Well, it certainly has done so of every pothead I've encountered.
Hey, why waste time with pot, then? Go straight to six or seven tabs of LSD an hour and really let your creativity loose...

Which indians? There is no "the indians". The tribes were at war and hated each other as much as the nations of Europe.
The various indian tribes broke treaties repeatedly as well, but you don't hear about that because it never got reported as treaty violations. After all, how can you hold breachclouted savages to the same standards as white men? /sarc

Jackson, who saved the United States 199 years ago, who was allied with some native tribes and vehemently hostile to others (not being a modern bigot who thinks all "native americans" are one giant continental tribe).

Stalin didn't believe in slavery as it had existed prior to the 20th century. He believed in enslaving all to the state. Unlike Jackson.

And I don't have as big a problem with Jackson marching thousands of non-Americans on the trail of tears as I do with Lincoln who killed 600,000 Americans and one-time Americans.

It says that slaves in foreign territory under occupation by the United States were no longer slaves, thus depriving Confederate citizens of their property without compensation...
It also declared that most forms of slavery, except for wage slavery, were illegal in places within the United States where it was already illegal.

"Secession is not addressed in the Constitution, so when SC declared that it had seceded, it was deemed an illegal act. Same with the other states that tried to secede."

Then the entire government of the United States of America was illegitimate, and the Confederate States owed allegiance, not to Washington, but to London.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They didn't need the federal government's permission to leave the union of sovereign republics.

The Confederacy justly reclaimed a fort in their territory, using force when the foreign army occupying it refused to surrender it. The Union did indeed take up arms to force the Confederate States back into the Union, in order to restore the income their secession was costing the Union.

So, basically, Head of state Thompson would be perfectly in the right, in your view, to go into the gulch, burn Atlantis to the ground, decimate the population, and force them to return to giving the country the benefit of their minds and backs...

So killing them via march was acceptable?
Why didn't he protect them like Johnson did with the kids going to school.
I don't want to get into a discussion on integration - it was the wrong solution to the problem - just saying that killing half of the Indians was also not the only way to deal with the issue.

The first television was invented in 1884, but it wasn't until the 1950s that it took off.
The Romans had examples of the use of steam power before the birth of Christ, yet it wasn't until the 19th century that the first steam locomotive was developed.

The first repeating rifle was patented in 1860, yet at the turn of the 20th century soldiers were still being issued single-shot rifles. Not because of the technology, but because of prejudice.

That Whitney filed a patent didn't mean anything other than that he'd come up with the gin.

Why am I not surprised that you're justifying the carbon credit exchange and government mandated energy development?

I'm not sure that I would put Lincoln at the top of the list of those that have destroyed the 10th amendment. FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Obama have done far more harm to the 10th amendment than did Lincoln.
You southerners really need to let go. It's been a hundred and fifty years for crying out loud.

Uh... care to take a tour of auto factories with me?
Yeah, manual labor is so much more efficient and cost-effective that's why the cotton gin was never invented. Or the combine harvester. Or the typewriter.

A slave has to be fed, sheltered and given health care; or else you have to spend money on new slaves, and that ain't cheap. Not only is there the initial cost, but then there's the time and cost involved in training and conditioning them for your specific business, but also the cost involved in keeping them from escaping.

And what data do you have the demonstrates that technology is cheaper than slavery? I happen to work in the efficiency business, and even with today's highly paid workforce, it is often very challenging to justify technology.

Whitney received a patent (later numbered as X72) for his cotton gin on March 14, 1794
Thus, the labor saving/productivity improving invention existed for nearly 70 years before slavery was abolished. Thus, it was not the technology that caused the abolishment of slavery, it was the abolishment of slavery that demanded the technology.
I don't know where you got your education, but you really should ask for your money back.

You think that slavery has ended all across the world? You are mistaken.
And how is the south enslaved?
Secession is not addressed in the Constitution, so when SC declared that it had seceded, it was deemed an illegal act. Same with the other states that tried to secede.
The question was given more structure by Texas v. White, with the Supreme Court indicating that if the state wanting to secede could gain the agreement of the other states (one expects via a passed law from the US Congress), then it might be allowable.
Just how did Lincoln "demand massive slaughter?" To my understanding, the southern states committed an illegal act and took up arms to try to enforce it. The north took up arms to restore the union. Tragic loss of life ensued, a winner emerged, and the union has been restored.

You really should check your facts before posting. It'll prevent embarrassment.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865.
The time lapse from January to December was for ratification by the states.

The 13th Amendment passed in Dec 1865. Lincoln had been dead for 8 months.

But maybe he presided over the process as Jeremy Bentham has over the Bentham Society? I understand he attended a University College London board meeting at age 181.

Actually, you're wrong.

That's why all around the world, slavery ended (except where technology was absent). Technology is cheaper than slavery. The only person who demanded massive slaughter in association with ending slavery was Lincoln. The bloodshed was all about enslaving the South… not about freeing blacks.

The 13th Amendment was passed 8 months AFTER Lincoln was dead. Its passage had less to do with Lincoln than with a desire to punish the South. Oh, wait. That's what Lincoln wanted too. Never mind.

Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression wasn't about slavery in any case. It was about subjugating the People of the South and forcing them to buy Northern goods at ruinous prices.

Of course, because the North won Lincoln's War, the schools teach a fairy tale about what a great president he was. Stalin and Hitler lost, else they'd be remembered in much the same way.

See the 13th Amendment and tell me what that says.

They weren't "freed" by the emancipation proclamation - at least not permanently. That was accomplished by the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln was pivotal in bringing about.
And the industrial revolution didn't end slavery. At the time it was more economical and productive to pick cotton, the primary crop that slaves were used for, by hand. It was the fact that slavery was abolished that forced innovation.

And yet, the Soviet Union broke up from within. Conversely, the USSA is still going strong. Must be that the tech toys and TV are better at dulling the senses than vodka.

Read the Emancipation Proclamation.

Then tell me what slaves Lincoln freed.

Robbie:
Non Sequitur:
Everything you know is in the past. Do you have the same comments about EVERYTHING YOU KNOW?

As for ending slavery… again, your knowledge of history appears to be defective (not just in the past, but also in the present). Slavery wasn't just an American institution. Slavery was world-wide. And it all died out at about the same time in the civilized world. The industrial revolution made slaves superfluous. Why feed, house, care for slave year-round when they're only really useful at planting and harvest? A machine doesn't eat when it's not being used. Slaves were nearly obsolete, but only in Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression do we see a tyrant and thug murdering hundreds of thousands of people - not to free anyone, but to enslave the people of the South.

By Lincoln's own words, he did not personally like slavery, but was equally willing to abolish it or keep it - whichever allowed him to maintain control of the South.

Have you ever read the "Emancipation Proclamation"? Can you tell me what slaves Lincoln "freed"?

Lincoln is just part of the big lie that government tells to show its "beneficence". His war is a useful teaching point: See? Even our government can be subverted and used to commit murder on a massive scale - no different from what Stalin did, or Mao, or Hitler, or any other dictator.

>> why would anyone purposely do something to diminish their capacity to think clearly

And yet, most people DO sleep about 1/3 of their life… an activity during which they do NOT "think clearly".

how so?