Posted on 07/03/2003 5:59:18 AM PDT by Tribune7
I was using the word in the sense of rebirth not return. Decadence is what happens when you play a theme out to its absurd conclusions. For example, the theme of Equality or Emancipation. Both noble sentiments until you try to make the unequal equal or emancipate yourself from reality itself. That's where we are today.
Are you even serious? I admit that my knowledge here is pathetically weak, but I do know of the existence of thirteen colonies which declared their independence to spark the revolution. Upon winning their independence, were they not 'states'? Then who formed the second CC? Where were the representatives from? I admit I don't know, but I suspect there were representatives from each 'state.'
The weak, though perpetual, Union formed by the Articles was made "more perfect" by the constitution.
Perpetual doesn't mean the same in legalese that you're saying it does. "More perfect" seems subject to interpretation, so why change it? In the eyes of the anti-federalists, 'more perfect' would mean something that contrasts with Hamilton's 'more perfect' would it not?
Jefferson was right that the Union should not rule over those territories and their inhabitants like an Empire. But the idea of them becoming a separate Nation did not mean they would be allowed to separate from the Union (should they join by becoming states) unilaterally by attacking US installations.
Nowhere does J mention attacking US installations. Nor have we discussed it previously. Is this something new that we're introducing to cloud the original debate?
No, his argument attempts to confuse separation from the Union and a potential scenario where the territories are allowed to go their own way having never been in the Union.
Stating this as axiomatic does not necessarily make it true. J's words do not make it obvious that they are never to be states, only that if the people (our sons) wished to depart, they should be left in peace. Would J think that territories have 'more rights' than states? No, and his comments regard the subjugation of any territorial or state government to the will of the people therein.
Legal separation is only possible when it is allowed by the Law of the Land. Our constitution is not and never was like an Isamic marriage contract for a man and just saying "I divorce thee" three times ends it.
I can only assume you're bringing up the radical and dislikable aspect of Islam in a weak attempt to gain support from those who are fervently anti-islamic?
Only by a constitutional amendment could a state legally leave the Union. There can be no change in the constitution without an amendment of it. It defines the Union and ways of adding to it.
But not ways of leaving it, correct? Once again you claim the constitution says more than its words. Fine. Point out the section which would be amended such that a state could leave. Maybe the clause that says, "Anyone who tries to leave the United States shall be hunted down, beaten, burned, and killed. Their damned rebel families, too."
The constitution is a document of enumerated powers amongst which coersion of the states into Union is not one. It has been made policy through force of arms, and the rediculous attempts to justify it after the fact are moot. We are united today not for common purpose or common benefit, but because the inability to quell the Leviathan which we've wrought.
A "state" in the constitution is what is created when a TERRITORY is admitted by Congress into the Union.
Not necessarily, Texas, for instance.
Only states are guaranteed a republican form of government.
I've wondered in the past whether or not this phrase has been twisted back onto the states. Was the original intent of this phrase to insure that each state was properly represented in the federal government, or that each state within itself have a republican government? Perhaps someone familiar with the constitutional debates can enlighten us both.
"Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;..." See how the Louisiana territory was governed as an example of non-republican government.
K, so? What he said was that 'our sons' who are to live in the territories and the states alike, should they see fit to separate, may do so peacefully. Your insistance that 'our sons,' should they choose to live in two different states cannot. One must either move to a territory or be killed to maintain some idiotic notion of Union that didn't exist in Jefferson's time. Great.
Possible beliefs of nameless Men in the Street are of little interest to me.
As with any armchair tyrant.
Then why did Lincoln's Hamiltonian-model tax and spend policies predate the outbreak of the war?
Political expansion of government has little to do with the generation of national wealth his program created
Not so. When government gets in the business of wealth management, rent seekers are induced to line up for a slice of the pie. They will persist in doing so as long as opportunities exist and economic intervention almost always creates more of these opportunities than would exist in its absence.
and many believe the former slows down the latter.
Anonymous ad populum arguments are inherently fallacious.
With me "state" does, indeed, mean "state" not like with you where "state" means "possession" and "territory" and what ever else.
Now that's an odd, not to mention factually baseless, allegation for you to make. If I recall correctly, YOU were the one asserting that when Jefferson explicitly said "state" that he really meant "possession," "territory," or some other such nonsense that he did not say. By contrast I have always maintained that when Jefferson said "state" he meant "state." Thus it becomes necessarily so that not only are you fibbing but you are also projecting your own semantical errors upon others.
Executive does take much of its meaning from "monarch" even if you want to act as though they are somehow opposed.
I make no profession of that one way or the other as far as this thread is concerned. I am simply making note of Hamilton's inclination toward monarchy, plus the fact that you were wrong when you made statements suggesting that he had no such inclination.
Certainly there has been, in the course of our history, nothing like the tyranny of the states. Federal "tyranny" doesn't even come close. Once again the rise of federal power has, in part, been due to the South's refusal to accept Blacks as humans and citizens.
Your claim is factually untrue and your example, despite all its horror, is dwarfed in comparison to the murderous act of federally imposed tyranny called abortion. The denial of rights is bad in itself but the denial of life itself is probably the gravest offense possible.
Mercantilism- The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of ACCUMULATING BULLION, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable trade balance of trade.
Good for you, fake-it! You've shown that you know how to use a dictionary...or at least plagiarize from one. Needless to say, that definition is simplistic and misleading. But then again, that tends to happen when you try to reduce an entire economic theory into a sentence description. For a more thorough examination of what the mercantilist approach to government is you need to look no further than Smith. He described it at length and, among its characteristics, attributed the following policy: "BY restraining, either by high duties, or by absolute prohibitions, the importation of such goods from foreign countries as can be produced at home, the monopoly of the home market is more or less secured to the domestic industry employed in producing them. Thus the prohibition of importing either live cattle or salt provisions from foreign countries secures to the graziers of Great Britain the monopoly of the home market for butcher’s meat. The high duties upon the importation of corn, which in times of moderate plenty amount to a prohibition, give a like advantage to the growers of that commodity. The prohibition of the importation of foreign woollens is equally favourable to the woollen manufacturers. The silk manufacture, though altogether employed upon foreign materials, has lately obtained the same advantage. The linen manufacture has not yet obtained it, but is making great strides towards it. Many other sorts of manufacturers have, in the same manner, obtained in Great Britain, either altogether, or very nearly a monopoly against their countrymen. The variety of goods of which the importation into Great Britain is prohibited, either absolutely, or under certain circumstances, greatly exceeds what can easily be suspected by those who are not well acquainted with the laws of the customs."
In other words, protective tariffs.
Hamilton was not, everything being equal, a protectionist. Everything was NOT equal, however
Ah yes. The old "unfair advantages" argument for protection - one of the AFL-CIO's favorite, no doubt! Too bad for you that it is even more fraudulent than the infant industry one as the fact of the matter is that we gain more by opening up the market even in those circumstances.
and the nation inherited an economy warped by Mercantilism and forced into an artificial dependent upon the Mother country. Merely changing the government would not have allowed development of the economy in non-Mercantilistic ways.
Too bad for you that Hamilton tried to take it in a mercantilistic way of protective tariffs. In other words, he simply sought to reverse the roles of mercantilism and use it to the US' advantage instead of Britain's.
Changing the drivers in a inoperative car wouldn't have done much.
Had they been prudent they would have changed cars entirely. But they did not. They simply changed drivers and turned the same old junker in the other direction to try and make England's system work for them by way of protectionist tariffs of their own.
Congress was responsible for the tariff as enacted.
Actually it was the federalist allies of Hamilton who aligned with the manufacturers of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The free traders opposed it.
Hamilton did not propose, initially, all the tariff increases.
Quit evading and excusing for Hamilton. Initial or not, the fact is that he was a protectionist, proposed protectionism, advocated protectionism, and, had he ever been made president or appointed king, would have enacted protectionism as one of his first major policies. To defend him for protectionism is to defend the indefensible as that is what high tariff policies are - economically indefensible.
He proposed a revenue tariff on selected items of between 5-10%. It should be noted that this was the conventional wisdom and the least controversial aspect of his program. Few were opposed to a tariff, even in the South.
Now you are blurring the lines between revenue tariffs and protectionist tariffs. It is not the least bit surprising that few would object to a mild revenue tariff. One can accept it and still be both free trade and anti protection. The controversy arises when you make specifically protectionist tariffs. Hamilton did indeed favor those types of tariffs and advocated them in some of his most prominent doctrines.
The biggest welfare handouts are the flows of federal funds from the Northern states: NY, NJ, Il, Cal., Cn., MI,Mass, to the southern states: Ala, Ms, La, Mryl, Okl, SC, Tn, Ark, these handouts dwarf anything else.
Then cut the handout programs! My southern state of Texas also has a deficit of money going out of it and into the pockets of welfare whores abroad so we would be happy without it as well - and definately happier than the left coast or new england, where many of the people paying out the money for some unusual reason vote to increase their own taxes.
Even in 2003 the enemies of Hamilton's ideas still speak to undermine the nation he worked so hard to achieve.
I'm an enemy of Hamilton's idea of protectionism and happily so. I take that position because his protectionist agenda was wrong, economically indefensible, and bad for America. Does that mean I am undermining his nation?
They still try to claim the constitution is a pact between the states
The states did ratify it, did they not?
they still try to claim secession was legal
Legal? Maybe. An inherent right? Definately.
they still try to distort his views just as they have for 215+ yrs.
Just as with Lincoln, you wouldn't recognize a distortion of Hamilton's views if it was glued to your forehead. Heck, you can't even seem to decide on exactly what Hamilton's views were and that includes your fundamental mischaracterization of his positions on tariffs and monarchy, which you previously denied that he held. It is therefore an absurd proposition that you would even endeavor to determine whether or not another was distorting Hamilton's views.
His belief in the utility of a Monarch in 1787 in order to defend the Permanent interest of the nation does not mean he was a monarchist nor that this concern was not addressed by the establishment of a Senate.
Do you hear something? Oh yes. That old sound that tends to accompany you...flip, flop, flip, flop, flip.
Take a hint and try reading the record of his speech for once. He explicitly argued that Monarchy was NOT politically feasible at the time but rather an ideal that he hoped and predicted the nation would turn to in time.
A proposed Hamiltonian tariff is not the same thing as a Hamiltonian tariff.
Insofar as its substance is concerned, sure it is! The only distinction between the two is that, when placed into the hands of others to decide, that group of others voted either to accept or not to accept that tariff. But as far as substance goes the two policies are the same type of thing and of the same origin. To absolve Hamilton's of responsibility for his protectionist tariff proposal him since Congress did not implement it all is absurd.
His policy was development not protectionism for its own sake.
Protectionism is always "justified" on some claim of encouraging or securing domestic development (a key tenet of the mercantile system). If it were not, those who proposed it would have no purpose to state for doing so. That it is justified on a claim of development doesn't make it any less of a bad policy.
There is no doubt that as soon as an industry was capable he would not have advocated continued protection.
That is blind speculation on your part and, as I previously noted, that never happened when the supposed timeframe came and went.
True protectionists, like Buchanan, NEVER want to remove the protection.
...yeah, because they believe erroniously that protection gives us some "gain" as a nation to justify it as a policy.
That is a big difference and why I claim H was not a protectionist.
That's like claiming Al Gore was not a socialist enviro-wacko because his platform didn't go as far to the left as Nader's did.
As regards your misstatement of my comment about American labor history, perhaps you should check out some history on what was happening say from 1875 to 1890 with regard to the labor struggles here.
Yeah. A couple of highly overblown labor strikes combined with agitative factors within the political and government machinery of the day. Contrary to popular myth, the government economic policy of that period was not even remotely capitalist and instead was characterized by corporate welfare handouts, cleptocracy, and the widespread abuse of political office for financial gain made famous during the Grant administration.
The Union started with the First Continental Congress not the DoI.
And what was that congress a union of? That's right. Colonies. Is our union today a union of colonies? No. It's a union of STATES. So where did that union of states come from? Certainly it couldn't have been created before the declaration as there were no states to create it from - only colonies, which would give us a union of colonies and not states. It can't be after the declaration either because we know the union of states to have existed from that point forward and a union cannot predate its own creation. That leaves only one possibility - July 4, 1776 in the Declaration of Independence. It was by that document that the colonies became states and by that document that the a union of states came into being.
Its beginnings of government came then not with the DoI. War was already being fought by the time the DoI was public. Congress had already authorized the colonies form themselves into states by the time the DoI came along. Independence preceded the Declaration.
Yet for some reason we date our origin as a nation among nations in the world (read: "and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do") to July 4, 1776. I wonder why that is since you are now telling us that it our nation predates its own creation, its own act of independence. But then again why should that statement be of any surprise coming from you. You are, after all, the same person who recently argued that a "state" was not a "state," a "union" was not a "union," and "monarchy" was not "monarchy."
If I recall correctly the phrase was both a restriction on state governments by requiring them to have a republican form and a restriction on the national government by preventing it from denying states their republican form. Lincoln violated that clause in June of 1861 when he marched the federal army on Jefferson City, Missouri and deposed the entirity of the elected state government by force of arms. All but two of the state Constitutional officers fled for their lives. Of the two that remained, one resigned in protest of the grave violation Lincoln had committed. The other (a staunch unionist, BTW) was arrested, thrown in jail, and replaced by a Lincolnite crony.
It seems that by definition, a "colony" that declares its independence is not longer a "colony" and your insistance that it is not a "state" requires us to add a word to the English Language to describe their status.
The first meaning of perpetual as used by the Founders and in "legalese" was "eternal" "everlasting" etc. the same thing it means to anyone except defenders of the Rebellion.
No, actually... this has already been disproven.
Since there was no coherent philosophy of anti-Federalists I couldn't even guess what "more perfect" would mean to them.
Much the same as the "big L" Libertarians of today, however IMO. However, it is their unwillingness to compromise that is the primary reason why they get nothing done and cannot form a cohesive unit - not necessarily the wrong-headedness of their positions. In a forum where honest debate is carried to its conclusion, they do very well, as their positions follow from a train of reasoning. That they cannot fit it into a 10 second sound bite for the evening news reflects poorly on the mass consumers of said programming and their inattention to detials than it does about the speakers themselves.
I'm rambling now, but the important point is that your unwillingness to listen to a minority opinion is to blindly follow the errant path that was taken by Lincoln in the pre-civil war timeframe. At that time, the Confederate states were far from cohesive in opinion and even in their willingness to dissolve ties with the Union, yet Lincoln gave them a common cause which acted to unify them. The 11 state confederacy seems as much a result of Lincoln's unwillingness to compromise (read: arrogance) as it was anything else.
I'm wondering now, do you discredit the pro-life movement, since there is "no coherent philosphy"? How about people who oppose gun control? /endrambling
Back at it, I guess:
Since Gcap was trying to defend a violent attack on federal property with J's rather vague and innocuous comment I thought it appropriate to put it into context.
Which violent attack was he trying to defend? Sumter? Sumter was not governed by Jeffersonian idealism but rather an agreement that was in place prior to Lincoln that the fort would not be resupplied. His cabinet knew what the result of the action would be, and didn't rely on quotes from Jefferson to arrive at their conclusions. Surely you're not trying to call drafting and approving measures of secession "violent."
The point of quoting the Constitution was to show that Congress could pretty much do what it wished with the Territory including spin it off into a separate country.
K.
It cannot do that with an actual state in the Union then the constitution is in control not Congress.
K, but we're not talking about the power of Congress, which is limited by the constitution. We're talking about the powers reserved to the states, which (outside of A1S10/A4) are not.
Of course, I in no way claimed J was saying "they were never to be states." He did not address that and probably believed they would become states in time.
Which is what we've been saying all along.
Merely showing the absurdity of the claim that secession was legal. Actually it was even less legal than an Islamic divorce.
By comparing it to Islamic divorce? I suspect that the rules regarding a divorce are at least spelled out somewhere (in the Koran, maybe?) whereas you're pulling the illegality of secession straight out of your a$$ and then stating it as axiom.
Constitutions form governments and nations,thus, there would have to be a formula to dissolve them legally. Of course, the word "secession" or "separation" never came up during the CC since no one believed it anything short of insanity or even that a state could survive on its own. "Unite or Die" was a popular slogan of the day.
This is downright wierd. I assume that the founders knew that there would be no need to dissolve ties with a government that abided by the limitations to its powers as declared in the constitution. To suggest that the framers would not have believed in a right to separate oneself from the central power immediately after doing so themselves is an absurd position.
BTW there is also nothing in the constitution about Congress having the power to kick out states either. You don't think it has that right, do you?
We've been over this about 1.6E30 times now: The constitution does not enumerate the powers of the states, although a few limitations are listed in A1S10/A4. It enumerates the powers of each branch of the federal government. None of those powers include coersion of a state.
Within the constitution itself are all the means of dealing with treason, rebellion and insurrection, nothing else is needed. Why would such language even be there if all a state had to do was to say "Bye?"
Secession is neither treason or insurrection. Rebellion? Maybe, but the only time it's mentioned is wrt the suspension of the writ. The powers of the fedgov in such cases are pretty vague (if you take the constitution literally, nonexistent). Is that purposely so, such that the states are left to deal with it? Don't know.
Since the constitution was formed by the People NOT the states, no state has any say in changing it. Only when 3/4s of them agreed could it be changed.
These two sentences seem contradictory.
Amendments don't always change something explicit within the constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't, the 18th didn't, the 19th didn't, 23d didn't, 24th didn't, 26th didn't.
Okay, and if you look they are dealing with either granting or revocation of a federal power. Most people (of the time) thought the BOR wasn't even necessary and abhorred the thought of it, demanding 9 & 10 as measures to insure that the government would see freedom to overstep its bounds in other areas not enumerated. Are you trying to make my point for me? Your help is much appreciated in this area.
Separation could occur peacefully should a state get the approval of 3/4s of the rest of the Union.
Once again, I am requesting a source for this. I would also hold that separation could have occurred peacefully had the Lincoln administration not invaded.
No territory would have been allowed to separate without Congresses approval as long as a president who took his oath seriously such as Jackson, Taylor or Lincoln was in office.
And once again, we have all agreed that the constitution grants fedgov the power to act in a dictatorial manner over territories if they see fit. Your continued diversion into territorial powers of the fedgov has been more of an annoyance than a useful contribution, and it's easy to understand GOPCap's frustration.
Your attempt to paint a false dichotomy won't work. Those were not the options. Though it would have been easier to separate territorial units before they became states within the Union than after since a simple congressional majority would have allowed the first course of action but not the latter.
And once again, you take something you 'pulled' (requirement of 3/4 of the fed legislature) and then used it as a building block in the next step of your argument.
Of course, you also either did not understand what I wrote OR you are trying to create a straw man. I said "possible" beliefs not EXPRESSED beliefs. But you took the bait.
No matter, you then reiterated it in the post to which I'm responding. Admission that you're flame-baiting also seems like a course I wouldn't recommend.
Perhaps you are also unaware of what a tyrant is. A good example of such would be just about any slaveholder who can only maintain his tyranny through the whip, lash and a police state apparatus.
I am aware. Also, any government that usurps power and maintains it by the gun and a police state apparatus. Want to make the comparison? How do the actions of any single slaveowning tyrant stack up against the forty million unborn children who've been killed in the last thirty years?
THOSE are tyrants certainly not I.
You have the right mentality, apparently all that is lacking is the power and the will to carry it out.
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.