap: without the national authority achieved by the Civil War, world socialism would not have transpired. The Civil War was, after all, a socialist coup by the Republican-nee-Whig party, which was likewise socialist; and so it's no surprise that this touched off a blaze of socialism that engulfed the world.

[JBMauser]

I don't know where to begin, well we will start with wealth.  What did the US wealth have to do with Power as it related to world military power.  The US did not cause a blip on the world scene until TR Sent the Great White Fleet around the world and bam whe caught the attention of the world.  I grant you the US had great resources but the forces that drove socialism have all to do with the fact that LAND in europe was and had always been held by the few.  the elite.  Why do you think European Socialism never took hold here Why do you think the American spirt is forged with individualism.  It is because we have and had land.  
A man could own more land than he could care for.  True personal propery. As for the first World War, if you read any history The US had no deciding effect in the action We go into it very late.  And the straw that broke the German resolve came from the actions form the thrust up the middle of Europe and not the Western Front.  I agree Wilson cost us dearly and I agree tha there were the few that got us in on the English Side.  20% of our population at the time were German and the only reason we went with the Brits was $$$$ we were into them for huge bucks.  The money boys wanted to protect their exposure.  So ... That does not support you argument.  If we threw in with the Germans they would not have folded as they would have had the manpower they could not replace on their own.  If anything it is an example of the rawest form of capitalism.  Yes the War was all about Money,  Our money and as I said the War was the catalyst that fostered the ferment that turned the world upside down.  But it was not our corruption that affected the tipping point.  
I do not make personal comments as you seem to like to sneak into your comments with is the typical liberal tactic.  (maybe one)  but if you spent as much time in study of Marx and lenin you may see that the only thing that the USA had to do with ANYTHING was that their vision was that their revolution would take place in a highly developed industrial country like German (and us)  Not some backward mess like Russia.  

It seems to me that you discount the force private ownership of land and the vast area that was settled after the Civil War.  Our population (men) became mobile and saw beyond their own county and the ginie was out of the bottle and I don't just refer to carpetbagers.  

Where did I make any comment to the great depression?  I only spoke of the crushing of Germany's economy by the French demands.  This festering wound had a direct effect on the ability of Adolph to rise to power.  And No, the Us depression had nothing to do with the fact that the Allies destroyed the German economy.  Are you making this stuff up?  If the US had no depression Germany would still have suffered for years and the rise of the Nationalist Socialis party would/could still have happened.  The German people were terrified by the communists who were killing everyone.  Anyone who woud protect them form them would win the primary so to speak.

"You, like too many, are clearly illiterate with regard to politics and their various economic underpinnings-- but rather seem to take a "Forrest Gump" view that life is a box of chocolates, and "things just happen," i.e. history is controlled by an idiot. "

Look, I know much of what you know and maybe some you don't.  I just think I look at it all with an open mind.  You seem to have a preconcieved notion of the US as the cause of all corruption and ill and so you see everyting as supporting that conculsion.  

Yes the countries of Europe owed the US big time and their payments did drain their cofferes but  even Wilson knew what they did at Versieles to Germany would come back to cause more grief.

Now here you are making stuff up - flat out made up!  The Russian revolution Started as a revolt of the army (Lenin was called home because it had started!  He assumed it started in
Germany where they were working to start it!!!!  (the bad USA was not holding his coat.....)  The commies came in and co-0pted the revoluotion. And Lenin did not charge his train ride on a US charge card.  He got his money form GERMANY to disrupt their enemy.  How can you get the banks into this, with a shoe horn and an adjenda?

I would suggest you climb down off your soap box and walk to the library.  IT IS ALL THERE if you take the time to read it.  JB

[maggot]

BrianMcCandliss, i wonder how long it will be till you figure out you can't change some peoples mind. I, and some others in this forum have tried to show the light to these people. The fact is that they are Right-Wingers, they believe in a strong authoratarian government. Just like the jews in bible times they wanted a man to rule over them, and God said it would be a mistake! I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm on your side.  Someday we will be free again...

[BrianMcCandliss]

BrianMcCandliss, i wonder how long it will be till you figure out you can't change some peoples mind. I, and some others in this forum have tried to show the light to these people. The fact is that they are Right-Wingers, they believe in a strong authoratarian government. Just like the jews in bible times they wanted a man to rule over them, and God said it would be a mistake! I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm on your side.  Someday we will be free again...

I'm not trying to convince them; that would involve independent variables. I'm just proving it objectively, so that the truth will out.

I'm not even going to answer him, due not only to his mass-ignorance, but moreover due to his annoying "snappy-patter" and irritating adjectives.

Actually such people are NOT right-wingers; they are LEFT-wingers, both neo-conservatives and neo-liberals. Most them are even sheep, who simply follow the herd.

In the real, classical sense, "conservative" and "liberal" mean the same thing-- which today we call "libertarian." Jefferson was both a classical liberal, in terms of his believing all men were created equal etc-- as well as a classical conservative in terms of these being the basic rights of Englishmen, ala the British Bill of Rights of 1689.

However modern neoconservatives, follow the aristocratic  Republican party-- which was established under Lincoln via the Civil War-- while modern Democrats likewise form the counterpart as the other national party.

Both parties are STATIST, not libertarian-- while the Republican party claims to be libertarian, they are in realty the biggest-spenders in history.  They claim to be "libertarian"  in their allegations of promoting "self-reliance-- which simply means cutting assistance to the people, while doing nothing to cut taxes, spending, corporate welfare and endless regulation-- and so making the rich richer, and the poor poorer-- BY FIAT, a la aristocracy.

The Democratic party is the same-- they pretend to oppose one another, but in reality they're simply playing the people for fools; their "rivalry" is all for show, as well as an actual power-struggle. But whichever party wins-- WE lose!
Like they say, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time-- that's why we have TWO parties."

As I've stated, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship; and so these neo-conservatives and neo-liberals are deluded in the notion that they can VOTE OUT corruption!

The notion that JB would actually place credence in such a failed, naive premise, is proof that there's no point in trying to convince someone who's so blind to the world-- not when they've spouting more cliche's and snappy-patter than a crack-baby spawned by Dennis Miller mating with  Robin Williams. I refuse to answer such drivel.

[JBMauser]

last comment.  I never said you can vote out the corruption of course you can't The voting public is becoming less informed and less responsible as the corruption gets closer to absolute (state schools&$$).  I also agree that the Statist movement is prevalent in both parties.  I don't have the answer. I do not see a revolution but I do not see a return to the powers of the States as well.  I will say that you don't know me a wit and the fact that you tag someone or something and hold forth proves my point.  You make up most of this tripe up and then you expound on it to give it the credence it otherwise does not deserve.  But then we can not all agree and that is what makes the world go around.  I guess I just don't see anything productive in blaming the USA for creating all the ills of the world, You can do it of course and I was just pointing out that there were other factors that had their effect on the isim's of the modern age.  Gee I wonder why if we did it all that The Isim's you spoke of took hold elsewhere but not here.  Not to the degree that would reflect the geniuses of it all as has been held forth. I take issue with your premise.  As apposed to what you say I think, I know that history is a flow of interlated events forces and factors not individual events.  I do not think you can limit out other factors that do not agree with your model or just shout people down who rasie them.  But I am sure you will Poo Poo my comments simply because I made them.  But I wish you well and If you come up with an answer.  good.   JB

[BrianMcCandliss]

I do not see a revolution but I do not see a return to the powers of the States as well.

Why not, if the orginal meaning of the Constitution was one of sovereign states? The ONLY thing keeping the federal government as the sovereign power, is the BELIEF that this was the original intent-- and this belief is the direct result of socialist-style totalitarian suppression of the truth.

You make up most of this tripe up and then you expound on it to give it the credence it otherwise does not deserve. But then we can not all agree and that is what makes the world go around.

Speak for yourself. Either document where I'm "making ANYTHING up," or else retract it-- put up or shut up.  

Simply because you're  ignorant of the facts, does NOT mean that I'm "making them up;" rather, it represents a substantial arrogance on your part to imagine that you are somehow so omniscient that  ignorance on your part, equates to invention on mine.

However I'm quite used to you spoonfed parrots repeating the party-line, and continuing to engage in the same old fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium.

Simply put, you're addicted to your force-fed version of glorified history, and you automatically reject anything which threatens it as impossible.

That's hardly a sign of intelligence, to follow the herd of lemmings over the cliff.

[6Shooter]

BrianMcCandliss,
 A very good proposition. You have done some historical, geo-political homework and I tend to agree with you.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Well the problem is that it's so darned counter-intuitive, to the pure jingoistic nationalism that  that most American people have sucked at their mother's breast, so to speak, despite their having no actual first-hand knowledge of the facts. In fact, most of it comes from actual programming in the very government schools, which were basically established via the socialist sentiments of the Civil War; prior to this, the only compulsory school-attendance laws were in Massachussets, and these only required that a parent provide an education for their child if they could afford it.

AFTER the Civil War, this led to actual stipulation by the state, that the state had the right to force children into schools, since they would inevitably become criminals otherwise-- and passed the truancy laws to prove it, thus making such a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This arrogance is characterized by the very phrase:

it may be asked, "Would you have policemen drag your children to school?" I answer, "Yes, if it will prevent his dragging them to jail a few years hence."

(Naturally this doesn't explain the absence of the continuous crime-wave-- or wave of illiteracy-- which this statement would have us believe existed perpetually PRIOR to such laws).

Consider the various dates of compulsory-attendance laws, noting the timing relative to the Civil War:

DATES OF INITIAL COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE LAWS
Massachusetts 1852     Illinois 1883     Iowa 1902
Vermont 1867  North Dakota 1883  Maryland 1902
New Hampshire 1871  South Dakota 1883  Missouri 1905
Michigan 1871  Montana 1883  Delaware 1907
Washington 1871  Minnesota 1885  North Carolina 1907
Connecticut 1872  Nebraska 1887  Oklahoma 1907
Nevada 1873  Idaho 1887  Virginia 1908
New York 1874  Colorado 1889  Arkansas 1909
Kansas 1874  Oregon 1889  Louisiana 1910
California 1874  Utah 1890  Tennessee 1913
Maine 1875  New Mexico 1891  Alabama 1915
New Jersey  1875  Pennsylvania 1895  Florida 1915
Wyoming 1876  Kentucky 1896  South Carolina 1915
Ohio 1877  Indiana 1897  Texas 1915
Wisconsin 1879  West Virginia 1897  Georgia 1916
Rhode Island 1883  Arizona 1899  Mississippi 1918

These laws-- along with the invention of the "Pledge of Allegiance" by Francis Bellamy in 1891, weren't just for the people's benefit-- so much as for that of the state, by imposing values of obedience and conformity to pro-state beliefs and values.

(Not to mention that the people were cajoled into accepting them via the promise of a "free" education, when any economist can tell you that there's no such thing as a free lunch-- school or otherwise-- and a purely private-school system of at least equal quality, would actually turn out to be cheaper for most parents).

And it's for this very reason of most people being subjected to such compulsory school-attendance-- and resultant indoctrination to pro-state beliefs and value-- that they don't think of the Civil War as a socialist revolution, despite the Republican-nee-Whig party being originally conceived by Lincoln as such; rather, the impression is that the Communist revolution took place in response to European feudalism, overlooks the American Civil War entirely, due to this very misinformation regarding it.

However, it's really pretty clear, once one studies the founations of the Whig-party agenda-- and its relationship to Marxism.Consider the following congratulatory letter, written by Karl Marx to Lincoln in 1864-- but which you won't see taught in public schools (which is strange, since you'd think they'd be proud to know that the Great Emancipator was also the father of their beloved socialism):

Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865 [A]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written: by [Karl] Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Basgen;
Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

And the response:

Ambassador Adams Replies
Legation of the United States
London, 28th January, 1865

Sir:

I am directed to inform you that the address of the Central Council of your Association, which was duly transmitted through this Legation to the President of the United [States], has been received by him.

So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.

The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Charles Francis Adams

This is pretty much a "singing telegram" regarding the socialist nation of the Civil War.

Note how here, the statist wolf shrouds itself in the sheep's clothing of freedom and equality, adhering to the pretense of lawfulness and freedom, while in fact destroying both-- just as did Lenin did 50 years afterward, claiming legal, rightful ownership of the Balkan states, as Lincoln did the American states.
Orwell wasn't a visionary-- he was a HISTORIAN.

Likewise, the Amercian government-accredictation and licensing systems creates a monopoly on education or other related professions, both attracting "useful idiots" who thrive on statism ala government power over others, into the various professions-- while at the same time holding them hostage via licensing and credentials, in order to suppress the truth.

While this thus controls the thinking in the former union-states, I understand that some former-Confederate states do no accept this indoctrinated version of history, and

I understand that it's different in former-Confederate states, however, so perhaps there can be something started there; if only ONE STATE challenges the current policy on the facts, it will eventually collapse.

Otherwise, those who fail to learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them; and there can be no "consent of the governed," without such being INFORMED consent. Hence, rule by duplicity, is at least as dictatorial as rule by brute force.

[JBMauser]

Well as a capitalist and a student of History (not yours as you have told me)  I KNOW that the state schools and the mandatory attentence was in reaction to the Demand for a literate work force that could read, write and figure as was required by the change in work from the industrial revolution.  Which was a Capitalistic feeding frenzy.  These people may have worked for peanuts and at 12 to 16 hours a day but they needed a basic education to feed the needs of industry/economy that was growing geometrically.  Oh but  the fact that the industrial revolution came after the Civil War was a socialist plot....   The  Government (States) did not want to be left in the learch by haveing dumb farmer hayseeds that could not handel anything more complex than a plow.  Sounds like capitalist socialism?  JB

[BrianMcCandliss]

Well as a capitalist and a student of History (not yours as you have told me)

There's only ONE history; however you might want to question the source, and related motives. I have no private agenda other than natural liberty, compared to the state and its cronies who have a VERY vested interest in preserving elite power.

I KNOW

HOW do you know? ESP? You've clearly made it up.

that the state schools and the mandatory attentence was in reaction to the Demand for a literate work force that could read, write and figure as was required by the change in work from the industrial revolution.

And yet you decry slavery, i.e. the forced servitude of manpower to other people's profit-bearing requirements? How quaint-- not to mention hypocritical.

So you're clearly not against slavery per se- just in the private-sector, since the state seems to be able to do no wrong in your mind- even when prompted by private interests.
You clearly need help-- or at least directions.

Nevermind that literacy-levels were higher before compulsory-attendance laws, and likewise the Pledge of Allegiance never raised academic performance a whit.

Finally, the timing of compulsory attendance with the Civil War expansion of government power into every corner of indivdiual liberty, doesn't register with you-- not surprising for one whose brain worships the state as trained in Pavlovian manner.

 Which was a Capitalistic feeding frenzy.  These people may have worked for peanuts and at 12 to 16 hours a day but they needed a basic education to feed the needs of industry/economy that was growing geometrically.

Sure, everyone was illiterate, and too stupid to realize they could earn more by getting an education-- and so needed the state to FORCE them to do it.
 This is insulting to everyone-- not to mention arrogance characterstic of a useful idiot, via enablement of the subjugation of others through validation to superior status by the supreme ruling-elite.
You're a sad, goose-stepping-- but textbook-- case of "useful idiocy."
Sad, mainly, because you show you've learned NOTHING from Lincoln, Hitler and other socialist-tryants-- other than  how to be like them via the inflation of useful idiots.

Oh but  the fact that the industrial revolution came after the Civil War was a socialist plot....

As well as a figment of your imagination; it took place DURING the Civil War-- which is no mere coincidence, considering the fact that it was orchestrated at the behest of Northern industrial interests to suit their needs for resources, manpower and general monopoly-- as well as taxes.
So it got a fast-talking con-man named Lincoln as its mascot, and trumped up a war of right in order to take by force what it couldn't get legally-- including the sovereignty of both the states and their citizens.
Again, Orwell wasn't a visionary, but a historian.

 The  Government (States) did not want to be left in the learch

Your spelling is as bad as your history. "The government" after the Civil War was not the states, fool-- it was the STATE, i.e. the new corporate-run empire under the federal government, run by special-interests.

by haveing dumb farmer hayseeds that could not handel anything more complex than a plow.  

More charicatured visions vis. general bigotry and elitism... kinda like Hitler talking about Kikes, Polacks and other "inferior races..."

So naturally, you condone the forcing of indivduals into state-run "schoolags" for mandatory indoctrination, in sheer defiance of individual liberty. The timing doesn't mean a thing to you-- or the political causation. Not much between those donkey-ears of yours, I see.

Sounds like capitalist socialism?  JB

No, more like fascist imperialism, i.e. major industrial-interests commandeering individual liberty under grounds of state supremacy.
And your endorsement of such, proves you are, at best, no better than Hitler or, Stalin; at least THEY never claimed legal title to the lands they conquered, in denial of the original intent.

In any case, your elitist arrogance and presumption comes through loud and clear, i.e. you think your heroes of the state, so much smarter than everyone else that they had the RIGHT to force them into servitude.

This is where your hypocrisy is most blatant, i.e. one the one hand you decry the subjugation of liberty of those who never had it to begin with save through ideals of natural law, but which you claim to champion in defiance of all practical reality-- as well as national sovereignty--
 but on the other you rationalize, justify and even glorify the enslavement of freemen by the state-- even at the behest of special interests.

You-- and your type (since, unfortunately, there are too many of you)-- make me sick.. assuming you were even at the level of contemptibility- however your zig-heil mentality forces to me realize you're beneath such.
Rather, you're simply a product of your own servile arrogance.

Not surprising, really-- you're dim enough to probably think that even a PENNY of state-run school is "free," since you've obviously never heard of tax-expenses on consumer-goods and services, compounded interest-expenses, opportunity-costs etc.

Call me when you get a clue-- assuming that re-incarnation exists, since i don't forsee your getting one in this lifetime.