Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is There Something Wrong With The Term: "War Between the States?"
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 01-06-2014 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-333 last
To: SampleMan; Pelham
.... The South trumpeted the moral high ground of state's rights and self-determination, but rather hushed up the issue of slavery as the underlying issue that they were exercising those rights over.
The North rather invented the notion of an unbreakable union, which isn't Constitutionally mandated. It fired nationalism in a population that had already embraced a concept of continental manifest destiny. This was needed, because abolitionists had failed to get any considerable traction over the previous 30 years.

So that brings us back to the South making bad decisions. They ascribed the motivation of the abolitionists to the vast majority of Northerners, thus they presumed that an attack was coming. They started raising an army and fortifying their borders. They failed to nurture the more general feelings that existed through most of the North.

Now that, that is a starling aperçu.

301 posted on 01/14/2014 7:25:37 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (This GOP is dead. What do we do now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Lower Deck
The Prussian General Staff dated to 1806.

I hate it when facts upset my pet theories.
Thanks, I guess.

302 posted on 01/14/2014 7:38:27 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (This GOP is dead. What do we do now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

To be clear, when I refer to “...the more general feelings that existed through most of the North.” I am not implying a pro-slavery stance, but rather an aversion to war as a means to settle the issue of slavery.


303 posted on 01/14/2014 8:07:26 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk; SampleMan

“So that brings us back to the South making bad decisions. They ascribed the motivation of the abolitionists to the vast majority of Northerners, thus they presumed that an attack was coming. They started raising an army and fortifying their borders. They failed to nurture the more general feelings that existed through most of the North”

Unfortunately “the more general feelings throughout most of the North” were mostly what the South suspected them to be. For several decades Abolitionists had been running an effective hate campaign against the people of the South that Goebbels would have applauded.

Historian Thomas Fleming has new book on this very subject:

http://thomasflemingwriter.com/publicmind.html :

By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper’s Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a “holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners.

This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson.

This malevolent envy exacerbated the South’s greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson’s cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities.

By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.

Praise for A Disease in the Public Mind

Lincoln would have liked this brilliant book. It lights a path through history to his great goal: an America united by understanding and forgiveness.”
—Charles Bracelen Flood, author of 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History

“In A Disease in the Public Mind, Thomas Fleming sets one to thinking, as all good books should do. A master story-teller and a wise and eloquent wordsmith, he has produced a disturbing chronicle of the national malady that led to fatal division. I’ve long believed that the Civil War was an unavoidable, even necessary, conflict. Fleming has forced me to wonder.”
—Robert Cowley, historian and founding editor of the award-winning MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History

“At last! A book that explains, in clear, fast-paced prose, why, how and how early the cancer of slavery metastasized, resisting all attempts at eradication until it poisoned the minds of Americans, North and South, causing the needless deaths of nearly one million men in the nation’s deadliest war.”
—Willard Sterne Randall, Founding Fathers biographer and presidential historian

“The prolific Fleming, for decades a fixture among American historians, pinpoints public opinion as the proximate origin of the war…Making a plausible presentation of antebellum attitudes and illusions, Fleming is sure to spark lively discussion about the Civil War.”
—Booklist

An Excerpt from A Disease in the Public Mind by Thomas Fleming

On April 18, 1861, Colonel Robeft E. Lee rode across the “long bridge” that linked Virginia to Washington and tied his horse in front of Montgomery Blair’s house on Pennsylvania Avenue, opposite the building containing the State War and Navy Departments. It was an appropriate setting for one of the most crucial conversations in American history.

Waiting for him was balding seventy year old Francis Preston Blair. There is no record of the exact words, but we know that Blair, after the usual courtesies, grew solemn and told Lee that he had been authorized by President Lincoln to offer him command of the Northern Army that would assemble when the 75,000 volunteers reached Washington.

Here was a moment when history’s direction hung on the loyalties and beliefs and emotions of a single man. If Robert E. Lee had accepted this offer, there is at least a possibility that Virginia would have refused to secede. Even if she seceded, Lee’s prestige as a soldier, his links through his father and his wife to George Washington, would have had an enormous impact on the legitimacy of the South’s resistance. Northern newspapers would have trumpeted the significance of his decision. Deep divisive doubts would have been implanted in the souls of thousands of wavering southern Unionists, especially in Virginia. The duration of the war, its very nature, would have changed.

As Colonel Lee sat there, trying to absorb this astounding offer, what did he think and feel? What did he remember? From what we have seen of his life in this book, almost certainly the first memory was John Brown. That madman’s rant about sin of slavery and the blood that was required to wash it away, the pikes he had been prepared to put into the hands of enraged slaves, pikes that might have been thrust into the bodies of Lee’s daughters and wife, the letters in Brown’s carpetbag linking him to wealthy northern backers. Could he invade Virginia or any southern state at the head of an army composed of men who believed John Brown was as divine as Jesus Christ?


304 posted on 01/14/2014 8:57:42 AM PST by Pelham (Obamacare, the vanguard of Obammunism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

You’re thinking of the wrong Johnston, KB- the Fabian tactic Johnston was Joseph E Johnston.

In contrast Albert Sydney Johnston was regarded by Jeff Davis as his finest general. In fact Davis said that Johnston’s death at Shiloh was the turning point of the war.

Albert Johnston had a career as a Texas Republic general, a US Army general, and a Confederate general. He was the first commander of the famed US Second Cavalry that fought the Comanche. One of his field officers was Robert E Lee, who followed Johnston as commander of that unit. Albert Johnston was much like Lee and had he survived to command the western armies the Union armies in the west would have had a much harder fight.


305 posted on 01/14/2014 9:13:51 AM PST by Pelham (Obamacare, the vanguard of Obammunism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I am not implying a pro-slavery stance, but rather an aversion to war as a means to settle the issue of slavery.

Got that.

306 posted on 01/14/2014 9:26:41 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (This GOP is dead. What do we do now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Excellent points and observations.

The greatest argument that I have the average northerner wasn't fervent on a war to eradicate slavery, was the lack of its mention in actually recruiting soldiers and securing funds.

I think the impression in the South was certainly that it existed, but evidence supports that Lincoln did not believe that it would be a persuasive argument. Of course, once war began all factions and motives were welcomed on the ground, if not reflected in rhetoric.

307 posted on 01/14/2014 10:05:06 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Study the timeline. The South fought south of the Potomac until Gettysburg.

OK, lets study the timeline.

Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania: - June/July 1863.

Lee's invasion of Maryland: September, 1862

Bragg's invasion of Kentucky: August, 1862

Polk invades Kentucky : September, 1861

Battle of Belmont Missouri: November, 1861

Battle of Boonville, Missouri: June, 1861

Battle of Cape Girardeau, Missouri: April, 1863

Battle of Carthage, Missouri: July, 1861

Battle of Glorieta Pass, New Mexico: March, 1862

Battle of Valverde, New Mexico: February, 1862

308 posted on 01/14/2014 10:50:47 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

Second American Revolution.


309 posted on 01/14/2014 11:06:53 AM PST by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
... it is historical fact that the South sent a peace delegation to DC that Lincoln totally ignored.

No, the "South" did not send a delegation. An illegitimate entity called the Confederate States of America sent a delegation. Lincoln, rightly, did not recognize that entity and refused to recognize them as legitimate.

310 posted on 01/14/2014 11:12:34 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I’ll give you the Maryland intrusion in Sept. 1862, although there was no goal of holding territory, but rather maneuvering against the Army of the Potomac (same with Gettysburg).

The PA invasion you list was the Gettysburg affair.

Kentucky and Missouri had strong factions fighting on both sides. We only think of them as Union states because the Union won.

Both Confederate and Union governments claimed ownership and territorial rights over New Mexico Territory, which isn’t surprising when you look at the demographics of who was settling there. Not a matter of the CSA claiming territory that was clearly Union, but rather a fight between confederates and unionists that lived there for control of their destiny.


311 posted on 01/14/2014 1:03:07 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: central_va

yeah,yeah....sure, whatever you say....have a nice day sir.


312 posted on 01/14/2014 2:52:07 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
You have a double-standard on the legitimacy of puppet governments. MO and KY were both border states with split populations. Tell me, did the CSA also have puppet governments for NY and VT? No they didn't.

So the "single standard" is whatever the Confederacy wanted? They wanted all the slave states and were entitled to them, but because they didn't set up puppet regimes for free states, the rest of the country should have been grateful and just given them whatever they wanted?

The fundamental point was that the secession of West Virginia was exactly the same issue of self-determination as the secession of the CSA. On the issue of self-determination alone, you cannot logically reject one and accept the other, nor accept one and reject the other. There must be other elements brought into the discussion to make a differentiation.

West Virginia became a state following the constitutional procedure for admitting new states. You can argue that what happened was illegitimate, because the people who were shooting at us weren't given a veto over it, but the process is written in black and white in the constitution. It wasn't a matter of some abstract right to self-determination to be exercised in spite of the provisions of the constitution. "Self-determination" doesn't automatically trump the rule of law or the Constitution.

Why did Lincoln and his supporters consider it worth war to make half the country, who overwhelmingly wished to split bonds, submit to federal control?

If it really was a matter of half the country wanting to leave, Lincoln wouldn't have won the war or even been elected. By voters or population it was considerably less than half. That ought to have inspired caution in the secessionist leaders, rather than recklessness.

If you have to kill and crush a state to make it submit to your union, it is obviously a one-sided benefit. Much the same as the difference between the union of marriage and rape.

Bringing up rape in this context is like bringing up Hitler. It calls into question just how good your arguments really are (as well as your sense of good taste).

But what the Unionists were concerned about was what they regarded as the rule of law and constitutional procedure. To that we can add the sense of nationhood and anger at the insult to the flag.

Given the ambiguities involved, the may have been wrong about what the rule of law required, but their case wasn't any worse than that of the secessionists. The other, more emotional matters don't have as much appeal today (at least until such emotions flare up again), but they were taken very seriously by the 19th century.

To say that the unionists didn't have a case apart from slavery is to stack the deck by simply ignoring such arguments as they did have and make.

Of course, the North could have proffered to have a national solution to slavery, say a 10-20 year plan to purchase, apprentice, and free slaves. That was a popular notion, and the cost certainly would have been less than the war. It was a common notion because it is exactly what the British had done. The South might have rejected it, but it would have been worth exploring.

It was not a popular notion. Not in the slave states, where the matter couldn't even be discussed, and probably not in the country as a whole. There was the matter of cost and the matter of what would happen to the freedmen, what rights and opportunities would be given to the former slaves.

But beyond all that, compensated emancipation -- the prospect of an end to slavery -- wasn't a measure that would appease the secessionists, but rather one that would inflame them. Talk about an end to slavery in anything other than the remote fullness of time was bound to be perceived as a threat to plantation interests and would incense many slave-owners.

Others, convinced the boom in cotton prices would continue would simply dismiss such a proposal. Such a proposal would also likely cost the government support in the Border States and the southern Midwest.

So why not negotiate? Likely because Lincoln and his supporters saw a need to strike while the iron was hot, the country was agitated, and not risk losing a chance to end slavery, whatever the means. But that's not what he sold to the Northern people who would do the dying.

I'd say it was Davis who was "striking while the iron was hot" -- creating a crisis to whip up support for secession. As for Lincoln, any US president wants to save face. No president wants to be seen as the one who let the country fall to pieces on his watch. So most presidents would not simply collapse before separatist demands. The same goes for most leaders of most countries around the world -- very much including democratically elected leaders.

So if you are leading a separationist movement and want to be successful, you recognize that. You try to avoid pushing your would-be former government's back to the wall. You recognize that what's at stake isn't just your own wants and wishes.

But I suspect that secessionist leaders then and their defenders now are more into emotionalism than in actually achieving their goals through prudent and responsible action.

313 posted on 01/14/2014 3:32:49 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: x

You’ve struck on the key.

Your SimpleMinded opponent desperately wants to promote the meme that it was northern interests that caused the War of Southern Aggression. In order to do so one must ignore who for decades leading up to the war constantly agitated against union solidarity (the south), who seized on the event of a presidential election to commit their insurrection (the south), who instigated hostile actions against their neighbors all across the nation (the south), and who illegally stole federal forts, ships, arsenals, armories, mints, etc., fired on Federal ships, and threatened Federal officials even before Lincoln called for militias to restore order (the south).

And yet with all this belligerence they still castigate Lincoln for failing to “show restraint”. I’m inclined to chalk it up to invincible ignorance.


314 posted on 01/14/2014 4:15:32 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
In contrast Albert Sydney Johnston was regarded by Jeff Davis as his finest general.

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Davis thought that Braxton Bragg was an fine general, too.

Albert Johnston was much like Lee and had he survived to command the western armies the Union armies in the west would have had a much harder fight.

We will never know for sure. Certainly Albert Johnston had all the potential to be a fine general; but then again so did the other Johnston. But since he was killed in his first major action then his true value as an army commander will never be known.

315 posted on 01/15/2014 5:06:12 AM PST by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: x
So the "single standard" is whatever the Confederacy wanted? They wanted all the slave states and were entitled to them, but because they didn't set up puppet regimes for free states, the rest of the country should have been grateful and just given them whatever they wanted?

The slave states weren't taken by the CSA, they were sovereign and left of their own accord. The struggles (and dual governments) in states such as Missouri were the result of relatively balanced forces struggling for control within those states. Union puppet states set up of non-border states that were vastly in favor of secession were morally reprehensible assaults on the Constitution.

West Virginia became a state following the constitutional procedure for admitting new states. You can argue that what happened was illegitimate,

But you can't argue with a shred of intellectual honesty that it was legitimate. The Soviets always "followed the law" too. What was done made a mockery of the Constitution pure and simple. That they made stage craft using the Constitution as a prop didn't make it more legitimate, it just made it more reprehensible.

If it really was a matter of half the country wanting to leave, Lincoln wouldn't have won the war or even been elected. By voters or population it was considerably less than half. That ought to have inspired caution in the secessionist leaders, rather than recklessness.

First, take a look at the map. Second, had the South had the industrial base, they would have won. Third, you are now adding mob rule to your dictatorial central government admiration. And you post on FR why?

Bringing up rape in this context is like bringing up Hitler. It calls into question just how good your arguments really are (as well as your sense of good taste).

Oh yea, because a 4 year war, killing hundreds of thousands and decimating entire regions shouldn't be compared to something as serious as rape. Next I'll be sensationalizing the holocaust by comparing it to a mass shooting.

I was correct the first time about the character of someone who hangs their hat on the legitimacy of a puppet government.

316 posted on 01/15/2014 6:48:42 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: x

More invincible ignorance on display. I bet she thinks she’s a conservative too.


317 posted on 01/15/2014 7:04:19 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Lower Deck

Albert Johnston had proven his command ability in his previous roles with the Texas Republic and the US Army.


318 posted on 01/15/2014 8:18:18 AM PST by Pelham (Obamacare, the vanguard of Obammunism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Once again, you're simply assuming that the Confederates were right and ignoring opposing arguments -- that because they were "nice enough" not to lay claim to free states the US should let them have their way with the slave states, regardless of how strong unionist sentiment was in those states.

You may know that Virginia's convention rejected secession by a large margin before the beginning of the war. It was only after Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops that the secession measure went through. According to the secessionist version any number of votes for union wouldn't count, but one vote for secession would be decisive.

In the convention and in the later referendum, counties that became part of West Virginia later rejected secession. If you're looking for an expression of the right to self-determination, that could be a good example. And after two years of war, who's to say how Virginians would have voted?

Two more points: 1) Just what was and what wasn't a "Border State" was largely a function of the war. Virginia and Tennessee were divided over the question of secession. Every Southern state provided troops to the Union Army, and except for South Carolina some of those troops were actually White and free before the war. 2) The question of "self-determination" is a little tricky here. If a county was 50% or 60% or 70% enslaved or a state was 30% or 40% or 50% enslaved, just what "self-determination" meant could get quite complicated.

In any event, West Virginia statehood is reversible. If it was such a crime and horror, West Virginians and Virginians certainly have the possibility of undoing it. Congress probably wouldn't stand in the way.

What was done made a mockery of the Constitution pure and simple.

The Constitution that the Confederates rejected and thought themselves to be outside of? You may be one of those people who assumes that a state government could simply say, "Now all of a sudden I am outside of the Union and the Constitution doesn't apply to me," but isn't it inconsistent to say that in some sense it still does apply when it is to your advantage? You may question the justice of what was done, but it certainly was constitutionally valid given the circumstances.

First, take a look at the map.

Square acres don't vote. People do. But my point was more that post-election malcontents should act with caution, not trumpet about that they are half the country and entitled to form another country.

Second, had the South had the industrial base, they would have won.

If those states had the industrial base they probably wouldn't have seceded. Go back to Wigfall's speech. He didn't want an industrial base. It would have been too hard to control.

I was correct the first time about the character of someone who hangs their hat on the legitimacy of a puppet government.

Because I disagree with you? It sounds more like your own character is questionable.

319 posted on 01/15/2014 2:28:23 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; Vaquero; Wyrd bið ful aræd
If a right is described as a power it is still a right. If states have powers which are descriptions of rights, then states have rights.

I think it is dangerous (conceptually) not to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the powers of a state. The rights of a person and the powers of a state are very different ideas. I try not confuse the two.

You question referring to “states” as “ruling regimes.” I honestly do not know what to call them if not that. In the sense that the Founding generation used the term “government,” that is in the sense of “government by the consent of the governed,” I know of no ruling regime that can properly be called a “government.” Of course, in a political context a Chuck Schumer would agree with the sentiment that government be conducted “by the consent of the governed.” But his comportment, his manner of speaking, his very bearing cries out that he thinks of himself as a ruler, not a “governor.” The same can be said of The Kenyon Pretender, and of nearly every other politician. Perhaps you would care to hazard to name a few public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” just as you might wish to name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the government.” I leave that task to you. I cannot.

Likewise, if there are some who would essay to make no marked distinction between the “rights” of individuals and the “powers” of a state (or ruling regime), then please proceed in good health by all means. Vaya con Dios, or, in Hebrew, לכי עם אלוהים.

320 posted on 01/15/2014 3:03:26 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Albert Johnston had proven his command ability in his previous roles with the Texas Republic and the US Army.

Joe Johnston and Braxton Bragg had distinguished careers prior to the Civil War as well. Both had served with distinction in the Mexican War as well as Indian wars. Both were found lacking. Albert Johnston could have wound up being another Lee or he could have wound up making Bragg look good. We'll never know.

321 posted on 01/15/2014 4:44:23 PM PST by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: x
It was only after Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops that the secession measure went through.

So you acknowledge then the war was not about slavery. Good.

322 posted on 01/15/2014 4:52:23 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“About” is a complicated thing.


323 posted on 01/15/2014 5:13:09 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: x

I am convinced the Civil War is the single most difficult thing to get your head around that there is. The more I study it, the less I seem to know.


324 posted on 01/15/2014 5:15:03 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I think it is dangerous (conceptually) not to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the powers of a state.

The distinction is in the modifier: individual rights, state rights, individual powers, state powers (whatever any of the foregoing may be).

You question referring to “states” as “ruling regimes.” I honestly do not know what to call them if not that.

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Or

a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

When I think of a "state" I think of more than the ruling regime. I think of the people, the territority they occupy, their government, the things that bind them together, not just the rulers. The ruling regime may change while the state remains.

As to the "consent of the governed", the words trouble me. I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed on a national scale, at least not in all matters.

325 posted on 01/17/2014 3:55:15 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; Vaquero; Wyrd bið ful aræd
As to the “consent of the governed”, the words trouble me.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis mine)

Do you recognize the above phrase? Are you equally troubled by the expression “all men are created equal”? How far do you suppose any responsive government should take the meaning of that expression on a national scale? Should it demand that every person must have the same number of bathrooms in every home? The same square feet? The same climate control? The same quality and quantity of food and clothing? The identical level of education?

By the same token, are governments “instituted among men” to control their every movement and choice, or do governments exist and derive their “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person? Which sort of government would have your consent? Would you prefer a ruling regime of unlimited powers? Would your choice hinge on whether or not you are a member of the ruling elite?

I’m not demanding you agree with me. I’m simply asking you think a little about the proposition.

326 posted on 01/17/2014 5:07:40 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Do you recognize the above phrase?

Yes.

Are you equally troubled by the expression “all men are created equal”?

Not as long as it means they are equally endowed with equal unalienable rights; that they may not constrain the rights of others by virtue of their creation.

How far do you suppose any responsive government should take the meaning of that expression on a national scale?

As far as necessary to secure the unalienable rights the government was instituted to secure.

Should it demand that every person must have the same number of bathrooms in every home?

No.

The same square feet?

No.

The same climate control?

No.

The same quality and quantity of food and clothing?

No.

The identical level of education?

No.

By the same token, are governments “instituted among men” to control their every movement and choice, or do governments exist and derive their “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person?

Just governments exist and derive their “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person over whom the government justly holds sway.

Which sort of government would have your consent?

The sort that exists and derives its “just powers” in order to secure the “certain unalienable rights” of every person over whom the government justly holds sway.

Would you prefer a ruling regime of unlimited powers?

No.

Would your choice hinge on whether or not you are a member of the ruling elite?

I've never been a member of a ruling elite as far as I know, but I don't believe so.

I answered your questions, now please answer mine:

First and most important, why did you change the subject? You started off quoting me on "consent of the governed", marginally addressed that, and then went off sideways. Are you unable to discuss "consent of the governed" or unwilling?

When our side won the Revolutionary War and established a new government, did that government have the "consent of the governed" when the particular people in question had been Tories, Loyalists? Should it not have governed them?

Are you acquainted with the Sovereign Citizen Movement? Basically, they don't consent to be governed by any of our governments. Should our governments leave them alone because they don't consent?

Did we not establish government in Germany and Japan after WWII and did those governed give their consent?

Have the various criminal organizations in the US given their consent to be governed by other than their own hierarchies?

Is consent really consent if it is forced by circumstance or superior power?

Has everyone subject to our National, State and Local governments freely given consent to be governed? Did you ask them? Did anyone ask them for their consent?

327 posted on 01/17/2014 8:06:53 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Public-Mind-Understanding-Fought/dp/0306821265

“By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper’s Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a “holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South’s greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson’s cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.”


328 posted on 01/18/2014 9:27:40 AM PST by Pelham (Obamacare, the vanguard of Obammunism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

I prefer the term the war of southern independence.


329 posted on 01/18/2014 10:56:56 AM PST by StoneWall Brigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; Kenny Bunk
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

First and most important, why did you change the subject?

How did I change the subject? The assertion does not prove the fact. Prove the fact. Demonstrate in detail in what manner the subject has been changed.

The subject was “the consent of the governed,” was it not? Can we at least agree on that?

I introduced the context in which the phrase “consent of the governed” appears, although I can hardly believe anyone even dimly aware of American History would likely understand otherwise (not even Lenin, Pelosi, or 0bama). I am unaware of any other context in which “consent of the governed” appears, or of any other context from which “consent of the governed” might be taken.

For thirteen years, ever since the close of the Seven Years War between GB & France, the British “Colonials” had been in dispute with King George and Parliament over the degree of control King & Parliament might have over the colonies (King & Parliament claimed total; the colonies claimed none without their consent and then only with representation). Gradually the Colonialists came to realize King & Parliament were never going to say anything but “fppt!” to either “consent” or “representation.” Hence Mr. Jefferson’s remarkable tome, including the much disputed “Consent of the Governed.”

Historians seem to be in general agreement that at the beginning of the American War For Independence about a third of the Colonials were patriots, about a third wanted to remain loyal to King & Country, and the other third simply wished everyone else would just go away. So, in that you are approximately correct. Five years later, when Cornwallis finally gave it up, that action signaling the impending end, I don’t know what number composed the mix, but a good many of the “Loyalists” packed up and moved north to Canada (whether they wanted to or not).

So, I guess you can claim we have never consensually existed with a legitimate government, if your contention is that the only acceptable alternative to “consent of the governed” is criminal activity or armed insurrection. Although criminal activity, along with the claim of religious exclusivity, might be thought aimed more directly against Society rather than simply “government.”

“Consent of the governed” can mean something no more complicated than consenting to be governed rather than ruled. You seemed to have no contextual problem with the Jeffersonian expression “all men are created equal,” a phrase upon which the phrase “consent of the governed” logically and genetically depends, but I guess “consent of the governed” totally defeats you. Just as the Colonials had a number of options before armed insurrection, so do we. As did they, between the Seven Years War and the American War For Independence, we seem to be handicapped by a population that, by half or more, doesn’t care if it is governed or ruled, so long as they have their flat screens, their housing allowance, their booze, their sex tools, and their Email texting.

We also have our Separatists and Supremacists (which we used to call hermits) and there are, of course, others who believe we can exist without a government of any sort (although they seem to be primarily opposed to being “ruled” without making any distinction between that and being “governed”). And there are, of course, those who are convinced that the people are helpless to govern themselves and must be ruled (for their own good).

If you are among any of these last named, I can certainly understand why you would be violently opposed to “consent of the governed.”

330 posted on 01/18/2014 7:44:29 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
The subject was “the consent of the governed,” was it not? Can we at least agree on that?

We can agree on that. Specifically, in post 320 you wrote (among other things):

Perhaps you would care to hazard to name a few public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” just as you might wish to name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the government” (sic, I assume you meant "governed".). I leave that task to you. I cannot. I responded in post 325 with:

As to the "consent of the governed", the words trouble me. I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed on a national scale, at least not in all matters. You in turn responded in post 326 quoting my words “As to the 'consent of the governed', the words trouble me”, but that's only part of what I wrote.

If I understand you correctly, you wrote that you can't "name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the 'consent of the governed'" while I wrote "I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed..." That troubles me about the words "consent of the governed"; we can't, in your words, "name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the 'consent of the governed'". We don't know if there are any.

I'm a little vague on where we differ in this regard.

How did I change the subject?

You quoted the Declaration Of Independence, emphasizing the words "from the consent of the governed", and in the next paragraph, the first in that post of your own composition, started writing about “all men are created equal” and went on about "equality" with no obvious to me transition, connection or tie in to "consent of the governed".

That strikes me as a change of subject from "consent of the governed" to "all men are created equal".

Now in your last post, 330, you did write “'all men are created equal,' a phrase upon which the phrase 'consent of the governed' logically and genetically depends", which makes the connection, but you didn't write it till paragraph 7 and it being in post 330 didn't do me any good in my post 327 response to your post 326. (I'm not convinced that "consent of the governed" logically and genetically depends on "all men are created equal".)

So, I guess you can claim we have never consensually existed with a legitimate government, if your contention is that the only acceptable alternative to “consent of the governed” is criminal activity or armed insurrection.

I do not contend that.

If you are among any of these last named, I can certainly understand why you would be violently opposed to “consent of the governed.”

"If."

I'm not "violently opposed to 'consent of the governed'”.

As I wrote above:

If I understand you correctly, you wrote that you can't "name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the 'consent of the governed'" while I wrote "I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed..." That troubles me about the words "consent of the governed"; we can't, in your words, "name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the 'consent of the governed'". We don't know if there are any.

I'm a little vague on where we differ in this regard.
331 posted on 01/20/2014 10:22:18 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
I'm a little vague on where we differ in this regard.

What else are you not a “little vague” on, besides your disagreement with the phrase “consent of the governed”? You seem to be a “little vague” about the existence, or the number, of public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” but who knows for sure, since you have positioned yourself so as to be able to declare your “vagueness,” or the lack thereof, after the fact. Likewise, you seem a “little vague” about the existence, or the number of, governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the governed.”

a change of subject from "consent of the governed" to "all men are created equal".

context noun
text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning.
surrounding conditions: the circumstances or events that form the environment within which something exists or takes place

Are you a “little vague” about the importance of context? Do you dispute the role that context has in supporting our understanding of an idea? a philosophy? a concept (political or otherwise)? I explained to you that “consent of the governed” exists within the context of The Declaration, adding that I knew of no other context and also expressing some astonishment that anyone would be unaware of the context. Are you aware of some other context? Do you propose another context in which “consent of the governed” might be considered? If so, what?

I also explained that “consent of the governed” depended, genetically and logically, upon the idea “all men are created equal.” “Consent of the governed” would make no sense if “all men” (meaning all of mankind) were not created equal. Without the equality of all men (all Mankind) we could, indeed, make a distinction between “Rulers” and the “Ruled.” What about that understanding do you find a “little vague”? Likewise I explained that “consent of the governed” could be nothing more complicated than consenting to be governed, rather than ruled. Do you fail to comprehend the difference between being “governed” and being “ruled” as I use the terms? The distinction hinges on why I note a difference between governments that “govern” and regimes that “rule.”

Perhaps you find the difference to be too “vague” to apprehend. What else might you be “a little vague” about, I wonder? Perhaps anything you don’t wish to understand?

332 posted on 01/22/2014 3:11:24 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

“No, thanks.”


333 posted on 01/22/2014 5:08:54 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-333 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson