Your: "That sword cuts both ways: please refer to my comments regarding Mr. Tafts remarks above."
LOL! See what I mean about the gray-scale?
I do object to this notion to some that the Union died as soon as it was born with the Whiskey Rebellion being the birth of statism (some even call it still-born with Shay) and the Civil War the birth of communism, and both the death of the individual, and so on and on to thick air and high taxes. 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.
Could a Jeffersonian republic endure? Well, the French sure proved him wrong, at least in a certain interpretation. I don't wish to argue with success: our nation is a tremendous success. I know you believe that, too. I think we simply look at it from opposite sides.
What is the square root of reply #290?
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. Lincolns 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 lifes 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 Websters 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.