The Cult of Lincoln

[utbagpiper]

Yet the rules of war was instigated by the south.

Read the link I provided, earlier.

The consitution does not seem to support Feds owning permanent land forever in a state. Could there be a negotiation for compensation sure. Not start a war over it.

Lincoln maneuvered this event to look like the north was attacked. Bottom line warship in your territory, is an act of war.

Secession isn't starting a war.

SVG,

I'm afraid you're now moving the goal posts. First, you said the North "blockaded" the port. Now you are implicitly conceding that never happened, but the single war ship was an act of war. Yet I've already provided citations that the first shots were fired on an unarmed, civilian supply ship. I've also provided quotations from staunch secessionists who were opposed to taking Fort Sumter by force and who declined to fire what they considered to be the first shots of the war. Then, in the weeks before another attempt to supply the fort took place, the South seized numerous federal/Northern installations PRIOR to ever attempting to negotiate about compensation.

Look at it this way, would our own American Revolution be any less just if some tidbit of irrefutable evidence demonstrated that it was a Colonial Minuteman who fired the first shots at Lexington, rather than the first shot being a mystery? Of course not. The Revolution was just regardless of who fired the first shot.

If the War Between the States was just, then it was no less just if the South fired the first shots. If the War wasn't just, then it doesn't much matter whether the South fired first or acted defensively in the moment.

But the problem seems to be that some have a narrative that says the war was just because it was 100% purely defensive, the South did nothing to start the war. That simply isn't true. The North refused to abandon a fort into which the nation had sunk a lot of money. The South, forcefully seized numerous federal installations, fired on an unarmed supply ship and on the fort (which did not return fire), and later fired the first shots of the battle that lead to the fort being abandoned.

Most of this before Lincoln was sworn in. All of it before Lincoln or congress passed a single new law hostile to the Southern interests (tariffs or slavery). The latter end even as Lincoln was offering to abandon the fort for certain considerations.

The South fired the first many shots of the Civil War. And they were fired weeks before any union warship showed up in Charleston Harbor, and in the absence of any Northern "blockade" of the harbor.

It seems clear to me that both sides could have done more to avoid a shooting war. Key players on both sides expressed a desire to avoid starting a shooting war; and yet a shooting war started and hundreds of thousands of men died, many more were maimed, and probably billions of (current value) dollars worth of infrastructure was destroyed.

Our schools do a grave disservice in teaching a one-sided, over-simplified view of this war in particular. I don't believe an over-simplified, one-sided view of the South being blameless, or hapless victims, or working from entirely pure intents, does anything to elevate the discussion above what the schools are doing. I don't care what direction crap comes from, it all stinks the same.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The more remote the pol, the more powerful, and power corrupts absolutely. All politics is local, and we need to keep it that way.

Home rule towns, sovereign states in a confederation of sovereign states.

I find that my State reps are far more accessible and responsive than either my federal or city officials. I would first think that this might have to do with some particulars of Utah's election system that tends to make it easier to unseat State reps.

But that thought is tempered when I realize that the most frequent examination of "home rule towns" that we see here on OCDO is when such towns infringe individual RKBA despite State laws to the contrary. I also observe that most all references herein to HOAs (you know, private non-government service entities in small communities that one generally pays extra to purchase into, and which purchase is voluntary) are negative with such verbiage as "tin hat dictators" not being uncommonly used to refer to HOA board members.

I don't know that one can draw such broad brush conclusions about city officials being so much easier to work with than State (or perhaps even federal) reps. In a thread where the feds are the bad guys it is easy to express the desire for State and local officials to provide a check on federal power. But does anyone here really not want to see good, strong, State preemption laws for RKBA to protect against local tin hat hoplophobes?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Odd, the feds built the fort with monies derived from the people, even southern people. The feds "own" nothing. A wee stretch, sure.

I'd say the feds act as authorized agent for all the people. I expect the Northerners who paid for Fort Sumter (and the other federal installations in the South) didn't expect to have their taxes spent simply to provide facilities to a soon-to-be different nation.

QUOTE=OC for ME;2160421]
It remains true, federalists, non-dissolutionists, desire the federal government to hold primacy over all of the several states. There is no "service" that the feds now do that the states cannot do...if the income tax dollars that go to the feds to perform those services remained with the states.[/QUOTE]

I believe we are a better nation together, than we'd be as some number of separate, smaller nation. I am a federalist and oppose dissolution.

I most decidedly do NOT want the feds to hold primacy over the States. I want the feds to perform the limited and enumerated tasks delegated to them in our Constitution. I want those tasks performed well and efficiently. I want the rest left to the States.

I believe there may well be a right to secession from the Union. With or without such a right, there may be situations in which it is simply far better to dissolve the Union than maintain it. I believe such situations can be avoided by the proper application of federalism: the proper diversity of culture and laws among the several States. I believe such federalism permits us the strength of remaining a Union while also enjoying diversity of culture, multiple laboratories of society to see what solutions work best.

I believe a credible threat of secession, by right or political expediency, might be the one thing that would negate most or all of the reasons to desire secession.

There is no need, and in this case, little benefit to be gained by painting with such broad and negative brushes, OC.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

When was the fort fired upon? When did the North start putting warships into Southern waters?

That alone will answer for me who started the war. You can't threaten someone and then blame them when they call you on it.

Some don't like the answer, but from my lengthy post:

Forces of South Carolina fired upon the unarmed, civilian ship and Fort Sumter in late December 1860. Lincoln had been elected but not yet inaugurated. The ship was forced to withdraw and the soldiers in the Fort did not return fire.

On April 6, 1861 Lincoln (what had been inaugurated in March) notified South Carolina Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."

At 4:30 am on April 12, 1861, South Carolina forces launched the bombardment that resulted in the surrender of the Fort two days later.

Former Navy Captain Fox had arrived in an unarmed supply ship (the passenger steamer "Baltic) at 3:00 am, but most of his (unarmed) fleet did not arrive until 6:00 am. The fleet contained only 1 warship that did not arrive until well after the Fort had been fired upon and unarmed supply vessels had been fired upon and turned back.

By your standards, the South started the shooting war in late December, 1860 over 3 months before Lincoln made any attempt to send in a warship. The South blockaded the Fort, denying the ability to bring in any supplies at all.

In regards to the federally owned property it's rather simple. Once the South became their own country (regardless of if the North recognized it or not) they can simply deny Northerners access to the land. So sure you own it, but we're not going to let you resupply it with troops/equipment, nor will we let those who leave reenter it. Then what can the North do except withdraw from it?

So you are ok if a nation doesn't recognize property rights? If I own land and someone denies me access to it, they have, effectively denied me my land.

Or are you ok when the federal government refuses to let a landowner build a house on their own land because of some environmental law, but refuses any compensation because the landowner is allowed to retain technical ownership of the land?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

When the State of Virginia originally voted on its ratification ordinance approving the U.S. Constitution, it contained a specific clause protecting their right to secede in the future.

I will, once again, as for a citation or link to exactly what this ratification document said about secession.

Have you read the actual document? Will you please provide a link so we can all judge for ourselves just how strong the claim of a right to secession was at the time of ratification.

President Lincoln told Colonel Baldwin that it was four days too late now to take that action. Unknown to all except a few insiders of the administration, meaning that members of the Congress did not know, the president had already issued secret orders on April 1, to send a fleet of ships to Fort Sumter in order to provoke the South into firing the first shot in order to start the war.

Again, do you have source material for the motivation of Lincoln? A Fort on verge of starvation seems a pretty good motivation to send supply ships.

As for his "fleet of ships...to provoke the South into firing the first shot..." a single warship that showed up after the South fired the first shot, and some unarmed supply ships seem a pretty weak fleet. Besides which, how foolish of the South to be tricked into starting such a costly shooting war (if they were so tricked) if a little patience and negotiations would have avoided the entire thing.

Are you open to considering sources and material that doesn't quite support your narrative of Lincoln as wholly evil? Or are we now dealing with a cult of anti-Lincoln?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

What they fail to note is that the standard of living for the poor will more than likely increase too.

On this point we are fully agreed, SVG.

I weary of the inane "rich getting richer" chants from the unthinking. A little insight from my family history.

Some 5 years ago we had the chance to visit Toronto, Canada. While there we toured Casa Loma, a mansion completed in 1914 for financier Sir Henry Mill Pellatt. In 1914, Pellatt enjoyed indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water, central heat, electric lighting, and other comforts and conveniences. I expect the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Hursts enjoyed similar comforts at a similar or even earlier time period.

Why the very ship sent to resupply Fort Sumter was a steam powered transatlantic passenger ship built in 1850 for the specific purpose of providing the fastest service possible between the old world and the new. By the very early 1900s, the wealthy crossed the Atlantic in total luxury.

In contrast, my mother did not have electricity in her family's rural Utah home until the early 1940s. Their first purchase after getting electrified? A refrigerator. My mother lived the first 10 years of her life without a refrigerator; and no ice service where she lived so no ice box.

It was a couple of years later before they obtained running water with a flush toilet in the home. Hot water was provided by a water skirt on the wood burning stove in the kitchen. So in winter months when the stove was going full power, one could take a hot shower in the bathroom rather than bathing in a tin basin in the kitchen. In the summer, a cold shower in private was still better than a wash basin in the kitchen. In 1976 my family moved to southern Utah and residential air conditioning was still a rare luxury. Ditto for microwave ovens. AC was an expensive option on automobiles. There was no such thing as cell phones or personal computers. Cassette tapes were just replacing 8-tracks for in-car music-on-demand; and 8-tracks had been huge since prior to that there was no practical in-car music-on-demand.

I'm not sure how much of a lifestyle change takes place when a rich man can buy two yachts and three aircraft rather than just one of each.

But I know what kind of lifestyle change takes place when a family no longer has to use an outhouse and instead gets an indoor flush toilet. Getting a 'fridge is huge for the family that previously didn't have anyway to keep food cold. Central air, microwave ovens, central heat from electricity or natural gas is a huge improvement over splitting wood or even dealing with coal fired furnaces. And modern technology and entertainment are within reach of even those who seemingly "can't afford" to pay for their own groceries or power.

My grandparents went 40 years without power, flush toilets, hot showers, etc. They were in their 60s before they ever had central air in a climate comparable to Vegas or Phoenix. The "swamp cooler" (ie evaporative cooler) they used would give a 25 degree drop, max on a dry day. When it was 110 outside, they could get their home down to 85 if conditions were favorable.

My grandparents lost all their teeth and had dentures. My parents kept most of their teeth, but required some extensive dental work like bridges. I've never lost a tooth and have only minimal dental work. My children have never had a cavity thanks to ever improving dental care.

One grandfather had to quit school after the 6th grade to help support the family. I've got two college degrees from a world-class institution, and any kid who can walk into a public library (or who has internet service at home) has more data and knowledge available at his fingertips than existed in the world 100 years ago.

My family's lifestyle has increased far more than has the lifestyle of the Rockefellers. I live better today than King Solomon himself could have possibly lived in his day, no matter how many servants or how much gold he had.

Yes, the rich get richer. But the poor make much more noticeable improvements in lifestyle as we gain a little bit more wealth.

Charles

 

[The Truth]

On this point we are fully agreed, SVG.

I weary of the inane "rich getting richer" chants from the unthinking. A little insight from my family history.

Some 5 years ago we had the chance to visit Toronto, Canada. While there we toured Casa Loma, a mansion completed in 1914 for financier Sir Henry Mill Pellatt. In 1914, Pellatt enjoyed indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water, central heat, electric lighting, and other comforts and conveniences. I expect the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Hursts enjoyed similar comforts at a similar or even earlier time period.

Why the very ship sent to resupply Fort Sumter was a steam powered transatlantic passenger ship built in 1850 for the specific purpose of providing the fastest service possible between the old world and the new. By the very early 1900s, the wealthy crossed the Atlantic in total luxury.

In contrast, my mother did not have electricity in her family's rural Utah home until the early 1940s. Their first purchase after getting electrified? A refrigerator. My mother lived the first 10 years of her life without a refrigerator; and no ice service where she lived so no ice box.

It was a couple of years later before they obtained running water with a flush toilet in the home. Hot water was provided by a water skirt on the wood burning stove in the kitchen. So in winter months when the stove was going full power, one could take a hot shower in the bathroom rather than bathing in a tin basin in the kitchen. In the summer, a cold shower in private was still better than a wash basin in the kitchen. In 1976 my family moved to southern Utah and residential air conditioning was still a rare luxury. Ditto for microwave ovens. AC was an expensive option on automobiles. There was no such thing as cell phones or personal computers. Cassette tapes were just replacing 8-tracks for in-car music-on-demand; and 8-tracks had been huge since prior to that there was no practical in-car music-on-demand.

I'm not sure how much of a lifestyle change takes place when a rich man can buy two yachts and three aircraft rather than just one of each.

But I know what kind of lifestyle change takes place when a family no longer has to use an outhouse and instead gets an indoor flush toilet. Getting a 'fridge is huge for the family that previously didn't have anyway to keep food cold. Central air, microwave ovens, central heat from electricity or natural gas is a huge improvement over splitting wood or even dealing with coal fired furnaces. And modern technology and entertainment are within reach of even those who seemingly "can't afford" to pay for their own groceries or power.

My grandparents went 40 years without power, flush toilets, hot showers, etc. They were in their 60s before they ever had central air in a climate comparable to Vegas or Phoenix. The "swamp cooler" (ie evaporative cooler) they used would give a 25 degree drop, max on a dry day. When it was 110 outside, they could get their home down to 85 if conditions were favorable.

My grandparents lost all their teeth and had dentures. My parents kept most of their teeth, but required some extensive dental work like bridges. I've never lost a tooth and have only minimal dental work. My children have never had a cavity thanks to ever improving dental care.

One grandfather had to quit school after the 6th grade to help support the family. I've got two college degrees from a world-class institution, and any kid who can walk into a public library (or who has internet service at home) has more data and knowledge available at his fingertips than existed in the world 100 years ago.

My family's lifestyle has increased far more than has the lifestyle of the Rockefellers. I live better today than King Solomon himself could have possibly lived in his day, no matter how many servants or how much gold he had.

Yes, the rich get richer. But the poor make much more noticeable improvements in lifestyle as we gain a little bit more wealth.

Charles

I sure am glad you guys agree. I thought there would be another essay to read.

.....

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I sure am glad you guys agree. I thought there would be another essay to read.

.....

Whoever writes the longest/most posts wins, right? tee hee. I gave up on keeping up with this thread - too much words, too little meaning.

 

[solus]

Whoever writes the longest/most posts wins, right? tee hee. I gave up on keeping up with this thread - too much words, too little meaning.

a first tho stealth...we agree on something.

 

[OC for ME]

I'd say the feds act as authorized agent for all the people. ...

The feds act as a agent of the citizen of a state (uninvited) when the business of the citizen is clearly with the state. This is federal overreach and anti-liberty. I can not be any more familiar with this federal tyranny.

Case in point:

A rancher who obtained the state permits he needed for a stock pond on his acreage near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, then received approval from the state when it was finished now is facing the possibility of fines totaling millions of dollars because he didn’t get a permit from the federal government.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/rancher-fights-16-million-epa-fine-for-building-pond/

I believe we are a better nation together, than we'd be as some number of separate, smaller nation. I am a federalist and oppose dissolution.

Agreed, as long as the feds confine themselves to settling disputes between the several states and to focus mostly on international affairs...good luck with that!

I most decidedly do NOT want the feds to hold primacy over the States. I want the feds to perform the limited and enumerated tasks delegated to them in our Constitution. I want those tasks performed well and efficiently. I want the rest left to the States.

Perusing your previous posts there is, here and there, support for federal intervention in state affairs. I'll not quibble with you on this point though.

I believe there may well be a right to secession from the Union.

I do not.

The federal constitution (whatever its incarnation at the time) was agreed to as a condition of entry into the union by former territories. I'm here and I'm staying...for the "if ya don't like it move" crowd.

I work to remove virtually all traces of the federal government from the landscape of Missouri and South Carolina. If it ain't in the constitution for the feds to do specifically, the state must do it...without federal interference. The state decides what the feds are permitted to do in a state, not the feds.

With or without such a right, there may be situations in which it is simply far better to dissolve the Union than maintain it. ...

We already know "what works" and the federal government has no interest in the several states exercising their powers to engage in "what works."

The abuses, at the hands of the federal government we see today can be directly linked to former president Abraham Lincoln, in my view.

Being a Southerner, South Carolina, (since the 1690s on my mother's side and then starting in 1716 on my father's side) I have a special interest, via the ballot box, in reducing the federal government to that of The Founder's intent. Lacking any success in this endeavor , I'll work to make my little town, then state, more to my liking. Lincoln is not viewed with affection here in my part of Missouri and certainly not in South Carolina, not in Williamsburg County...not even in Charleston.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif] being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will -Virginia Ratification document.

[/FONT]As I mentioned early it matters not whether a few states made it explicit. The right of secession existed and is not prohibited by the constitution.

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Actually I never moved the goal posts. I made a typo the north instigated the war. Moving a war ship into a sovereign territory and announcing a blockaded are acts of war. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]If someone points a gun at your face but never pulls the trigger who is the aggressor still?[/FONT]

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hopefully the cult of personality can be broken, I see more and more people opening their eyes and realizing that he was what we were taught. That he acted like a tyrant and put the country on this course were liberties have been washed away as the federal government grows in power. That the original idea of the constitution of a bottom up society starting with people forming states and the states forming a union and that the ultimate check on this was states and people nullifying or seceding has been wiped out and turned on its head to be a top down, power hungry political machine sucking the life blood of liberty from its peoples.

 

[Citizen]

Whoever writes the longest/most posts wins, right? tee hee. I gave up on keeping up with this thread - too much words, too little meaning.

No, no. I think you got that a little sideways. It is whoever writes the mostest long posts wins.

 

[utbagpiper]

Being a Southerner, South Carolina, (since the 1690s on my mother's side and then starting in 1716 on my father's side) I have a special interest, via the ballot box, in reducing the federal government to that of The Founder's intent. Lacking any success in this endeavor , I'll work to make my little town, then state, more to my liking. Lincoln is not viewed with affection here in my part of Missouri and certainly not in South Carolina, not in Williamsburg County...not even in Charleston.

I get it. Having lived in Boston for 4 years, and having visited the South extensively, I far prefer the culture of the South to the culture of New England in most regards. Indeed, despite being, effectively, a 5th generation Utahn whose first ancestors arrived here in 1847 very shortly after Brigham Young's first wagons, my first residence was in Virginia as my folks were working in that area when I was born.

I also note that the federal government continues to exercise control (claim ownership) of almost 60% of the land in my State. That is the 3rd highest in the nation behind Nevada (84%) and Alaska (70%). Go east of the Colorado-Kansas State line and the feds average about 5% ownership in each State. With a stroke of his pen using the antiquities act, any president can't lock up millions of acres of land in my State by declaring federal land to be a National Monument. When Clinton did this (from Arizona no less), he created a National Monument almost 1.9 million acres (almost 3000 square MILES) in size. That is almost twice the size of Rhode Island. It is larger than Delaware. It just happens to contain one of the largest reserves of low-sulfur coal in the world. But we can't develop it. Federal agencies (some of which most folks "back east" have never heard of) like the BLM or Forest Service can shut down motorized access, shooting/hunting, logging, or generations old grazing access virtually on a whim.

The residents of the former Confederate States have a real and lasting historic beef with the feds. The War and Reconstruction were brutal. Forced integration and other aspects of Civil Rights were unwanted. But the most serious offenses are in the past. The same GOP that persecuted the South with Reconstruction, persecuted the Mormons because of the peaceful practice of consenting adults engaging in polygamy for religious reasons. Utah was almost as solidly Democrat as much of the South--and for similar reasons--until the Democrats took the hard social left turn in the 60s and 70s.

But don't forget, that here in the West, our biggest beef with the feds is very much in the present. We remain very much second class States, unable to develop our natural resources. Long made promises about land use are routinely broken with impunity. And when we talk about "our way of life" that has nothing to do with denying any other man his rights. It is just about our ability to work the land, with our own hands, honestly.

I get it. The feds have over-reached. Ironically, they now over-reach most in an area populated by those who came here only after the feds refused to provide any protection at all of our constitutional rights against State and local infringement. In the 1860s and 1870s, Congress and the Supreme Court told us marriage could not include polygamy. In 2014, the federal courts told us that marriage must include homosexual coupling. The feds have never really permitted us to define marriage for ourselves.

But if we are talking about the "cult of Lincoln", let's be intellectually honest enough not to become the "cult of anti-Lincoln" either. Nobody has to like him. We here should be mature and well enough informed to evaluate history honestly.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will -Virginia Ratification document.

Thank you. Not quite as explicit as some might surmise given the 2nd and 3rd party sources quoted previously, though I concede that most readings of this would lead one to conclude Virginia was claiming a right to secede.

As I mentioned early it matters not whether a few states made it explicit. The right of secession existed and is not prohibited by the constitution.

I can find no prohibition of secession in the Constitution. And so, under the 10th amendment, a fine case can be made that it is a power retained by the People and/or the States. But when you assert "the right of secession existed" I feel compelled to ask you to explain your rationale for that statement especially in light of your statement that it matters not whether some States made an explicit assertion as part of ratification.

Actually I never moved the goal posts. I made a typo the north instigated the war. Moving a war ship into a sovereign territory and announcing a blockaded are acts of war.

When, exactly, relative to being fired upon, having federal property seized and laid siege, did the North blockade the port or move any war ships into sovereign territory?

If someone points a gun at your face but never pulls the trigger who is the aggressor still?

If someone doesn't point a gun at you, but simply says some things you don't like, and you decide to shoot at him and seize his property, who is the aggressor?

Let us concede that South Carolina had a right to secede.

What was their right to seize property and assets that had been duly paid for by the federal government with the full consent of the State legislature as required in the federal constitution? What was their right to deny the property owner access to his property? To lay siege to, to demand it's surrender, or to fire upon it?

Does South Carolina's cause become any less just in your mind if they acted aggressively toward the federal government? Do they lose any moral footing if they seize property without just compensation?

I'm afraid your narrative of the start of the war simply isn't backed up by the facts.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Hopefully the cult of personality can be broken, I see more and more people opening their eyes and realizing that he was [not] what we were taught.

I'm a huge fan of accurate history. So on this point we are agreed.

What I do hope is that people do not simply trade one overly simplified inaccurate view of Lincoln or the War, for a second, equally overly-simplified and inaccurate view of the War.

That he acted like a tyrant and put the country on this course were liberties have been washed away as the federal government grows in power.

He did engage in tyrannical acts. He certainly accelerated the course of the federal government growing in power. But by my estimation it wasn't he who put the federal government on that course.

Jefferson is the earliest President I can find exercising obviously and grossly extra-constitutional powers with his Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson himself recognized and admitted the Constitution did not grant explicit power to make such a purchase but went ahead under the power of the President to negotiate treaties. In hindsight, the Purchase was a wonderful thing for the nation. But it was also a clear stretch of explicitly granted powers. The people approved. And that is where we have had real problems.

Of course, many would be loathe to point to Jefferson as having established any such precedent as to unshackle the feds. He isn't near as unpopular in some regions as is Lincoln.

That the original idea of the constitution of a bottom up society starting with people forming states and the states forming a union and that the ultimate check on this was states and people nullifying or seceding has been wiped out and turned on its head to be a top down, power hungry political machine sucking the life blood of liberty from its peoples.

As we've discussed already, this is an overly simplistic view of the federal government.

The Constitution claims authority from "We the People" not "We the several States". At the very least, the federal government is a creation of both the people and their States. Prior to the 17th amendment, both groups had distinct representation in Congress.

What I see is someone starting with a notion, and then looking to shape history to fit that notion. I think the proper course is to examine history without trying to pigeon hole it into any current social agenda. Some things like RKBA become clear from the study of history.

But others--like the proper balance of power between the feds, States, and people--were clearly in question and argument from the earliest days. On such matters, we are better off learning from honest history and then making a case for what we believe is the right solution, rather than trying to claim that our preferred social order is the only one the founders/framers/ratifiers ever intended.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

No, no. I think you got that a little sideways. It is whoever writes the mostest long posts wins.

You're mistaken, Citizen. Clearly, some think the "winner" is whomever posts the snarkiest bumper sticker.

On this entire question I must agree with WalkingWolf who has observed it is stupid to even think about "winning" an internet chat room discussion.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The put we the people in the constitution because they were not sure which states would ratify.

Also it is the people who form the states. It was still a union of states not a union of the general population.

Jefferson did some unconstitutional things for sure. New England even threatened to secede. Yet the start was from the very beginning, with judges like Marshal and things like the alien and seditions act.

Yet Lincoln took the ball and ran with it. Him and his party were the party of big government. Others who had extremely damaging consequences to liberty and the growth of the Federal government tyrants like T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, and FDR. All with cult like followings too.

Caesar was killed for being a tyrant yet he was hailed as great, his successors gaining worship as gods.....I find the corollary very intriguing.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No, no. I think you got that a little sideways. It is whoever writes the mostest long posts wins.

Hehe....

http://www.theonion.com/article/nation-shudders-at-large-block-of-uninterrupted-te-16932

 

[sudden valley gunner]

If England decides it wants to break political ties with U.S. and takes US property within its sovereign border, is that reason enough for the president to ride warships up the river to London, while congress is debating on the means of compensation?