No one today is going to defend slavery. We're all glad that slavery has disappeared in America and we wish it had been expunged at the founding; it is our great shame that the Founding Fathers -- who did so much -- were unable to do this last bit of goodness.
But the Civil War was NOT the preservation of America. It was the fist great step in making a tyrannically strong central government and the first great step in destroying the power of the several states.
Until we rightly recognize that the states are the bastion of our freedom and the federal government is the great threat to our freedom, this country can neither be preserved nor restored.
Well said.
It’s all about the legal structure created at that time. The Rats know this, conservatives don’t. That’s the functional difference in America today, the elephant in the living room.
>>It was the fist great step in making a tyrannically strong central government<<
You are so very right!
Sons of Confederate Veterans
http://www.scv.org/
Preserving our Southern heritage.
agree
I'm not surprised that schools no longer want to teach about why our nation's name is the United States. Soon they'll push for changing the name to "One Government" or something like that. States once had great and equal powers in an alliance that has been all but squashed in a push for cookie-cutter areas in our nation that cower in fear of Washington DC.
I think it might be better to recognize that as a more general principle, which is that the more easily people would be able to flee the control of a tyrannical government, the less likely it is that the government will make that necessary.
Another important principle that needs to be recognized is that although what the Court says and what the law is will coincide when the court is legitimately doing its job, such coincidence would be a result of the court following the law, not the law conforming to the court's rulings. In cases where laws are sufficiently ambiguous or contradictory that either party to a case could legitimately prevail, it is right and proper for a court to write its own rules for how such cases should be handled until such time as the law is changed to remove such ambiguity, but the court's role should be recognized as subservient to that of the legislature. In drafting such rules, the Court would basically be seen as saying "We believe the legislature meant to say X"; as long as such belief is reasonable, it is proper for courts to entertain it. On the other hand, if the legislature says "We did not mean X--we meant Y", then courts should regard their previous beliefs as having been mistaken.
Given the number of court decisions which split 5-4 along predictable lines, it is not reasonable to believe that all nine justices are consistently and legitimately doing their jobs. In cases where genuine ambiguities exist, there could be good reasons why justices may disagree about how to solve them, but the fact that decisions are so consistently split strongly suggests that at least some justices are more interested in serving their political master than carrying out their legitimate job. When justices don't do their legitimate job, the relationship that should exist between what they say, and what the law actually is, may cease to exist.