i dont understand what you dont understand.
you have REPEATEDLY advocated for returning to various times in our history when African Americans were outright marginalized or enslaved. you cant advocate returning to such a time while ignoring the realities of those times. it seemed, based on your post above, that you were saying the US, pre 1860, was a utopia of sorts. a reasonable person cannot ignore the fact, that, during that time, African Americans were literally enslaved all over our country. you cant seperate slavery from the day-to-day lives of americans pre 1860. hence the question. you seem to prefer a time in america when blacks were either enslaved, or segregated, or completely marginalized. what dont you understand about our questions? slavery, jim crow laws, segregation, those were significant facts that had impacts on everyone's lives at the times you keep pining for. its not surprising people are calling you out.
and you make yourself out to be a myopic idiot by consistently referring to karl marx and/or saul alinsky in refuting people's points.
OK, your personal attacks aside ( why do liberals always resort to personal attacks? Lack of intelligence?)
First, the presence or absence of slavery has not and DID not affect the type of government we have.
Second, slavery didn't end until 1865. Whether blacks were "enslaved, or segregated, or completely marginalized." had NOTHING to do with the form of government; it had everything to do with economics and moral values.
And I refer to Marx because liberals cannot help themselves from framing every discussion in the terms of conflict between races, income groups, and sexes, which is EXACTLY Marx promoted. So his ideas and mindset are clearly firmly imprinted on your mindset.
Now, as far as the form of goverment goes:
Lincoln's administration brought a number of dramatic changes which was the beginning of our diversion AWAY from a Constitutional Republic. No, we weren't really a "libertarian utopia" - I think that was the term. We were a Constitutional Republic. Lincoln was the one who began changing that.
He did that in several ways:
1) A national income tax: he was the first to implement one. Before that, most Americans had no really connection to the federal government AT ALL, outside of the US mail. The exception would be those in the import/ export business, because that is where federal levies were paid. Make no mistake, the federal import/export tax was a HUGE effect throughout the South, which was paying 89% of all federal taxes (despite having only 1/3 of the population in 1860), but as far as contact with the federal government, there essentially was NONE in 1860 for most people, until the income tax. Interestingly, the US Supreme court ruled Lincoln's income tax UNCONSTITUTIONAL (as was much of what Lincoln did), but it was later re-instituted anyway.
2) Establishment of a national bank: This was always one of Lincoln's key agendas. The reason was so he would have ready access to funds for his "internal improvements" program - ie, corporate welfare for his buddies who ran the railroads and also roads and bridges to support northern industry. Again, the Supreme Court ruled that a national bank was unconstitutional (they actually ruled it was unconstitutional TWICE during the 1800's). However, Lincoln's actions ultimately lead tot he creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve, which has continued the corporate welfare.
I will go on with more in a future post....there's a LOT there....
