Posted on 05/20/2014 8:57:04 AM PDT by Sioux-san
Not much media coverage, not much fanfare, not much reflection. A war that carved over 600,000 lives from the nation when the nation’s population was just 31 million. To compare, that would equate to a loss of life in today’s population statistics, not to mention limb and injury, of circa 6 million.
We are in the month of May, when 150 years ago Grant crossed the Rapidan to engage Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Lee stood atop Clark’s Mountain and watched this unknown (to the eastern theatre) entity lead a massive army into Lee’s home state. Soon there would be the Wilderness, where forest and brushfires would consume the wounded and dying. Days later, the battle of Spotsylvania ensued, in which hand-to-hand combat would last nearly 12 hours. Trading casualties one for one and rejecting previous prisoner exchange and parole procedures, Grant pushed on, to the left flank. The Battle of the North Anna, then the crossing of the James, and thus into the siege of Petersburg. This was 1864 in the eastern theatre.
Today there is hardly a whisper of the anniversary of these deeds, sacrifices, and destruction. Why?
One can suppose that the weak treatment of history at the alleged higher levels of education in this country contributes to the lack of attention. “It was about slavery; now on to WWI.” The War between the States was so much more complicated than the ABC treatment that academia presents. And as the old saying goes, the more complicated the situation, the more the bloodshed...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It wasn’t “Founders”; it was Federalists. It wasn’t “messy”; it was a rank violation of the Constitution to increase Federal power.
Now that you’ve characterized the nation as “evolving”, I think you really ought to realize that, when push comes to shove, you are a proponent of Brennan’s “Living Constitution”, e.g.,
Once again you assume details not in evidence. I have no doubt that you’re acquainted with the old adage about assuming making an ass of yourself.
You are just another “Hannity” conservative. By the way, that was a not-so-clever way of dodging the anti-Constitutional proclivities of you beloved Federalists.
Ooh ouch.
Anyway, I just wanted to share that I was in attendance at Gettysburg for the Centennial in 1963. I was 9yrs old. Biggest event I have ever seen, to this day. Was there for ten days. Saw the re-enactment of Pickett’s Charge. Saw Eisenhower. Little Round Top, Big Round Top, Devil’s Den, Meade’s Headquarters, Culp’s Hill, etc. Then the next month, August, I saw JFK at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. He was assassinated a few months later. Just reminiscing........
FRiend, I made no "more perfect union argument", even though that was key to Lincoln's understanding.
I merely pointed out that the Articles' "perpetual union" was replaced by the Constitution's "more perfect union".
Unequivocally, the new Constitution was a stronger union than the old one.
achilles2000: "You have no real argument on secession beyond the fact that a lawless President was able to prevent it."
In fact, there is no argument against lawful secession -- none, zero, nada.
And all of this has been posted before, but your lack of reading comprehension makes it necessary to repeat, and repeat.
Our Founders' original intent regarding disunion was consistently expressed (or implied) as requiring mutual consent, or some material breech of contract such as "oppression", "injury" or "usurpations", which would make mutual consent unnecessary.
But none of these conditions existed in November 1860, when the Slave Power Fire Eaters first began organizing for declarations of secession.
Instead, there was only one significant change -- the 100% constitutional election of "Black Republican" Abraham Lincoln.
So the Deep South began to declare its secessions under conditions which James Madison explained were not constitutional: secession at pleasure.
Still, these declarations did not cause Civil War, a fact with which, if you had any reading comprehension, you'd be thoroughly familiar.
Had the Confederacy patiently avoided war, they could easily have succeeded.
achilles2000: "As for Hamilton, do you really propose to argue that he wasn’t a big government Federalist?
He didn’t get all that he wanted, but he was, for example, in favor of a permanent national debt and central banking."
FRiend, 100% of the actual Founders of the Constitution of the United States were Federalists -- all of them.
Anti-Federalists were Anti-Constitution, and were NOT Founders, period.
So, by definition, when we are speaking of the Founders' original intent we are speaking of the Federalists' original intent, and those certainly included Federalist Papers' authors, Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
So your beloved anti-Federalists are of no account in discussions of original intent -- because they opposed the Constitution from Day One.
achilles2000: "Hamilton would probably be appalled at what the federal government has become, but that government has resulted, in part, from seeds he planted."
Rubbish. The Federal Government Hamilton helped found remained essentially unchanged until about 100 years ago, with passage of "progressive" 16th & 17th Amendments.
Those provided the money and political power for unlimited Federal expansion.
achilles2000: "By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state."
What, your reading comprehension is so poor you can't even remember what you yourself posted? Amazing.
In post #278 I quoted your references to a leviathan state, the first allegedly proposed by Hamiltion.
achilles2000: "Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it?
How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?"
First remember, when the Alien & Sedition acts were proposed, they were not originally opposed by Vice President Jefferson, because, at that moment at least, they were considered necessary preparations for war with France.
So our Founders, including Jefferson, fully understood that war-time required special actions to protect the republic.
Later, as the threat of war disappeared, the Acts became unnecessary and politics dictated Jefferson's opposition as a readily available "wedge issue" against John Adams' Federalists.
In terms of policy, Jefferson was right of course, but Jefferson himself used the Sedition Act to prosecute some of his own political enemies, before the act expired.
What it all proves is that our Founders were A) realists and B) politicians.
By the way, neither act was ever appealed to the Supreme Court, and "the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21–24."
It remains part of our Founders' original intent.
achilles2000: "For all your expostulating about “original intent”, you don’t manage to come to terms with the doctrine of enumerated powers, the argument made by Hamilton that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, or the 9th and 10th Amendments."
More rubbish displaying your lack of reading comprehension.
The Tenth Amendment is not in dispute on Free Republic, except as it is used by pro-Confederates to justify unilateral declarations of secession, at pleasure.
The basic problem with your argument is that no Founder ever expressed it -- explicitly or implicitly.
Indeed, just the opposite, every Founder who addressed the subject said "disunion" should be by mutual consent or by some material breech-of-contract, such as "oppression" or "injury".
And none of these conditions existed in November 1860.
achilles2000: "The Constitution would be a wonderful document to live under, but it was poisoned by Marshall and shredded by Lincoln and a succession of lawless politicians, including Obamalini."
You forget, don't you, that Federalist John Marshall was a Founding Father who, along with Madison & Randolf led the fight for ratifying the Constitution in Virginia's Convention.
Marshall was John Adams' Secretary of State and was appointed by Adams to the Supreme Court.
Marshall's opinions therefore qualify as "original intent" of our Founders.
So Marshall did not, in your word, "poison" the Constitution, he helped define it -- for better or worse.
achilles2000: "I do think you love the “Constitution”, as you conceive it in the abstract, but I doubt very much that you would be pleased to live under it.
After all, the checks and other welfare to the elderly would be cut off."
Unlike pro-Confederates such as yourself, I don't mark the moment when our republic went off the rails as being Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy, but rather as "Progressive" victory 100 years ago in passing the 16th & 17th Amendments, giving Federal government unlimited money & power over states.
And by-the-way, both amendments were strongly supported by former Confederate states -- so this is not, repeat not, a North-South thang.
Repealing those two amendments alone would go a long way towards restoring the relationship between Federal & State intended by Founders.
As for all those checks you seem sooo worried about -- there's no reason why states or private companies couldn't do the job, not just as well, but far better.
You are long on assertions that simply are wrong.
1. The Constitution was a compromise. Because of compromises many who opposed early drafts ultimately supported it.
2. “Federalists” were a political party that died an early death. Supporting the existence of a federal government doesn’t make one a “Federalist”. If that were the case, I would have been a “Federalist”, but I can’t have been because you have decreed that I am an “anti-federalist”. As long as we are talking about political parties, Democratic-Republicans also supported the Constitution, FYI.
3. Your secession mechanism is your invention. The Constitution gives the federal government no powers except those that are enumerated, and those don’t include forcing states to remain in the Union. The Constitution does reserve the states individual rights and does not subject them to “Perpetual Union” as the Articles did. Odd that you support succession from the Articles in spite of the language of the Articles, and oppose it under the Constitution despite the language of the Constitution.
4.Your use of “war” and “realism” gives away the game. It doesn’t matter that the Alien & Sedition Act was lawless and unconstitutional, just as you don’t care that Lincoln did a number of things that were lawless and unconstitutional. All you need to do to amend the Constitution is to claim that some lawful action is “unrealistic”, and so the government can ignore the Constitution. As I have said, you really suppoort a “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, not original intent.
5. The Republic didn’t remain unchanged for 100+ years. The Civil War completely transformed the nature of American government. The Lincoln regime forced an unlawful income tax and fiat money on the country, for example. These toxic policies laid the groundwork for what was cemented into place less than 50 years later. Of course, the changes were more far reaching that just those two examples.
6. Hamilton got very little language into the Constitution. One provision he did get was the federal assumption of the war debt. Yet, there is nothing that permits a central bank or (federal)paper money, for example, both of which Hamilton favored.
7. Marshall seized something that no one gave the courts. You apparently believe that anyone who was what you call a “founder” isn’t bound by the document NEGOTIATED and ratified (by the states, the true founders).
Ha! No, they're all correct, and demonstrable as needed.
Your problem obviously is lack of reading comprehension exceeded by your ignorance of real history, as I will show...
achilles2000: "1. The Constitution was a compromise.
Because of compromises many who opposed early drafts ultimately supported it."
Of course, many compromises were made, most notoriously, the 3/5 rule for counting slaves -- hence the moniker "slave-power".
Still, many adamantly opposed ratifying the new Constitution in 1788, and here's where your ignorance of actual history betrays you -- those who favored the new Constitution were called "Federalists", as in "The Federalist Papers" by notable Federalists Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
Those who opposed the new Constitution were called anti-Federalists, as in "The Anti-Federalist Papers" by New York Governor George Clinton, Judge Robert Yates, including some speeches by Patrick Henry.
When the Constitution was fully ratified, those Anti-Federalists were defeated, and so are not, repeat NOT, Founders of the Constitution.
That makes their opinions of no account in determining what was, or was not, Founders original intent.
achilles2000: "2. 'Federalists' were a political party that died an early death.
Supporting the existence of a federal government doesn’t make one a 'Federalist'.
If that were the case, I would have been a “Federalist”, but I can’t have been because you have decreed that I am an “anti-federalist”.
As long as we are talking about political parties, Democratic-Republicans also supported the Constitution, FYI."
Sorry, but you are very confused and unschooled.
Really, you should have paid attention in history class -- this is all the most fascinating stuff imaginable!
The fact is that after their defeat in the ratifying conventions, anti-Federalists soon became a political party in the new government, under Jefferson's leadership, first known as the "anti-Administration Party", they eventually became Jefferson's "Democratic-Republicans".
Jefferson & Madison, of course, were originally Federalists, supporting ratification, and in Madison's case leading the charge.
But they joined with anti-Federalists in opposing Hamilton's ideas, and eventually opposed the entire Northern party of John Adams, then known as "Federalists".
Important to remember that the Northern Federalist party eventually collapsed as serious opposition Jefferson's party, now called "Democratic-Republicans" over New England threats to secede because of Madison's War of 1812.
Now must stop here, will pick this up again later...
The 3/5 provision was also relevant for tax reasons.
As for the rest, you really have superficial view and knowledge of the process and history of ratification. You should know, for example, that many who opposed the final draft of the Constitution decided to support it once the Bill of Rights was promised. “Fedralist” and “federalist” are not the same thing. Here is what Jefferson actually thought of the Constitution and Bill of Rights: “There has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.”
At this point, you are just flailing around.
It’s been a fun discussion but unfortunately y’all are talking past one another.
He is a moving target ;-)
I've not figured out what point our FRiend achilles2000 is hoping to make, but he seems surprisingly il-informed, so much of my response has been simply to correct that.
A key point I'm hoping to make is that where Republicans trace our roots back to the pro-Constitution Federalists, Democrats trace theirs back to anti-Constitution anti-Federalists, who became Jeffersonian Democrat-Republicans and eventually Jacksonian Democrats -- today's "liberal-progressive" Democrats.
Of course, pro-Confederates like achilles2000 wish us to believe that their own anti-Federalists (i.e., Patrick Henry) were the first true Conservatives.
They point to the fact that anti-Federalists of 1788 were anti-Big Government, which makes them just like today's Conservatives, right?
No, the key facts about anti-Federalists, the facts which makes them the first true Democrats (in today's sense of the word) are:
By contrast, Federalists in 1788 and Republicans today both:
Of course, achilles2000 might say: that makes today's Republicans "establishment" and pro-Confederates "tea-party".
To that I'd say: Lord help us, because that's exactly what Democrats want the world to believe -- that the new Republican "right wing" is just the old pro-Confederate slave-power.
Well, it's not -- the old Slave-Power of yester-year are demonstrably today's Big Government progressive Democrats.
I think that's a very, very important point to make and to defend with everything we've got.
FRiend, I haven't moved an inch, but since you're bobbing & weaving every which way imaginable, it may seem that your "target" is moving against a fixed background.
Your real problem is that you don't know your history, but you do know too many pro-Confederate talking points -- none of which stand up to careful inspection.
Once again, your lack of reading comprehension is only exceeded by your manifest ignorance of actual history.
First, there is no secession mechanism specified in the Constitution, doubtless because our Founders hoped there would be no need for it.
They did, however, provide numerous mechanisms for changing laws, challenging legal interpretations, and changing or rewriting the Constitution itself -- so that's what they hoped for the future.
Founders' views on "disunion" were all consistent with the ideas that it should be by mutual consent or from some material breach of contract, such as "oppression" or "usurpations".
So those qualify as "original intent".
Second, no effort -- zero, zip, nada -- no effort was made by two US Presidents (Buchanan & Lincoln) to, in your words, "force states to remain in the Union:.
What Lincoln did, instead, was first: unconditionally defeat the alien military power which first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, then second, Presidents Lincoln & Johnson allowed their citizens (all of their citizens) to elect representatives to Congress and to presidential electoral colleges.
Third, again: Founders' original intent was that lawful secession come through mutual consent (i.e., approval of Congress) or by some material breech of contract.
Therefore, US "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation was 100% lawful, while Deep South slave-power unilateral declarations of secession were 100% illegal, period.
No secession mechanism...again you are assuming that if it isn’t specified as allowed, it isn’t permitted. They knew how to write and include the words “Perpetual Union”, and they chose not to. Even with “Perpetual Union” in the Articles, states seceded from that pact. You don’t read carefully, you don’t know the relevant literature, and you have trouble reasoning. In particular, the doctrine of enumerated powers and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are a mystery to you. The South, New England, New York City, and others at various times believed they had the right to secede.
You are simply a big government conservative who doesn’t want to recognize what historians already acknowledge; namely, that Lincoln was a dictator who acted largely outside the law. The American Constitutional Republic today is as dead as the Roman Republic in the days of Augustus Caesar, and it is largely the fault of generations of faux “conservatives” like you.
And you don’t want to understand the difference between secession and unilateral secession. Secession as attempted by the slavers wasn’t legal. They didn’t wish to test the theory on a court of law so instead they chose a battlefield.
They chose poorly. Now a war and a SCOTUS ruling reinforces the precept that secession is only permissible by mutual consent.
BTW: The “historians” who hold that Lincoln was a tyrant are the outliers - not the mainstream. Saying that the republic is dead is witless and beneath you. You should stop embarrassing yourself.
FRiend, there is no "game" here for me to "give away".
My position is: "Founders' original intent as modified by later amendments," period.
So I am now defending their "original intent", even where that is difficult, as in the case of the "Alien & Sedition" laws of 1798.
So first, let's remember that the "Alien Enemies Act" of 1798 is still US law, was never challenged & declared unconstitutional by any branch of government.
The Sedition and Alien Friends acts were both temporary war-measures which expired by 1801 -- though not before President Jefferson used them to prosecute some of his own political enemies.
Second, let's remember that every Founding President faced internal threats to the young Republic, in the forms of rebellion (Washington), threats of sedition (Adams), attempted treason (Jefferson) and secession (Madison).
Each Founding President then used what they believed were Constitutional military & legal powers when, "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Section 9 of Article 1).
Third yes, today we classify Franklin Roosevelt's WWII shipping of Japanese civilians off to concentration camps, along with the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, as "unconstitutional over-reach of Federal powers, in response to less-than deadly threats."
But the principle here is enshrined in the Constitution, and remains unchallenged: during times of "Rebellion or Invasion", the Federal government assumes more power to protect "the public Safety".
That same principle during Lincoln's time of "Rebellion or Invasion" lead him to actions which would not otherwise have been acceptable.
But since then, none of Lincoln's wartime actions were declared, in your words, "unlawful" or "unconstitutional" by any branch of government.
Indeed, we see this all again today in debates over the "War on Terror" Patriot Act, where the government may, or may not, have assumed more power than strictly necessary to defend our Safety from terrorists.
In summary, although we today disagree with those laws, our Founders originally considered the Alien & Sedition Acts to be neither, in your words, "lawless" nor "unconstitutional", but rather made necessary by immanent war.
This included not only Adams & Washington, but also Jefferson -- who did not originally oppose them, and ended up using them, as President, for his own political benefit.
That's why we're not talking about a "living constitution" here, but rather, "Founders' original intent".
Of course, the Republic changed to some degree or another with every election.
For example, the election of 1856, along with the 1857 Dred-Scott Supreme Court decision, and the 1850 Fugitive Slave laws came very close to making slavery lawful in every state and territory.
Then election in 1860 of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" began to reverse the trend toward more lawful slavery.
But there was no fundamental transformation of the Federal government's role, size and scope before passage of the 16th & 17th Amendments 100 years ago.
We can see this in the following facts:
Of course, in years between those listed, Federal spending went up & down, depending on wars, politics & economic conditions.
But we can clearly see how the size, cost & scope of Federal government remained essentially unchanged from the Founding of the Republic (Washington) until passage of the 16th & 17th Amendments (Wilson), 100 years ago.
Yes, of course, the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments did also fundamentally transform America, but for the better, and nobody, but nobody, on Free Republic has ever, ever suggested those amendments should be repealed.
And naturally, I assume you agree with that.
First, I'm no expert on Hamilton's role in the Constitution Convention of 1787 -- but I do know he made the greatest single contribution to the 1788 Federalist Papers, which makes Hamilton's ideas first and foremost in expressing our Founders' original intent.
Therefore, Hamilton is a very important figure amongst our Founders.
Second, beginning in 1782, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress sponsored the Bank of North America, modeled on the Bank of England and opened by Robert Morris, then United States Superintendent of Finance.
This bank competed with state banks and was strongly opposed by some Founders.
In 1791, former Morris aid -- Alexander Hamilton -- negotiated a deal with Southern politicians whereby the Federal capital was moved from New York City to Washington DC, and they agreed to a 20-year charter (1791 to 1811) for the First Bank of the United States -- again modeled after the Bank of England, but still competing against similar state sponsored banks.
The law effecting this was passed by Congress and signed by President Washington.
Yes, it was opposed by anti-Administration Party leaders Jefferson & Madison, but Jefferson did nothing to repeal it while President, and President Madison signed into law the 20-year charter for the Second Bank of the United States (1816 to 1836).
So, when push came to shove, all of our Founders, from the time of the Articles of Confederation onwards, supported or extended a Federally chartered bank, modeled after the Bank of England.
It therefore qualifies as Founders' original intent.
That may explain why, although Federal income tax did require a constitutional amendment (the 16th), the simultaneously enacted Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did not.
Throughout this period, state chartered banks existed alongside the national bank, and issued notes against specie (gold & silver coins) according to their own state's currency reserve laws.
As political opposition to a national bank rose or fell, the state chartered banks rose or fell in relative importance.
Lincoln argued that it was the Union which founded the states, and not visa versa, based on the fact that states were all just British colonies before the Union declared them to be States, and the Union (not the states) won the war for their independence.
So, Lincoln argued: the Union created the States.
The truth of this matter is that it's an obvious "chicken or egg" question, a matter of semantics, in which both sides are inextricably interwoven with the other.
Without the Union there would be no independent states in 1787, and without the states, no Union would be possible, ever.
Now, as for Chief Justice Marshall, you may remember that his predecessor, George Washington's appointee Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, also addressed the issue of judicial review (in Hylton v US, 1796), though not as forcefully as Marshall.
Point is: once again, that idea was around from the beginning and was accepted by all Founders at the time.
It therefore qualifies as original intent.
Jefferson's written opposition to Marshall's judicial review was both mild and not followed with vigorous actions to revoke it.
Nor is there a record of serious state or general public opposition to Marshall's interpretation of Founders' original intent.
Again, I remind you that Marshall himself was a critically important Federalist Founder, in the state of Virginia's ratification convention, leading the fight along with Madison & Rutledge to approve the new Constitution.
So Marshall's opinions matter, big time.
Now we come to the end of your seven points, none of which are valid, and all of which display serious ignorance of US history, but dead-certain devotion to the full panoply of pro-Confederate talking points.
So my suggestion to you is: get off the anti-US Kool-Aid, and read some real history for a change.
It will change your perspectives considerably.
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.