Posted on 11/03/2015 6:52:26 AM PST by don-o
The Civil War is, as Shelby Foote noted, at the crossroads of our being. Looked at one way, it marked the end of a long struggle against slavery and the beginning of a long one for civil rights and racial equality. Looked at another, it marked the end of limited government and the beginning of the encroaching, ever-present Leviathan that exists today. These memories can be both in sync and in conflict. After all, it was the deployment of strong government in the form of a dominant army and the passage of federal amendments that played a large role in the freeing of American slaves. And yet, as the government's mechanisms for intruding into the lives of the American people increased from the 1860s on, racial discrimination and segregation remained entrenched - moral suasion had at least as much to do with a broad acceptance of racial equality as big government did.
(Excerpt) Read more at theimaginativeconservative.org ...
“I have met very few Americans who feel as victimized as you seem to feel - victimized by our history, victimized by a dead person.”
Meh, those are your words. You are trying to attribute things to me that I haven’t said, just to make the argument that you want to make. That’s pretty pathetic if you ask me.
I simply truthfully acknowledge that Lincoln shredded the Constitution and paved the way for our subsequent decline. Those are historical facts, not personal issues, despite you trying to paint them as such.
It’s butthurt to note facts about history and how our republic got in the shape that it’s in?
Guess you can’t actually dispute any of the facts in my post if you are trying to focus on the personal.
I must admit that I'm no fan of John C. Calhoun, even if he did start out as a nationalist and was a Whig at one time.
I get sick and tired of the Lincoln bashing some conservatives engage in even as they extol the Republican party as the "historic house" of American conservatism. It's also hypocritical for fans of George Papadopoulos, Rafael Trujillo, and similar characters to call Abraham Lincoln a "tyrant."
If the South had not seceded nothing would have happened. Lincoln was not elected to implement "big government" but to thwart the extension of slavery from where it already existed to areas where it did not. At the time it looked as though slavery was going to spread to every state and territory in the Union, and the Slavocrats certainly were no supporters of "states' rights" with their Fugitive Slave Law. People who praise the Old South as a paragon of decentralism are either ignorant or dishonest. The mere fact that a non-extentionist had been elected to the White House set off a childish hissy fit in which seven states seceded before the man had ever even taken office.
Conservatives today tend to forget that Lincoln was simply an heir of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists (which included our first two Presidents). It was the proponents of implied powers who were the original conservatives, while the strict constructionists were assumed to be Jacobinical atheists who were ready to confiscate and burn Bibles at a moment's notice. It really is amazing how ignorant of history some conservatives can be.
It's also forgotten that many Northerners supported the Confederacy and many Southerners supported the Union men. Southern Unionists are the forgotten heroes of American history. And I should know, since I'm descended from some of them.
If you have a fact you would like to share let’s hear it. Saying that the republic is dead isn’t factual.
The Constitution has a specific clause that escaped slaves must be returned back to the person for whom their labor is legally due.
I don't see how states can legally break this requirement.
Slavery was what created the wedge that created the war.
It's just as accurate to say, that the reneging on the deal made with the slave states back in 1787 is responsible for it. When the Union was formed, it was understood that Slavery was legal and would be kept so. Then the Northern states one by one changed their minds. They altered the deal without permission from the people with whom they made the deal.
“Saying that the republic is dead isn’t factual.”
Really? We have unelected officials in Washington changing the millenia old definition of marriage by fiat, and you think we still live in a republic???
That’s just naive.
It's just as accurate to say it was fought because Lincoln did not accept the Principles of the Declaration of Independence which articulated the Right of People to leave a government which no longer suited their interest.
The war was fought because Lincoln chose to fight it. Had he chose not to fight it, it wouldn't have been fought.
The real tragic result of the Civil War (never mentioned by anyone) was that it led to the idea that amendments to the Federal Constitution should alter state laws. Up until this time such amendments affected the Federal Constitution alone, as was intended. Since that time, almost every proposed amendment wants to prevent states from doing so-and-so or force them to do such-and-such.
The Thirteenth Amendment was absolutely necessary to get rid of slavery since the original Constitution gave it ironclad protection. BUT--the trouble was it didn't end there. One may argue that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were also necessary, but they were a response to a unique situation--the slave status of an American population group that had been here almost since the beginning, quite literally among the oldest Americans. It would have been better had the states themselves repealed any strictly racial bars to voting (and meant it rather that letting it be a dead letter) but there was no way this was going to happen. The Fourteenth Amendment had the unhappy result of applying the Federal Bill of Rights to the states, which is why the First Amendment now prevents prayer before high school football games. The point is, Blacks were among the oldest and most "American" of all population groups but they were enslaved. Instead of seeing it this way, Blacks have been regarded by the right and celebrated by the left as the "ultimate aliens"--beings so inherently "un-American" that space aliens look like Anglo-Saxons in comparison.
After these initial Reconstruction Amendments all such attempts to amend state constitutions at the federal level should have come to an end--but they did not. The Blaine Amendment is often discussed here on FR. The Blaine Amendment (which was never passed) would have forbidden states from giving state money to "sectarian" schools (the target was Catholic parochial schools). There was simply no excuse for such an amendment; it was the unique Reconstruction situation being regularized. And unfortunately that has been the story from that time to this.
Nowadays conservatives advocate a federal amendment for each and every bad Supreme Court decision. Such decisions are based on a misuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and the idea of repealing every single horrific Supreme Court ruling one amendment at a time is ludicrous. For one, it assumes the correctness of that Court's authority to apply the Bill of Rights against the states. For another, this tactic will lead to a literally infinite number of amendments. Much better to merely amend the Fourteenth Amendment or remove the SC's jurisdiction over the states in some other way.
Okay . . . I think that's all I wanted to say.
The rest of the world wishes that their countries could have experienced the the type of "decline" that the USA has experienced since 1860. We are very lucky to be Americans. Nearly all of us are personally happy to be Americans. And, it is nice that we can leave whenever we want to go.
If you are so unhappy with it why don't you leave. Surely there must be someplace more to your liking?
+1
“You appear to see our republic the way you want it to be whereas I see it as it is.”
No, it’s not a subjective matter. You see, we were founded on a document, our Constitution. We can read that and see objectively that the government that document established is not the current one we have today.
Of course it is. Don’t be a drama queen.
“The rest of the world wishes that their countries could have experienced the the type of “decline” that the USA has experienced since 1860.”
Aren’t you conflating the state of our liberties with economics?
Besides, even if you weren’t, it’s a fallacious argument. Every other country in the world could be a total dictatorship, that still would not justify the usurpations our own government has engaged in. Even little children know “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
No, it is not. Here are a few examples of how our current government does not resemble the one established in the Constitution:
* The constitution established a federal republic, where the majority of power resided with the people, then with the states, and finally, the smallest amount of power resided with the federal government. The situation today is the complete opposite, with the feds wielding the most power, followed by the states, and finally the people in last place.
* The constitution provided that the federal government could not act in any area without authority specifically enumerated by the constitution. Nowadays, the situation is the opposite, the federal government operates in every area which isn’t specifically prohibited by the constitution. Even in areas that ARE specifically prohibited (such as gun control), the federal government continually attempts to find ways to skirt those restrictions.
* The constitution established a government where all legislation was proposed by elected representatives. Now, we have a government where unelected bureaucrats in the alphabet agencies, unelected judges and justices in the courts, and even the President himself are effectively legislating on matters that affect the entire nation. To make matters worse, these pseudo-legislations are more difficult for the people to reverse than actual acts of Congress, in some cases (Supreme Court decisions), reversing them is a practical impossibility.
So those are just a few of the most notable ways in which our current government doesn’t resemble the one our founders formed. If you want to close your eyes to all that and pretend it isn’t so, that’s your choice, but I won’t engage in that make believe.
I can’t (won’t) argue with your anecdotes as representing conceptual ideas of what the Founders wanted for our republic but we know that from day one there have been those who have worked and conspired to subvert the union to do their will. I doubt that there is anyone on this site who would dispute that.
From day one it simply didn’t work that way.
From Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion to threats of secession to South Carolina’s Nullification crisis there seems to have always been a certain degree of discord over the design or direction of our nation. That doesn’t mean that the republic is dead.
You won’t address the evidence I present that clearly shows you are wrong, you just keep insisting that you are right, absent any evidence whatsoever.
What is the point of discussing it anymore? You’re obviously set in your opinion and would never be moved even by irrefutable evidence to the contrary. You’ll also never convince me to embrace your opinion, because you can’t offer any evidence to support it. Nothing more can be gained from continuing the discussion, it seems to me.
-1
What “evidence”? You purport that the republic is dead and that Lincoln killed it. I say that this is preposterous. Both are opinions, not “facts”. I believe my contention is closer to self-evident truth. You are free to believe whatever you like.
Is this a great country or what?!
I just offered 3 solid points that show how our current government differs from the one established by the Constitution. Those are facts. You refused to even attempt to address them, and now you pretend I never offered them?
We’re done here. Have a nice day in make believe land, say hi to King Friday for me.
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.