Replies

The idea of dual sovereignty is one I've not run across before. But I'll play.

I'm sure sovereignty has a number of definitions, but here's one to work with, "supreme authority within a territory." By this definition dual sovereignty is an obvious oxymoron. Two entities cannot both be supreme.

I do understand what you're getting at, I think, the idea that the two sovereignties existed simultaneously but not in competition because they applied in different areas. That could work, and did for 80 years. But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system. It was those who attacked the federal government, quite literally, in its own area of sovereignty at Sumter.

The dual sovereignty could exist only as long as one of the two "supremacies" didn't challenge the other. The southern states challenged and lost. I believe they bear by far the greater responsibility for its destruction. The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Right now, we're controlled by 545 people in the little town of Washington.

True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here. We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.

Nevertheless, if the American people ever decide to, we can replace each and every one of those 545 people in six years.

We don't do it. Why not? Because most of us rather like the way things are going. Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.

The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans. To get such a government you and I would have to impose it on them by force, which sort of defeats its own purpose, doesn't it?

The idea of dual sovereignty is one I've not run across before. But I'll play.

Did you ever study American history? Read the Federalists Papers?

But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system.

It absolutely was Lincoln and honest historians will agree.

Dude, you must have had too much to drink when you wrote that. The dual sovereignty of which we speak was between the individual states and the federal government that was established by the Founders. The Founders wrote the Constitution to LIMIT the federal government. The Southern states didn't challenge the sovereignty of any of the northers states or the federal government. They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown. The Confederacy didn't challenge the sovereignty of the United States any more than the colonists challenged the sovereignty of Great Britain.

The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Quite drinking the Kool-Aid, dude.

True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here.

Well I'm in good company then. Heres a couple of examples:

The Constitution Party

Oklahoma Joint Resolution 1089

We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.

Really? Are you familiar with a recent Supreme Court ruling on an individuals right to keep and bear arms?

Do you realize that we were one freaking vote away from a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment? Think about it. One supreme court justice vote away from registration and confiscation. Do you know why the Second Amendment is even in the Constitution?

Because most of us rather like the way things are going.

Ah yeah. Joe Sixpack. As long as the beer is cold and the signal is clear, every think is just hunky dory. A little loss of liberty here and there doesn't bother Joe.

Jeez.

If you really do like the way things are going, towards socialization (which entails a huge loss of liberty) then you're not even close to being a conservative and I think the mods ought to consider giving you the ban hammer.

Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.

I blame Lincoln for starting the centralization process as much as I give credit to Jefferson, Washington, et al for creating a form of government based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans.

That's because we're reaching that dangerous point where 50% of Americans can vote themselves a raise. This couldn't happen if not for a Lincoln initiated centralized government.