Kennedy Lied, People Died-and the Media Covered it Up

Townhall.com ^ | April 14, 2018 | Humberto Fontova

[NFHale]

And you were clearly heard...

So he’ll go down in history as an incompetent, narcissistic, malevolent bumblef*ck.

We Win.

[Impy]

As for opposing human bondage and not wanting “those people” near you when you beat the drum of equality DOES make for epic level hypocrisy.

I don't see it as hypocritical in the least let alone "epic level". Seems to me like an invented reason to spread the blame. No one ever through most of history wanted different race people around especially if they are indignant, that is not morally incongruous with the belief that human beings should not be chattel, forced to work for no wage and raped when ever massa gets horny, whipped or killed if they try to escape, give me a break.

I'm opposed to Syrians getting gassed or slaughtered by ISIS, that doesn't mean I would or need to welcome them all to Chicago or Peoria.

Pro-choicers are always slamming pro-lifers, saying that if they oppose massive social welfare for those "unwanted" children they are being hypocrites, it's a pantload. And I think the comparison is dead on.

Remember, most Southerners did not own slaves, and Lincoln badly miscalculated when he thought he could drive a wedge between the slaveholding class and non-slaveholders in getting their fellow Southerners to rise up against the former. Southerners overwhelming saw it as an invasion by a dictatorial and hypocritical North

Well, they were idiots who got manipulated, they got effed over and died for a bunch of rich a-holes who would rather use slave labor than pay a White man a decent wage for picking cotton, no different than those using cheap illegal labor today. I didn't hear that Lincoln tried to inspire non-slave owners to act in their own interest, sounds like a sound strategy that I would have tried. Too bad there wasn't mass communion, I think radio broadcasts could cut through the social programming.

Freeing slaves was never on the table till the rebellion, Corwin Amendment would have forever precluded federal abolition (depending how you feel about entrenched clauses). They rebelled cause they knew EXPANSION (and probably enforcement of fugitive slave laws that forced Northern states to play slave catcher) was off the table without a piece of garbage in White House and with a free state majority Senate and were unwilling to let their repugnant institution slowly die a natural death,

Historical analysis should be accurate. When one side is clearly wrong, that should be stated. People who put Lincoln on the "worst" list with the likes of Carter and Obama are deranged. But I understand where are coming from.

[Impy]

Understand where YOU are coming from, I meant to say.

As yes, I meant mass “communication” not “communion”, I doubt the Pope could have helped. ;p

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

If he didn’t believe in the plan, why didn’t he just cancel the damn thing?

Because if he had done that there was a chance that the Free Cubans would have put together a strike of their own and won.

He could not allow that.

[Cincinatus]

Actually, his praise for handling the missile crisis is undeserved. See this piece:

The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Everything you think you know about those 13 days is wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s unfortunate that Lincoln can very well be classified as both the best and the worst as a result of his election and administration. It’s a very complicated situation, but frankly, a lot of it was merely the “perfect storm” of delaying dealing with the issue of slavery until both sides could not longer tolerate the other.

Well this statement presupposes that the issue of slavery had something to do with the cause of the war. Despite the claims and the propaganda spin since the war, there is too much evidence that it did not. Yes, I know most people believe this, because that's all they've heard for their entire lives, but a careful examination of the facts makes it impossible for a rational man to accept that something which persisted for "Four Score and Seven years" had suddenly become an intolerable problem for which Invading the South and killing people was the only solution.

Had it been abolished at our founding, so much would’ve been avoided, but that was not possible without a decided split between the colonies, and disunity would’ve allowed a victory for the British monarchy.

In 1776, all the states were slave states. In 1787, when they were negotiating the constitution, most of the states were still slave states, and the few that were "free" had to accept slavery in the rest, because otherwise there would have been no Constitution.

During the Constitutional convention. The "free states" conceded that slavery would be incorporated into the Union and legally protected.

As I’ve addressed in other posts, though, the North was hypocritical as well. They abhorred slavery, BUT, did not want an exodus of ex-slaves to their hometowns. They were fine with Black folks so long as there were few nearby and the remainder far, far away from them (something even the Black comedian and satirist Dick Gregory observed as late as the 1960s).

Many Northern states passed laws forbidding blacks from living in their states. Lincoln's state of Illinois was a state that made it illegal for blacks to become residents. The notion that the North was full of the milk of human kindness towards blacks is completely incorrect. They hated them and wanted them out of the country.

The election of subpar to near-incompetent Presidents from 1836 to 1856 didn’t help matters, delaying what was the inevitable.

War was not inevitable, and certainly not over the issue of slavery. Slavery was inevitably going to be abolished, but it would not have been legally abolished anytime soon. If all the existing slave states voted to oppose, any amendment to prohibit slavery would have taken a union with 64 states in it to override their veto, so it wasn't going to happen until mindsets in the slave states changed. Add to this Lincoln's efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting slavery, and it would have been even more difficult to constitutional abolish slavery.

So, then, back to Lincoln. But, again, what was he to do ? If he sat back and allowed 11 states to secede without doing anything, he’d have presided over the effective dissolution of the nation.

Which is the same situation King George III was in, yet our founders declared there to be a God given Natural law right for people to have independence if they wished it. Funny that the nation should assert to be founded on such a right, but then refuse to accept the same principle ourselves.

Worse, yet, other states might’ve fully defected as well (MO, KY, MD, DE) and swaths of Southern-sympathizing areas in IL, IN and OH. DC itself would’ve been completely surrounded by enemy territory and likely would’ve resulted in the federal government having to retreat and relocate back to Philadelphia.

I only quote this so as to draw attention to your statement for the benefit of BroJoeK and "x". It shows that I am not the only person to view this development as likely. The balance of power would have shifted to the Southern States, just as I have been saying for several years now. Lincoln and his backers weren't stupid. They realized what allowing the South to become independent would do to their control of the power.

Any of that would’ve meant Southern victory outright. With a weakened North, that would’ve emboldened the South to go on an unprecedented territorial gobble, first with Caribbean interests (Cuba), then Mexico (as it was 20 years earlier, Southern interests wanted to annex most of Northern Mexico), and clear down Central America to the Colombian border. You’d also have had skirmishes and battles with the aforementioned weakened North to obtain Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California.

I disagree. An independent South would have inevitably acquired these areas with very little conflict, and their power would have grown. The South would have acquired a lot of territories that became states, and eventually the Southern nation would have looked something like this. (But perhaps without Ohio and Indiana.)

Perhaps, even audacious attempts to move on to South America. Of course, in doing all of this, the Whites would’ve been in the decided minority in such a new country, with a large group of Blacks and Native Indians, with the latter probably being formally swallowed up into a new class of slavery (however longer that would’ve lasted).

You mean like Mexico? Mostly Spanish descended Whites run Mexico, and are vastly outnumbered by the majority indigenous descended peoples. I believe the same situation occurs in various countries throughout South and Central America.

By the 20th century, the CSA would’ve probably been closer to Mexico in style and substance. An aristocracy in control of the nation with a gargantuan underclass and probably astronomical crime levels. Likely a third-world country.

And this is not an unreasonable surmise. It does indeed seem to be the model that occurs when the Wealthy class drives out the middle class.

The greatly shrunken USA might’ve been more like a slightly stronger version of Canada. Curiously, they’d have likely been the ones to build a wall along the border to keep Southern refugees out (read: Blacks and Indians).

Are you listening BroJoeK and "x"? This man is seeing the same thing I have been seeing.

If history had unfolded as it did in Europe and Asia, I don’t think the USA alone would’ve been able to stand up to Hitler, et al.

You seem to be knowledgeable enough about history to grasp the significance of what would happen if the USA had not entered WWI on the side of Britain and France. I argue that if Germany had won WWI, (which I believe they would have done were it not for the US entry into the war.) Then there would have been no Hitler. In fact, most of the horrible things that happened subsequently to WWI would likely not have happened.

I suggest that an American continent divided between the USA and the CSA would likely not have intervened in WWI. (I am not the only person who has put forth this opinion.) With a smaller potential population to call on, the USA would have been less likely to commit itself, or if it did, would have been less likely to be effective.

With the CSA having the Southern part of the Country, Germany would have been less likely to put out the Zimmerman telegram, and this would have drastically reduced the probability of significant North American intervention into WWI. (Canada would have probably still did what they did.)

Excuse me for going off on a tangent here. Despite all the problems that Lincoln spurred on in keeping the country together, I’d think we’d be in such a vastly different reality today to the point that it would’ve been far worse.

Or potentially far better. Lenin was transported to Russia *after* the US announced it would go to war against Germany. No Lenin, no communist takeover of the Russian revolution. Germany wins first World War. (Europe is today dominated by the German government.) No Hitler. No Holocaust. Potentially no Communist takeover in Russia, and therefore likely no Communist takeover in China.

No second world war. No atomic bombs. No Holodomor. No "Long March". No hundred million people killed in the 20th century.

In other words, far less death, suffering and misery than what actually occurred. In fact, you would be hard pressed to contemplate another scenario in which the 20th century would have turned out more bloody and disastrous than it actually did.

[DiogenesLamp]

Every time I saw him encourage one of us, I felt shame of how our country’s had betrayed him and his comrades.

And the fact that John F. Kennedy was the one who did this needs to be constantly taught in the schools. It needs to be announced on the News services, and it needs to be mentioned anytime the name "Kennedy" is discussed on the public airwaves or cable system.

[DiogenesLamp]

You might like to see my response to him in my previous message.

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[x]

Well this statement presupposes that the issue of slavery had something to do with the cause of the war. Despite the claims and the propaganda spin since the war, there is too much evidence that it did not. Yes, I know most people believe this, because that's all they've heard for their entire lives, but a careful examination of the facts makes it impossible for a rational man to accept that something which persisted for "Four Score and Seven years" had suddenly become an intolerable problem for which Invading the South and killing people was the only solution.

Slavery had nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War?

Was Diogenes really this crazy when he started posting?

The posts get longer and more radical and more far-fetched.

And even a thread about Chappaquiddick gets turned into an excuse for Civil War rant.

My sense is that Diogenes gets deeper into fantasy every year (Can it have been years?).

Or maybe he's living in some bizarre computer simulation and doesn't know he's in the matrix.

Lincoln's state of Illinois was a state that made it illegal for blacks to become residents.

And yet free African-Americans lived in Illinois. As they lived in Southern states that also had laws on the books outlawing them.

The notion that the North was full of the milk of human kindness towards blacks is completely incorrect. They hated them and wanted them out of the country.

Diogenes creates a straw man argument that hardly anybody actually believes, and then knocks it down to replace it with another straw man argument that is no more accurate. Most Northerners didn't want to live with African-Americans, but to say that they hated them and wanted them out is an exaggeration and a distortion.

The South would have acquired a lot of territories that became states, and eventually the Southern nation would have looked something like this. (But perhaps without Ohio and Indiana.)

By that sort of twisted logic, Britain and France, having fought two wars against Germany would have become one country because they shared a common enemy. Or being weaker economically, they would have been given up their independence to become part of the economically more powerful Germany.

Really, the differences between Idaho and South Carolina, or North Dakota and Mississippi would have prevented those states from joining together against the rest of the country. Rural Washingtonians and Idahoans or Minnesotans and Dakotans have more in common with each other than either had with Mississippians or Alabamans.

The "culture wars" of the late 20th and early 21st century hadn't started yet, and people in Bismarck and Minneapolis or Boise and Seattle didn't think of themselves as living in utterly different worlds. The few who did, wouldn't find they had much in common with people thousands of miles away either, and if the South did become the continent's economic powerhouse, the malcontents would hate it as much as they hated (or as much as Diogenes hates) New York City.

The thing about secession -- 150 years ago or now -- is that if the country breaks up, it would be into more than two irregularly shaped pieces. The East and West Coast wouldn't stay together if the US broke up today. And if the union was dissolved tomorrow, there would be no reason for the plains and mountain states to remain in the same country as the Deep South. Nor would that have happened if the country split up 150 years ago.

Lenin was transported to Russia *after* the US announced it would go to war against Germany. No Lenin, no communist takeover of the Russian revolution.

Kerensky was weak. He wanted to continue fighting a war that Russia couldn't win. He would have been overthrown. There was plenty of opportunity for someone like Lenin, or Lenin himself to take over.

And why do you think it so essential for America to enter the war for Germany to let Lenin pass through to Russia? Germany's rulers would have done that in any case, whether the US was in the war or not, since it was to their advantage to cause chaos in Russia and take that country out of the war. Britain and France were still in the war, and the great Spring Offensive that the Germans hoped would win the war was still months away. Bolshevik Revolution in Russia could have helped Germany win the war.

No Hitler. No Holocaust.

After WWI, the history of the 20th century was bound to be bloody and destructive. I don't think anybody can say what would actually have happened if Germany had won, except to say that just exactly what happened in our timeline would not have happened as it did.

[DiogenesLamp]

Slavery had nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War?

Answer why Lincoln was going to further enshrine slavery in constitutional law.

It's a hard argument to claim that what you assert was the cause of the war was going to be much more greatly protected by the man who actually launched the war.

This is a dichotomy that contradicts your claim. If slavery was the cause, then why did Lincoln and all the Northern states offer to protect it further? How do you square that circle?

[x]

Whatever Lincoln did would not reassure the Confederacy that slavery was secure. The Corwin Amendment needed the support of 3/4rds of the state legislatures. It wouldn't get that. I suspect Lincoln knew that. He may not have thought it would get the required votes in Congress.

In any case, it wasn't a done deal: Lincoln couldn't just wave his hand and change the Constitution. And the idea of an unamendable amendment would have had serious problems in the courts. So in the eyes of the secessionists slavery wasn't secure if the slave states remained in the union.

You wrote: "Well this statement presupposes that the issue of slavery had something to do with the cause of the war." Slavery, the spread of slavery to the territories, and the permanence of slavery as an institution had everything to do with the deeper causes of the war -- why the country was so divided and why some people wanted their states to secede from the union, something which no president would allow a state to do unilaterally. So yes, slavery had something -- everything -- to do with the causes of the war.

[bmwcyle]

The Bay of Pigs was a CIA operation and a CIA screw up.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"I don't see it as hypocritical in the least let alone "epic level". Seems to me like an invented reason to spread the blame."

I disagree. Remember, the North was content to go along with slavery and have it enshrined in the Constitution in order to get independence from Great Britain. If the issue of slavery was so repulsive and unacceptable to more "moral" Northerners, they'd have said, "No." Both sides benefitted from it.

"I'm opposed to Syrians getting gassed or slaughtered by ISIS, that doesn't mean I would or need to welcome them all to Chicago or Peoria."

But that is apples and oranges. Syria is not in the USA.

"Pro-choicers are always slamming pro-lifers, saying that if they oppose massive social welfare for those "unwanted" children they are being hypocrites, it's a pantload. And I think the comparison is dead on."

It's a curious argument, to be sure. But putting infanticide as a morally justifiable means to welfare spending rather hurts their argument.

"Well, they were idiots who got manipulated, they got effed over and died for a bunch of rich a-holes who would rather use slave labor than pay a White man a decent wage for picking cotton, no different than those using cheap illegal labor today."

These were loyal citizens, but loyal to their states. Remember, before the Civil War, most people considered their state to be their country. When you have armed invaders coming down to your "country" claiming (dubiously) to be on a moral high horse demanding you follow them, how do you think you'd react ? Take up arms against your neighbors, family, people you do business with, respected community leaders ? That's considered treasonous. You might say long after the fact that said people were courageous for standing up to an evil institution, that's fine, but what are you going to do when you're having to live that life at the time ? You're going to be a pariah, as will your family. Consider Robert E. Lee and the fateful decision he had to make and you begin to understand what it was like.

"I didn't hear that Lincoln tried to inspire non-slave owners to act in their own interest, sounds like a sound strategy that I would have tried. Too bad there wasn't mass communion, I think radio broadcasts could cut through the social programming."

They did have mass communications. Newspapers, letters, etc. They weren't in the dark unless they were at the distant frontier. Folks knew the score.

"Historical analysis should be accurate. When one side is clearly wrong, that should be stated. People who put Lincoln on the "worst" list with the likes of Carter and Obama are deranged. But I understand where are coming from."

Well, I like to think I do it right. :-P

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever Lincoln did would not reassure the Confederacy that slavery was secure. The Corwin Amendment needed the support of 3/4rds of the state legislatures. It wouldn't get that. I suspect Lincoln knew that. He may not have thought it would get the required votes in Congress.

What was the vote in the Congress?

In any case, it wasn't a done deal: Lincoln couldn't just wave his hand and change the Constitution

Really? That's more or less what he did to pass the current 13th amendment. (Through the Senate anyway) Well, hand waving along with bribes, threats and coercion of Southern states by use of the Army, but yeah, he more or less singlehandedly amended the Constitution.

Slavery, the spread of slavery to the territories, and the permanence of slavery as an institution had everything to do with the deeper causes of the war

That makes no sense in light of Lincoln's efforts to protect slavery by amending the constitution. Even if you are correct that 3/4ths of the states wouldn't ratify it, it still speaks to Lincolns' intent.

You cannot rationally claim the war was about ending something the very man who launched the war was trying to further protect just a month earlier.

This is a dichotomy and cognitive dissonance that I find incomprehensible.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thank you for your reply. I won’t respond with a long-winded post, however. I agree with some points and disagree on others. However, I do side with the position that slavery was a key issue. I’ve seen enough material and viewpoints over decades to come to that conclusion.

Set aside slavery for a moment, I think the Confederacy was going to be an experiment in failure for a number of reasons. Ultimately, I don’t think you can have a dominant situation where a central government and state government are at odds. One side will have to prevail. With the Civil War, of course, it essentially decided that a strong central government would prevail over state government rights. It’s unfortunate a balance couldn’t be struck that didn’t trample on the 10th Amendment, but that’s just how it is.

Similarly, the CSA was doomed to failure because each of the states was wanting to determine which policies were set and how to implement them, and conducting a war from Richmond did indeed require centralized planning (hence, rebuking a key point for the reason of state secession). Let’s assume that the CSA managed to win the war. President Davis was already beleaguered by each of the states challenging his plans and authority. This would’ve persisted during their own Reconstruction era. Presumably, Robert E. Lee would’ve succeeded Davis (1867-73) as there was just the one 6-year term for a President (which isn’t a bad idea). A President Lee, however heralded as the man who bested the North, would’ve similarly found the office to be a difficulty and likely would’ve diminished his stature.

I believe the squabbling over inter-state policies would’ve caused a breakup before long. I think it would’ve made expansion difficult to near impossible, since that, again, would’ve required centralized initiatives and planning to implement. The existing states would’ve felt in competition (that they wouldn’t want) with new states in Cuba, the former Dominican Republic (hopefully they would not have been so stupid as to try to annex Haiti), PR, the individual Mexican and Central American states. Ultimately, this simply would’ve led to outright independence movements for the individual states within the CSA (although, again, perhaps necessarily not a bad thing). You might’ve had, at best, clusters of states entering into semi-unifying alliances, but there’s no way a CSA would’ve made it into the 20th century.

If it had and somehow managed to strike a balance between a modest central government and a modest state government model (which we should aspire to here in the US), having too many residents not able to participate in civic affairs or purposefully (by legal means) kept in a secondary class (as likely Blacks and Native Indians would’ve been) of outright or semi-slavery when they outnumber the (White) citizen class would’ve also proven the eventual downfall unless a way was found to fully assimilate them into the culture. After a time of being “used” to things being a certain way, far too many would’ve opposed that assimilation on the grounds of it being simply an impossible task or that their race prevented them biologically or intellectually being able to do so.

As I cited in my prior post, such a nation would’ve been perpetually under chaos and subject to uprisings, violence, etc. While you might be able to deal with a situation where the “problem population” was under, say, 10%. If it were the opposite and they consisted of above 50%, 70%, maybe even 90%, that is unsustainable. Again, you’re back to the Haitian model. Such an uprising, which would eventually be successful (unless you wanted to do a wholesale slaughter of the problem population) would then lead to a predictable Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship (and in turn, likely would slaughter the ruling class in retaliation).

In any event, it would’ve been a fiasco outcome no matter what. That such a state would’ve existed long enough to involve itself in the world affairs of the 20th century in perhaps avoiding entry into WW1 (let alone WW2) is highly unlikely. As I cited above, the CSA could’ve become its own Soviet Union kept in power by an aggrieved non-White underclass believing they could never share in the kind of prosperity we take for granted today.

Just as an academic exercise, it would be curious to witness such scenarios (so long as no one gets hurt, of course).

[DiogenesLamp]

If I understand your main point correctly, it is that a Confederate States of America would have been Chaotic and would have likely failed as a nation.

This may be true, but I see the question as more of what people have a right to do, and not so much as hinging on whether they would be successful or not.

Many of the British didn't think the Colonies would be successful in their independence, but the Colonies asserted their right to do so even if it turned out to be a mistake.

My point here is that people have a right to do things that might turn out to be mistakes; that it is within their rights to make such mistakes.

Cuba wanted to be independent of the US, and so did the Philippines, and in both cases, I think they turned out worse for having become independent. They still had a right to become so, because this is what their people wanted.

If we had a right to leave the United Kingdom and form a Confederacy, then States had a right to leave the United States and

"to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[rockrr]

Was Diogenes really this crazy when he started posting?

Pretty much, although he has been polishing his act

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yes, you got my point on the likely failure of a CSA.

I'm also in agreement with you that a state is within its rights to secede, especially if its believes the rights of its citizenry and the state are being trampled by an immoral central government. Signing off on the Declaration of Independence and ratifying the Constitution were not a perpetual suicide pact once the country as a whole went off the rails. That is the definition of totalitarianism rather than a free association.

The “deal” between the central government and the states themselves should be a mutually beneficial one. Once it fails to be so, there should be a redress. Secession must be an option if it is an irreconcilable difference.

I will add (as well) that going by natural human rights, that slaves (slaves by heredity, not due to agreement they themselves signed, a la indentured servitude, which was a legal and moral agreement) also were worthy of the right to self-determination as well. They themselves were morally justified to utilize any manner and method to escape involuntary servitude. This was the double-edged sword that faced the South, yes the central government had their boot on their throats, but the South in turn had their boot on the throat of a substantial minority or (in the case of Mississippi and South Carolina) an outright majority of their own non-White population. They had the right to their own freedom and independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

The “deal” between the central government and the states themselves should be a mutually beneficial one. Once it fails to be so, there should be a redress. Secession must be an option if it is an irreconcilable difference.

I will add (as well) that going by natural human rights, that slaves (slaves by heredity, not due to agreement they themselves signed, a la indentured servitude, which was a legal and moral agreement) also were worthy of the right to self-determination as well.

I agree, which is why I have always had a problem with the message sent* by the Civil War; "You use force to control people, so we will use force to control you."

It establishes the premise that oppression/control is legitimate if you have sufficient power to accomplish it.

If we believe that people don't have the right to force obedience on other people, we should not be trying to force obedience on other people.

They themselves were morally justified to utilize any manner and method to escape involuntary servitude.

No one has an obligation to remain someone else's servant against their will.

the South in turn had their boot on the throat of a substantial minority or (in the case of Mississippi and South Carolina) an outright majority of their own non-White population. They had the right to their own freedom and independence. They had the right to their own freedom and independence.

Yes they did, and I think eventually an appeal to reason would have worked. (especially after the profitability had been greatly reduced.)

I have studied the evolution of abolition in America, and I have read of how the idea mostly began (with Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration) and started a preference cascade initially in the North East, but one which faltered more and more as it traveled further south, hitting resistance from the profit motive. Never the less, it was making steady progress, based mostly on societal disapproval, and even in the South where it was most profitable, Charles Dickens reported of numerous families who owned slaves lamenting the fact, and trying to figure out ways to disinvest themselves from the institution without getting too badly hurt.

I think given time, the social pressure against it would continue to gain states incrementally, until it finally broke through in the deeper South where the practice was more profitable. I also think the mechanized alternatives would have eventually undercut it's profitability to the point where the Social pressures would have made it "not worth it." And then it would have collapsed.

I have numerous times opined that Slavery would likely have lasted between 20 and 80 years longer, but would have eventually expired naturally as an institution within that time frame.

But the question for those who believe the war was primarily about slavery is this: Was it worth the bloodshed and destruction to not have to wait that long? Why, after "four score and seven years" of legal slavery in the United States, did it suddenly become more intolerable than it was in the previous 87 years? (Longer if your count the time it existed while we were Colonies of Britain.)

Was it worth the creation of the Federal leviathan that has been dominating us ever since, and which is the source of so much of our current troubles?

.

.

. *The message that most people claim was sent by it. I now believe the message that was actually sent was "Mess with the flow of money into the Empire of New York/Washington DC, and we will send armies to destroy you."