Posted on 06/02/2007 9:43:40 AM PDT by Natural Law
The history of the American political system has been one of a perpetual conflict between Federalism and the Anti-Federalists. We owe the First 10 Amendments to the constitution and much of our personal freedom to the Anti-Federalists who, led by Thomas Jefferson, refused ratify the Constitution without them. The essence of the conflict is whether we the people are best served by a centralized, distant, all powerful government or by a more local, responsive, and hands off government; whether we individually or collectively are best equipped to govern and serve ourselves. Compromise is required because each system can perform certain essential functions better than the other. Hence, the American political struggle.
The conflict has been far from bloodless. The American Civil War was perhaps the most violent of collisions between the two factions. Although couched in the rhetoric of slavery and states rights, it was a clash between those who held the concept of “these” United States and those who believed in “the” United States. With the defeat of the Confederacy, the Anti-Federalist movement, and its related teachings and principles, nearly disappeared from the political dialog. A series of crises and calamities, such as the Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War pushed the Anti-Federalism even further from the dialog.
Anti-Federalism never completely disappeared. It has had many pseudonyms over the years. The most common current name is “Grass Roots”, I prefer Freeper. Freepers are the epitome of the Anti-Federalists. Working independently, and in our own interests, we can and have collectively made a difference. We are the embodiment of the John Wayne, rugged individualist, who went beyond the reaches of any government to create a new nation where none existed. The American character and culture has a very elastic property. When pushed too far in any direction it snaps back in the opposite direction with an amazing velocity and force. History is littered with despots, foreign and domestic, who either failed to recognize or appreciate this or miscalculated the breaking point.
We are witnessing another such miscalculation, or rather series of cumulative miscalculations, as we speak. The out of touch RINOs and George II have triggered a growing backlash of resentment and action among the conservative Grass Roots base and the American public. The first miscalculation was that we would sit on our hands and continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, that didn’t happen. The next was that we would tolerate a kinder, gentler war on terror in which lawyers, rather than soldiers would determine the rules of engagement. A war, every bit like Vietnam, with no definition or strategy for victory. A war in which the our troops are expendable while the politicos jockey for political gain. A war in which adjacent nations can openly oppose and kill our troops with impunity in the interests of regional stability. The straw that broke the camel’s back is immigration amnesty. We will not stand by and permit our national identity and culture to be diluted, our economic futures diminished, our security and safety compromised, and our persons and beliefs insulted on this one. Unlike previous grievances we will not be content with being thrown a temporary tax cut bone, a media blitz and PR campaign, a stern lecture by the president, or a diversionary event. The Anti-Federalists are back.
Count me in!
This thread is relevant to my interests!
Unfortunately, one major flaw in those anti-Federalists (the Democrat-Republicans) is that Jefferson and his compatriots enshrined slavery into the Constitution. It was the Federalists who rightly wanted it gone. We would’ve avoided considerable problems if the wisdom of Adams and Hamilton had prevailed.
I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "morality". With the advent of the New Deal (read the case of Wickard v Filburn) the government has adopted socialist policies that actively discourage self reliance for the "common good". Making people rely on others for things they could do for themselves forces them to engage in commerce, which provides a point of control and mechanism for taxation.
I question this. Civilization requires established communities, which in turn means gathering(s) of people of different natures, which, in turn means the necessity of laws and rules to insure that transactions of whatever size proceed as smoothly as is humanly possible. This, in turn, requires some body to establish, maintain, and enforce those laws, and the mete out punishments and rewards. That body is known as a "government".
A population is depended on government b/c the main requirement of a civilization is that the individual surrender the prerogative to be his own judge. "Self-government" does not work, has never worked, and will never work, b/c we are individuals, not ants.
We are human beings, not angels come down from heaven. If self-dicipline is not exactly our strong suit as individuals, how much less so when attempting a "self-government" community! Which, by the by, has to have some kind of organizer, a "leader" if you will; and since this leader can't be everywhere at once, and doesn't have the answer to every problem/question, he needs a couple of helpers. One thing leads to another and Voila! You have a government, even in this self-disciplined community.
Civilization, and government that struggles to maintain it, is an endless balancing act between order and liberty.
bump for later read
Actual history is far more complex than the snippets you cite from an 8th grade American History text book. Slavery was not enshrined in the constitution. The words slave or slavery do appear in the document until the 13th and 14th amendments. Therefore the 10th amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) made slavery a states issue by loophole.
Federalism was the only means and theme available to those living outside slave states who opposed the concept of slavery. It's funny that this cuts both ways. The same Federalism that you claim freed the slaves in 1865 is the same political force that enables the abortion of millions of babies today.
Kindly point out exactly where in the original Constitution and the first 10 Amendments the word 'slavery' is located.
Thanks in advance.
L
That was a direct reference to Ben Franklin’s requirements for keeping the constitution once it was established. He observed and used the term ‘morality’ in a more general sense than it is used today — to define all those things which embody virtuous conduct so that the affairs of the Federal Government are limited to tariffs, transportation, the military, and those facets of laws and regulations such as over patents and trademarks that must be uniformly addressed for commerce, industry, trade, and ingenuity to function.
Bttt
I don’t know about the court case you mentioned, but I nevertheless agree. In addressing the two great crises of the 20th century, the central govt. took on tremendous power and control over our society and generated huge bureaucracies. When the Depression and the Second World War ended, the central government didn’t relinquish any of that power and control. That central government instead metastisized into the monster we now live under.
Two hundred years ago, the following observation was made about democracy:
“It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for ...”
Once this point is reached, productive individuals slow the pace of their ambitions since the transfer of wealth is painful to watch.
The fostering of dependent individuals is exactly where humans differ from ants. In a single generation a human colony will collapse from ineptitude.
Disagree. It's been one of perpetual retreat by the anti-federalists. Sometimes slowly. Sometimes quickly. But retreat. America bears no resemblance to a federal republic anymore.
While it was not mentioned as a WORD, it was clear in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, that the three-fifths clause was a specific address of the institution. To reduce a human being to a percentage was a singular abomination. Slavery should've been abolished en masse at the latest by the writing of the document, but Jefferson and his Democrat-Republicans refused to do so. Leaving that "institution" to the states to decide, and ultimately foisting it off to future generations to hash out was a cop-out, and the consequences ultimately would lead to war.
Post #16.
The anti-Federalists are not only not back, they don’t even know there is such a thing.
Thanks. It's rare for someone around here to be big enough to admit they were wrong.
To reduce a human being to a percentage was a singular abomination.
Agreed.
Slavery should've been abolished en masse at the latest by the writing of the document, but Jefferson and his Democrat-Republicans refused to do so.
Change 'refused' to 'were unable to do so' and you'll be more correct. The Southern States would never have signed onto the Constitution if it abolished slavery. Jefferson and the other Founders knew this. So do you.
Without that 3/5ths compromise the United States would never have been founded.
L
Yes, yankeedame, we are all dependent on government of one sort or another to insure that we are protected from internal and external evil in (theoretically) a just manner; hence the need for e. g., police, military, and courts.
But I believe that Sundog takes "dependent on government" to the point of economic dependence, e. g., dependence on "social programs" and "welfare programs." That's when things become more problematic for self-rule because government becomes a leviathan - the master rather than the servant it was supposed to be.
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.