Silly me, I thought they were just mouthing off. Guess they got some more nerve up thirty years later.
Perhaps it was the folks in Congress who “got some more nerve up thirty years later,” and refused to compromise. Who can say? But even Mr. Lincoln’s secretary/biographer acknowledged that the roots of the conflict went back atleast to the 1830s.
Finally, I again object to your characterization of the 20th century's insanities as a product of the American government -- come on, WIJG! The American people, through their central and State governments, conquered -- not caused -- those evils.
I have never characterized “the 20th century's insanities as a product of the American government,” and previously apologized if that was the impression you gathered from my post. Rather, it is quite clear (to paraphrase your statement) that ‘the 20th century's insanities are a product of government.’ Those who suggest (more often than not) that the solutions to life’s problems lie in granting governments additional powers, rather than fewer powers, should acknowledge the 20th century track record.
I just don't see our times as all that different from before. I read the daily news from 100 years ago and I recognize more than I don't. The only thing I find ridiculous are the extreme politics and pet hysterias that every age experiences.
I disagree, in that I believe the context has changed. It is quite interesting to read the comments of early 19th century presidents like Mr. Jefferson, or even Mr. J.Q. Adams, and see these gentlemen advising Congress that certain legislative proposals are most likely unconstitutional, because the proposed actions fall outside the powers enumerated within the Constitution. I recently read some of Daniel Webster’s comments from the military conscription debates during the War of 1812: it was suggested that the draft would be unconstitutional, because it would sidestep the restrictions the Constitution placed on Congress with regard to the ‘citizen soldiers’ of the State militia. Since that time, the enumerated powers of Congress have not changed, nor have the restrictions on federal power over the militia; but the actions of our government most certainly have changed. The high court has ruled that nearly any federal action may be justified by the “common defense” and “general welfare” clauses – a concept that Mr. Madison found repugnant, even in 1800. In essence, it seems that we have progressed from a government limited to those functions specifically enumerated, to a government allowed any action but those specifically prohibited (and sometimes not even that restriction holds up – witness recent federal ‘gun control’ legislation).
As you have so astutely observed, we seem to view certain subjects in somewhat different ways. It may be that Mr. Lind was right, when he noted the following (quoted previously):
“The disagreement between the two great American traditions can be summed up thus: Hamiltonians are more afraid of the world than of their own government, while Jeffersonians are more afraid of their own government than the world.”
May I characterize our take as the difference, to borrow from Twain, between lightning and the lightning bug?
That is, the centralization of American government ain't Moscow or Peking (without apologies). As you say,
"Those who suggest (more often than not) that the solutions to life’s problems lie in granting governments additional powers, rather than fewer powers, should acknowledge the 20th century track record.I insist on some distinction here in terms of those powers granted government. As x tells us, the powers of defense extended to the central government have served and preserved the American people. I have attempted over and over here to find a way through this grey area where philosophy dares not tread.
There is a difference, for example, between the exercise of eminent domain in the building of post roads and saving desert rats (especially when 5th amendment protections are not recognized). Is acknowledgement of this distinction naive or naively sophisticated? Help me, cuz otherwise I'm pedaling air.