0 comment Monday, December 1, 2014 | admin
Over at the Mat Rodina blog, Stanislav writes from a Russian perspective on the possibility of Texas independence via secession.
He notes what correspondents in Texas, or expatriate Texans, tell him about the secession movement in that state. There is the opinion that Governor Perry is merely doing some political grandstanding, or political posturing, while at the same time distancing himself from the secessionist movement.
While most do not believe that their governor Perry was doing anything but trolling for votes in a hard reelection that is upcoming, it makes one wonder what it means in the Texas society if the path to reelection is through talk of succession [sic]. What the good governor may not realize is that such issues, which are already building or have built under the surface, given an outlet, will take on a life of their own. Like a breaking damn [sic], public opinion can and will switch quickly given the proper circumstance and the force that follows will sweep all ahead.''
That last point is something that I have emphasized in various ways; though today secession may not be feasible, given the right circumstances, things may turn on a dime:
''Thus, with 1 in 3 citizens of Texas pro independence, a move to 2 in 3 is only a crisis away and with the americans continuing to sink and their dollar continuing to turn to trash, that crisis is already under way.
The crisis is happening in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting between Russia, China and six other SCO members. The US request to attend was denied. The jist of this meeting is to work out plans to de-dollarize the trade between the member states.''
this conference, and the potential economic consequences, is unsettling, so we'll see what happens.
Read the whole thing at Mat Rodina, including the interesting comments following.
And if you haven't seen the following articles, you might check them out:
This piece from the L.A. Times.
This piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, which is ironic of course in that the WSJ is notoriously pro-open borders. One wonders if the corporate classes are actually now seeing some angle which would be to their benefit in a secession scenario.
Finally, this article, from a libertarian point of view, is interesting, but it does not acknowledge any ethnic or racial basis on which a breakup might occur; the writer, in true anti-collectivist, race-denying fashion, focuses on political or Democrat-Republican divisions among the states and envisions a pattern based on voting habits. Given the ongoing demographic changes being inflicted on this country, does he not see that today's red state will likely be tomorrow's so-called 'purple' state, and next year's or next decade's 'blue state', with a new ''minority majority"? It's happening as I write this.
He notes what correspondents in Texas, or expatriate Texans, tell him about the secession movement in that state. There is the opinion that Governor Perry is merely doing some political grandstanding, or political posturing, while at the same time distancing himself from the secessionist movement.
While most do not believe that their governor Perry was doing anything but trolling for votes in a hard reelection that is upcoming, it makes one wonder what it means in the Texas society if the path to reelection is through talk of succession [sic]. What the good governor may not realize is that such issues, which are already building or have built under the surface, given an outlet, will take on a life of their own. Like a breaking damn [sic], public opinion can and will switch quickly given the proper circumstance and the force that follows will sweep all ahead.''
That last point is something that I have emphasized in various ways; though today secession may not be feasible, given the right circumstances, things may turn on a dime:
''Thus, with 1 in 3 citizens of Texas pro independence, a move to 2 in 3 is only a crisis away and with the americans continuing to sink and their dollar continuing to turn to trash, that crisis is already under way.
The crisis is happening in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting between Russia, China and six other SCO members. The US request to attend was denied. The jist of this meeting is to work out plans to de-dollarize the trade between the member states.''
this conference, and the potential economic consequences, is unsettling, so we'll see what happens.
Read the whole thing at Mat Rodina, including the interesting comments following.
And if you haven't seen the following articles, you might check them out:
This piece from the L.A. Times.
This piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, which is ironic of course in that the WSJ is notoriously pro-open borders. One wonders if the corporate classes are actually now seeing some angle which would be to their benefit in a secession scenario.
Finally, this article, from a libertarian point of view, is interesting, but it does not acknowledge any ethnic or racial basis on which a breakup might occur; the writer, in true anti-collectivist, race-denying fashion, focuses on political or Democrat-Republican divisions among the states and envisions a pattern based on voting habits. Given the ongoing demographic changes being inflicted on this country, does he not see that today's red state will likely be tomorrow's so-called 'purple' state, and next year's or next decade's 'blue state', with a new ''minority majority"? It's happening as I write this.
Labels: Secession, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, Texas Independence
0 comment Friday, October 24, 2014 | admin
Over at the Forum, Glenn W. asks some very good questions, and in hopes of getting some responses from blog readers, I asked Glenn's permission to post this here. There are some very good issues raised and I hope by posting it here to share with you all, it might generate some thoughtful responses:
I have been told that the seeds of the American revolution were sown in the many taverns scattered throughout the thirteen colonies. Men would meet in these taverns and discuss politics and over time began to formulate ideas as to how we could break away from England. I have been encouraged by what I have seen on the internet because I believe that the blogosphere has become the tavern of the 21st century. For the first time in my lifetime men (and woman) can actually meet and discuss important issues of the day without it being filtered by large news organizations. The potential impact is huge.
I can see many issues being discussed as to how to protect our freedoms and our posterity from the very real dangers we are facing in this day and age. Meeting in the "VA tavern" to discuss these issues is the start of finding a solution. So, here we are and the modern version of parliament (aka the imperial congress) just tried to pass the modern version of the Stamp Act (the illegal immigrant amnesty bill). Since those jokers aren't as bright as there press releases would like us to believe, they will keep trying to pass that abomination. This caused alarms to go off for a lot of people who usually don't follow politics and possibly galvanized a real resistance to the insanity.
This is the time to decide on a strategy as to how we should react when the next abomination occurs. Or, maybe there does not need to be only one strategy. I identify with people such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry who would now be branded as "bomb throwers." I am sure there were many patriots who were more measured in their approach but as strong in their resolve as Adams and Henry. I do believe that attacks from many directions could be very effective. What should those approaches be? What do I need to do to hold up my end of the bargain? I believe that the political situation will get worse before it gets better. I have never been active in political campaigning but I am willing to hand out tracts and make calls for candidates I believe in but is that enough? If the situation deteriorates to the point where I won't take any more, what should my actions be? Would I be willing to push matters to the point that the founders did with the Boston tea party? What should our Boston tea party be?
This is a bit of a tangent but I will throw it in as well. Going forward we will need a set of common principles that we can agree on. I have seen some of the attempts to come up with a conservative manifesto where there are broad principles that we can all agree to. I am afraid that we have become too fractured and may not be able to come to a consensus. What if we once again used the founders as our inspiration and agreed to restoring a government where we could all live in freedom while having moderately different world views, something like:
1) Once again set boundaries on the federal government so they fulfill their obligations of defending the U.S. from invasion and regulating interstate commerce.
2) Restore the states to being the watchdog over the federal government.
3) Restore the liberties inherent in our constitutional republic where certain rights cannot be violated by any government body. This guards against a tyranny of the majority which the founders feared.
Under this concept of states rights (I may not be using this term precisely but I hope you get my point) I can live in a state where rugged individualism is honored and you can choose to live in a state with a more paternalistic approach to government. You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
I am sure that most of you are way ahead of me on this one and I am interested in what your thoughts are. Can we come up with an approach that we can all live with, and fight for, that avoids some of the stumbling blocks we seem to keep running into?
The time is coming soon where the crisis will be here. How are we going to react to and exploit the next crisis? Will we be willing to sneak out in the middle of the night to dump a ship load of tea into Boston harbor? I hope so.
I have been told that the seeds of the American revolution were sown in the many taverns scattered throughout the thirteen colonies. Men would meet in these taverns and discuss politics and over time began to formulate ideas as to how we could break away from England. I have been encouraged by what I have seen on the internet because I believe that the blogosphere has become the tavern of the 21st century. For the first time in my lifetime men (and woman) can actually meet and discuss important issues of the day without it being filtered by large news organizations. The potential impact is huge.
I can see many issues being discussed as to how to protect our freedoms and our posterity from the very real dangers we are facing in this day and age. Meeting in the "VA tavern" to discuss these issues is the start of finding a solution. So, here we are and the modern version of parliament (aka the imperial congress) just tried to pass the modern version of the Stamp Act (the illegal immigrant amnesty bill). Since those jokers aren't as bright as there press releases would like us to believe, they will keep trying to pass that abomination. This caused alarms to go off for a lot of people who usually don't follow politics and possibly galvanized a real resistance to the insanity.
This is the time to decide on a strategy as to how we should react when the next abomination occurs. Or, maybe there does not need to be only one strategy. I identify with people such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry who would now be branded as "bomb throwers." I am sure there were many patriots who were more measured in their approach but as strong in their resolve as Adams and Henry. I do believe that attacks from many directions could be very effective. What should those approaches be? What do I need to do to hold up my end of the bargain? I believe that the political situation will get worse before it gets better. I have never been active in political campaigning but I am willing to hand out tracts and make calls for candidates I believe in but is that enough? If the situation deteriorates to the point where I won't take any more, what should my actions be? Would I be willing to push matters to the point that the founders did with the Boston tea party? What should our Boston tea party be?
This is a bit of a tangent but I will throw it in as well. Going forward we will need a set of common principles that we can agree on. I have seen some of the attempts to come up with a conservative manifesto where there are broad principles that we can all agree to. I am afraid that we have become too fractured and may not be able to come to a consensus. What if we once again used the founders as our inspiration and agreed to restoring a government where we could all live in freedom while having moderately different world views, something like:
1) Once again set boundaries on the federal government so they fulfill their obligations of defending the U.S. from invasion and regulating interstate commerce.
2) Restore the states to being the watchdog over the federal government.
3) Restore the liberties inherent in our constitutional republic where certain rights cannot be violated by any government body. This guards against a tyranny of the majority which the founders feared.
Under this concept of states rights (I may not be using this term precisely but I hope you get my point) I can live in a state where rugged individualism is honored and you can choose to live in a state with a more paternalistic approach to government. You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
I am sure that most of you are way ahead of me on this one and I am interested in what your thoughts are. Can we come up with an approach that we can all live with, and fight for, that avoids some of the stumbling blocks we seem to keep running into?
The time is coming soon where the crisis will be here. How are we going to react to and exploit the next crisis? Will we be willing to sneak out in the middle of the night to dump a ship load of tea into Boston harbor? I hope so.
Labels: American Society, Conservatism, Conservative Principles, Government, Patriotism, StateS Rights
0 comment Monday, August 18, 2014 | admin
Over at the Texas Nationalist blog, (which is now added to my blogroll, by the way) Daniel Miller sounds the alarm for Texans to awake.
He lays out his case for believing that our American Republic is a lost cause.
While I would not like this to be true, I can certainly see all the troubling signs that he sees, and in addition I've been feeling rather pessimistic about the growing divisions among various groups of people -- not just minorities vs. Whites, but the open animus on the part of just about everyone toward Christian believers, plus the North-South rift, rural vs. urban, left vs. right, young vs. old, and all the rest of the ugliness.
We all know what happens to a house divided against itself, and our house is divided all kinds of ways. And the election next week shows little promise of changing anything substantial; the names and faces may change, but I see little evidence of the kind of change we need, given the deep divisions and hatreds that exist, and given the candidates from whom we have to choose.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a recent statement that it is time for Texas to secede. Follow the link to listen to the audio via Third Palmetto Republic.
Has the time come? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be in the air. And if and when the time comes, I hope it will be Texas which takes that step.
Sam Houston, the first President of the Republic of Texas said:
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
I hope Sam Houston's words hold true in our time as they did in 1836.
He lays out his case for believing that our American Republic is a lost cause.
While I would not like this to be true, I can certainly see all the troubling signs that he sees, and in addition I've been feeling rather pessimistic about the growing divisions among various groups of people -- not just minorities vs. Whites, but the open animus on the part of just about everyone toward Christian believers, plus the North-South rift, rural vs. urban, left vs. right, young vs. old, and all the rest of the ugliness.
We all know what happens to a house divided against itself, and our house is divided all kinds of ways. And the election next week shows little promise of changing anything substantial; the names and faces may change, but I see little evidence of the kind of change we need, given the deep divisions and hatreds that exist, and given the candidates from whom we have to choose.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a recent statement that it is time for Texas to secede. Follow the link to listen to the audio via Third Palmetto Republic.
Has the time come? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be in the air. And if and when the time comes, I hope it will be Texas which takes that step.
Sam Houston, the first President of the Republic of Texas said:
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
I hope Sam Houston's words hold true in our time as they did in 1836.
Labels: Politics, Secession, Societal Division, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, Texas
0 comment Wednesday, August 13, 2014 | admin
Even though I haven't blogged much about the state sovereignty movement lately, I am keeping an eye on what is happening around the country, and on the discussion here and there about the issue.
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Labels: Constitution, Federal Government, Secession, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Wednesday, August 6, 2014 | admin
I knew this exchange the other day between Ron Paul and Tim Russert would set off a controversy:
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Given that Dr. Paul criticized Abraham Lincoln, who is a near-deity for some, and given that he dared to question whether the sacred cause of 'ending slavery' was worth more than a half-million American lives -- in addition of course to the financial costs -- it was guaranteed that there would be a cry of PC indignation about Dr. Paul's words.
AOL on their home page had a poll asking about Ron Paul's statements regarding Lincoln and the War Between the States. It appears as though the poll has been discontinued. From what I have heard the poll was running against Dr. Paul's point of view. That's not surprising, given the heavy indoctrination the schools administer in their 'history' classes, and given that many people get their information on these matters from unreliable sources like the very Politically Correct History Channel.
Those of us who are Ron Paul supporters will no doubt be subjected to ignorant questions about this issue; I expect to hear 'how can you support a candidate who thinks we shouldn't have ended slavery?' 'How can you support a candidate who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing?' These issues are so sacrosanct in our society that it's to be expected that many people will have a predictable knee-jerk response and immediately mount their PC high horse and assume their best morally superior air when asking these questions.
I won't take up the Civil Rights Act issue at this time; that will be for another blog entry.
Now, nobody wants to be in the position of attempting to defend slavery, and I am not going to try it. Slavery is history in the Western world -- except in cases where immigrants have re-introduced it into our country -- so if any hyperventilating liberal supposes that anybody is proposing to re-introduce slavery or 'Jim Crow', they can relax and stop being hysterical. But the fact is, the question should be asked: why do we now consider slavery, specifically the slavery once practiced in America, as the ultimate evil, the most heinous crime and sin ever committed, short of 'genocide'? Why are we still rending our clothes about it a century and a half after we put an end to it? Why are the people who make such an issue of slavery unwilling or unable to see any evil in the slavery practiced even now by 'diverse' Third World cultures? The idea that we condemn ourselves, our ancestors, and our culture for every failing while giving Third World people a pass is part of a consistent theme in liberal multicultural ideology. Third-worlders, it seems, are children who are not held accountable for their actions. Where is the equality in that attitude? If we are all equal in every respect, they need to be held accountable to the same unforgiving standards to which we hold Western cultures. Anything else is a kind of 'racism' because it implies that the 'diverse' cultures are, well, primitive and unable to live up to the high standards we apply to our Western culture.
Maybe that is in fact the reality but pin a liberal to the wall and ask them to defend that position, and see what happens.
The idea that slavery, as a fruit of 'racism', is a unique evil, surpassing most evils, is something that is assumed in our day. Why? Yes, I know it violates our supposed 'American creed' that 'all men are created equal,' but there are many other outrages which should command the same outrage, but which do not.
Child labor was a great evil, which was practiced until the last century in Western countries; we've all read of children working long hours at hard or dangerous jobs, sometimes going to an early grave because of the harshness of their lives. Why is this not considered at least as serious an evil as slavery? I would argue that it is worse. Obviously slavery is popularly deemed worst, because of the racial issue, which has assumed paramount importance in our weird post-modern morality. Race seems to trump all. We can insult or criticize almost anyone, even God himself, but we can't criticize or fail to properly defer to those of racial 'victim' status.
I truly think that most Americans, without fully informing themselves and thinking it through, have simply accepted that the question of slavery and the War Between the States are issues that must simply not be examined; slavery, so this line of thought goes, was the ultimate evil and therefore sacrificing over half a million lives and laying waste to the South were necessary acts, and the result was worth it.
But was it the most humane thing to emancipate the slaves suddenly by decree, when many or most of them were not prepared or equipped to make the transition to a life of 'freedom'? A gradual freeing would have been wiser as well as more humane. It would have been better to prepare slaves for freedom, but the liberals and radicals of the time were not concerned with real-life consequences, but as always, were only concerned with serving their utopian ideology regardless of the cost in human terms.
Thomas DiLorenzo, who is a scholar who dissents from the Lincoln cult, writes here how paradoxically, libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner defended the South's right to secede, and disagreed with Lincoln's actions. [Aside: Spooner is one of my New England kinsmen, so I am related to several abolitionists as well as to Southron slaveowners.]
Spooner and his entire family were abolitionists for decades prior to the war. He authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, which made him a great hero to the entire abolitionist movement; advocated the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by juries (a purely Jeffersonian, states� rights position); called for slave insurrections aided by abolitionists like himself; and even hatched a plot to kidnap Virginia Governor Henry Wise and hold him as a hostage in exchange for John Brown.
Spooner also saw through the phoniness of the Lincoln regime and its diabolical quest for empire at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives. As George H. Smith writes, "Spooner stood nearly alone among radical abolitionists in his defense of the right of the South to secede from the Union" (p. xvii). To Spooner, the right of secession was "a right that was embodied in the American Revolution." Moreover, Lincoln�s war "erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration," not any moral reason.
Spooner�s views on the war are laid out in his famous 1870 essay, "No Treason," published as part of the above-mentioned Lysander Spooner Reader. He understood that the Northern business interests who were the backbone of the Republican Party of his time (also Lincoln�s time), whom he labeled "lenders of blood money," had "for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purpose of liberty and justice . . ." (p. 117). It was such interests, after all, that monopolized (and profited immensely from) the transatlantic slave trade, which was always centered in Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts.
The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).
[...]
Referring to President Ulysses S. Grant, Spooner also noted that the Northern business interests who controlled the Republican Party had "put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war," who at the time was hypocritically saying, "Let us have peace" (p. 118). Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists at the hands of "murderers" like Grant as essentially saying: "Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery [i.e., via tariffs and inflation] we have arranged for you, and you can have peace" (p. 118). The Republican Party rhetoric of "saving the union" and "abolishing slavery" was all a sham, said Spooner. "The pretense that the 'abolition of slavery� was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of 'maintaining the national honor,�" the famous abolitionist wrote (p. 119). It was the U.S. government that established and enforced slavery, he noted. The U.S. flag flew over an American slave society almost twenty times longer than the Confederate flag did.
[...] Spooner also ridiculed Lincoln�s ridiculous and absurd statement in the Gettysburg Address that he was waging war for the principle of "a government of consent," or government of the people, by the people, for the people, as his flowery rhetoric put it. In reality, the type of "consent" created by Lincoln�s war was: "everybody must consent, or be shot" (p. 120). This idea "was the dominant one on which the war was carried on." (Another libertarian icon, H.L. Mencken, was of the same opinion). "All of these cries of having 'abolished slavery,� of having 'saved the country,� of having 'preserved the union,� of establishing a 'government of consent,� and of 'maintaining the national honor,� are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats," the great abolitionist declared (p. 121).
Lysander Spooner vigorously attacked the Lincoln regime and defended the Confederacy�s right to secede with the libertarian language of natural rights, consent, and social contract. He recognized that this was also the language of Jefferson Davis�s First Inaugural Address, and that the war was not initiated to "free the slaves," something that neither Lincoln nor the U.S. Congress ever said or thought, even if grossly uneducated Americans do today.''
So really, Ron Paul is not saying something totally novel or 'radical' when he criticizes the War Between the States; he is echoing what others before him, libertarians like Spooner as well as true conservatives, have said.
The War Between the States, which was not strictly the altruistic crusade it purported to be, also left irreparable damage in terms of the relationship between the South and the North; it is hard to forgive and forget when your loved ones have been killed, your home burned to the ground, your crops destroyed, and an occupation government (which the Reconstruction government was) imposed. The North, with Reconstruction, clearly had a punitive agenda in mind. They wanted to utterly humiliate and abase the South. Depriving many citizens of their franchise and their rights as citizens, while putting yesterday's slaves in office, giving them authority over their former masters was malicious in intent, and served no good purpose. It was because of historical episodes like that that my Southron ancestors were firmly anti-Republican for a century. The radical Republicans were the nemesis of Southron people in the post-War era. For that reason many Southron people were staunch Democrats for generations, until the Democrats became insanely liberal and anti-white.
The War Between the States had greater costs than the billions of dollars and the 600,000 lives. It did irreparable damage to North-South relations, it set in motion our current 'politically correct' obsession, and even worse, it turned our Republic away from the Jeffersonian model and towards the Lincolnian, imperial, centralized, big-government model. It is incomprehensible that any conservative who claims to favor smaller government and more local control would think that this change has been for the better.
Confederate General Patrick Cleburne said:
Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
If this cause, that is dear to my heart, is doomed to fail, I pray Heaven may let me fail with it, while my face is toward the enemy and my arm battling for that which I know is right.
I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."
General Wade Hampton:
If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
For Southern patriots, that the South was right as to the principle of State's rights vs. Federal power is not in question.
But as to Dr. Paul's points, there are many ways to approach the question of whether the Civil War was justified, or whether there was not a better way to free the slaves. I think Dr. Paul and others are right; why could we not have freed the slaves as Britain did?
The liberals who are feigning shock over what Dr. Paul said might stop and think: wouldn't the 'peaceful solution' have been prefererable? Or is the peaceful solution only recommended when our enemies are 'Others'?
I really don't see how a liberal can make any kind of consistent and coherent argument against Dr. Paul's statements. I would like to see how the peace-and-love crowd would be able to argue that the War Between the States, with its half a million dead, was justified, when there were other options.
However Dr. Paul decides to respond to this media-driven controversy, I would bet that he will not back down or pander. It would be out of character for him to do so. And above all else, I believe Dr. Paul is a man of integrity and principle. He's stayed true to his principles for his years of public life, unlike most politicians.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Given that Dr. Paul criticized Abraham Lincoln, who is a near-deity for some, and given that he dared to question whether the sacred cause of 'ending slavery' was worth more than a half-million American lives -- in addition of course to the financial costs -- it was guaranteed that there would be a cry of PC indignation about Dr. Paul's words.
AOL on their home page had a poll asking about Ron Paul's statements regarding Lincoln and the War Between the States. It appears as though the poll has been discontinued. From what I have heard the poll was running against Dr. Paul's point of view. That's not surprising, given the heavy indoctrination the schools administer in their 'history' classes, and given that many people get their information on these matters from unreliable sources like the very Politically Correct History Channel.
Those of us who are Ron Paul supporters will no doubt be subjected to ignorant questions about this issue; I expect to hear 'how can you support a candidate who thinks we shouldn't have ended slavery?' 'How can you support a candidate who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing?' These issues are so sacrosanct in our society that it's to be expected that many people will have a predictable knee-jerk response and immediately mount their PC high horse and assume their best morally superior air when asking these questions.
I won't take up the Civil Rights Act issue at this time; that will be for another blog entry.
Now, nobody wants to be in the position of attempting to defend slavery, and I am not going to try it. Slavery is history in the Western world -- except in cases where immigrants have re-introduced it into our country -- so if any hyperventilating liberal supposes that anybody is proposing to re-introduce slavery or 'Jim Crow', they can relax and stop being hysterical. But the fact is, the question should be asked: why do we now consider slavery, specifically the slavery once practiced in America, as the ultimate evil, the most heinous crime and sin ever committed, short of 'genocide'? Why are we still rending our clothes about it a century and a half after we put an end to it? Why are the people who make such an issue of slavery unwilling or unable to see any evil in the slavery practiced even now by 'diverse' Third World cultures? The idea that we condemn ourselves, our ancestors, and our culture for every failing while giving Third World people a pass is part of a consistent theme in liberal multicultural ideology. Third-worlders, it seems, are children who are not held accountable for their actions. Where is the equality in that attitude? If we are all equal in every respect, they need to be held accountable to the same unforgiving standards to which we hold Western cultures. Anything else is a kind of 'racism' because it implies that the 'diverse' cultures are, well, primitive and unable to live up to the high standards we apply to our Western culture.
Maybe that is in fact the reality but pin a liberal to the wall and ask them to defend that position, and see what happens.
The idea that slavery, as a fruit of 'racism', is a unique evil, surpassing most evils, is something that is assumed in our day. Why? Yes, I know it violates our supposed 'American creed' that 'all men are created equal,' but there are many other outrages which should command the same outrage, but which do not.
Child labor was a great evil, which was practiced until the last century in Western countries; we've all read of children working long hours at hard or dangerous jobs, sometimes going to an early grave because of the harshness of their lives. Why is this not considered at least as serious an evil as slavery? I would argue that it is worse. Obviously slavery is popularly deemed worst, because of the racial issue, which has assumed paramount importance in our weird post-modern morality. Race seems to trump all. We can insult or criticize almost anyone, even God himself, but we can't criticize or fail to properly defer to those of racial 'victim' status.
I truly think that most Americans, without fully informing themselves and thinking it through, have simply accepted that the question of slavery and the War Between the States are issues that must simply not be examined; slavery, so this line of thought goes, was the ultimate evil and therefore sacrificing over half a million lives and laying waste to the South were necessary acts, and the result was worth it.
But was it the most humane thing to emancipate the slaves suddenly by decree, when many or most of them were not prepared or equipped to make the transition to a life of 'freedom'? A gradual freeing would have been wiser as well as more humane. It would have been better to prepare slaves for freedom, but the liberals and radicals of the time were not concerned with real-life consequences, but as always, were only concerned with serving their utopian ideology regardless of the cost in human terms.
Thomas DiLorenzo, who is a scholar who dissents from the Lincoln cult, writes here how paradoxically, libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner defended the South's right to secede, and disagreed with Lincoln's actions. [Aside: Spooner is one of my New England kinsmen, so I am related to several abolitionists as well as to Southron slaveowners.]
Spooner and his entire family were abolitionists for decades prior to the war. He authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, which made him a great hero to the entire abolitionist movement; advocated the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by juries (a purely Jeffersonian, states� rights position); called for slave insurrections aided by abolitionists like himself; and even hatched a plot to kidnap Virginia Governor Henry Wise and hold him as a hostage in exchange for John Brown.
Spooner also saw through the phoniness of the Lincoln regime and its diabolical quest for empire at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives. As George H. Smith writes, "Spooner stood nearly alone among radical abolitionists in his defense of the right of the South to secede from the Union" (p. xvii). To Spooner, the right of secession was "a right that was embodied in the American Revolution." Moreover, Lincoln�s war "erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration," not any moral reason.
Spooner�s views on the war are laid out in his famous 1870 essay, "No Treason," published as part of the above-mentioned Lysander Spooner Reader. He understood that the Northern business interests who were the backbone of the Republican Party of his time (also Lincoln�s time), whom he labeled "lenders of blood money," had "for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purpose of liberty and justice . . ." (p. 117). It was such interests, after all, that monopolized (and profited immensely from) the transatlantic slave trade, which was always centered in Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts.
The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).
[...]
Referring to President Ulysses S. Grant, Spooner also noted that the Northern business interests who controlled the Republican Party had "put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war," who at the time was hypocritically saying, "Let us have peace" (p. 118). Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists at the hands of "murderers" like Grant as essentially saying: "Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery [i.e., via tariffs and inflation] we have arranged for you, and you can have peace" (p. 118). The Republican Party rhetoric of "saving the union" and "abolishing slavery" was all a sham, said Spooner. "The pretense that the 'abolition of slavery� was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of 'maintaining the national honor,�" the famous abolitionist wrote (p. 119). It was the U.S. government that established and enforced slavery, he noted. The U.S. flag flew over an American slave society almost twenty times longer than the Confederate flag did.
[...] Spooner also ridiculed Lincoln�s ridiculous and absurd statement in the Gettysburg Address that he was waging war for the principle of "a government of consent," or government of the people, by the people, for the people, as his flowery rhetoric put it. In reality, the type of "consent" created by Lincoln�s war was: "everybody must consent, or be shot" (p. 120). This idea "was the dominant one on which the war was carried on." (Another libertarian icon, H.L. Mencken, was of the same opinion). "All of these cries of having 'abolished slavery,� of having 'saved the country,� of having 'preserved the union,� of establishing a 'government of consent,� and of 'maintaining the national honor,� are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats," the great abolitionist declared (p. 121).
Lysander Spooner vigorously attacked the Lincoln regime and defended the Confederacy�s right to secede with the libertarian language of natural rights, consent, and social contract. He recognized that this was also the language of Jefferson Davis�s First Inaugural Address, and that the war was not initiated to "free the slaves," something that neither Lincoln nor the U.S. Congress ever said or thought, even if grossly uneducated Americans do today.''
So really, Ron Paul is not saying something totally novel or 'radical' when he criticizes the War Between the States; he is echoing what others before him, libertarians like Spooner as well as true conservatives, have said.
The War Between the States, which was not strictly the altruistic crusade it purported to be, also left irreparable damage in terms of the relationship between the South and the North; it is hard to forgive and forget when your loved ones have been killed, your home burned to the ground, your crops destroyed, and an occupation government (which the Reconstruction government was) imposed. The North, with Reconstruction, clearly had a punitive agenda in mind. They wanted to utterly humiliate and abase the South. Depriving many citizens of their franchise and their rights as citizens, while putting yesterday's slaves in office, giving them authority over their former masters was malicious in intent, and served no good purpose. It was because of historical episodes like that that my Southron ancestors were firmly anti-Republican for a century. The radical Republicans were the nemesis of Southron people in the post-War era. For that reason many Southron people were staunch Democrats for generations, until the Democrats became insanely liberal and anti-white.
The War Between the States had greater costs than the billions of dollars and the 600,000 lives. It did irreparable damage to North-South relations, it set in motion our current 'politically correct' obsession, and even worse, it turned our Republic away from the Jeffersonian model and towards the Lincolnian, imperial, centralized, big-government model. It is incomprehensible that any conservative who claims to favor smaller government and more local control would think that this change has been for the better.
Confederate General Patrick Cleburne said:
Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
If this cause, that is dear to my heart, is doomed to fail, I pray Heaven may let me fail with it, while my face is toward the enemy and my arm battling for that which I know is right.
I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."
General Wade Hampton:
If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
For Southern patriots, that the South was right as to the principle of State's rights vs. Federal power is not in question.
But as to Dr. Paul's points, there are many ways to approach the question of whether the Civil War was justified, or whether there was not a better way to free the slaves. I think Dr. Paul and others are right; why could we not have freed the slaves as Britain did?
The liberals who are feigning shock over what Dr. Paul said might stop and think: wouldn't the 'peaceful solution' have been prefererable? Or is the peaceful solution only recommended when our enemies are 'Others'?
I really don't see how a liberal can make any kind of consistent and coherent argument against Dr. Paul's statements. I would like to see how the peace-and-love crowd would be able to argue that the War Between the States, with its half a million dead, was justified, when there were other options.
However Dr. Paul decides to respond to this media-driven controversy, I would bet that he will not back down or pander. It would be out of character for him to do so. And above all else, I believe Dr. Paul is a man of integrity and principle. He's stayed true to his principles for his years of public life, unlike most politicians.
Labels: American History, Presidential Candidates, Revisionist History, Ron Paul, StateS Rights
0 comment Tuesday, May 27, 2014 | admin
Here's a very fine piece by Larry L. Beane II which I found over at LewRockwell.com. It's titled ''The Founders Knew Latin'', which indeed they did. Latin, up until perhaps the middle of the 2oth century was considered part of a well-rounded basic education, and the Founding Fathers were steeped in it. As the article points out, many of the concepts of the Constitution are contained in Latin phrases like 'E Pluribus Unum', which we may remember, Al Gore mistranslated as ''Out of one, many.'' His faulty translation, turning the meaning of the phrase on its head, may have been a Freudian slip, as today most of the important principles of the Founders have likewise been inverted.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
Labels: Constitution, Founding Fathers, Nullification, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Sunday, May 18, 2014 | admin
And today's villains were once heroes.
The picture posted above is of Robert E. Lee and his generals. It was an interesting experience recently, on a forum where British as well as Canadian and a couple of Americans gather, a picture like the one above was posted. It was identified only as General Lee (who was noted by the English commenters as being of English descent) and his generals. I was pleasantly surprised that a couple of the men from the UK recognized many of the generals, while the American who was there confessed that he knew who none of them were, apart from General Lee. Everybody in the South surely knows Robert E. Lee's face, but my fellow Southern American did not know the others, not even Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, whose face is also very well-known in the South -- or used to be.
I confess I can't name them all, though I recognize, from other pictures I've seen, John Bell Hood, my great-granddad's commanding officer. Then of course J.E.B. Stuart, and the very topical Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Braxton Bragg. Can anybody else name the others? It seems our history is being neglected. It's pretty bad when someone in England knows our history and our heroes better than we do.
Not altogether off topic, at the Guardian website, there is an article discussing the fact that at the time of the American War Between the States, the majority of British 'liberals' sided with the Confederacy, and held a negative view of Abraham Lincoln.
The writer of the article cites material from a book by Amanda Foreman, called A World On Fire.
''Foreman stumbled on her subject while researching her bestselling 1999 biography of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. In the family archives she discovered that the heir to the Devonshire title � later the eighth duke � had spent Christmas Day 1862 making eggnog for Robert E Lee's Confederate cavalry officers in Virginia.
This Devonshire heir, though, was not some deranged rightwing romantic but one of the pillars of Victorian Liberalism. As Lord Hartington, he served in Gladstone's first two Liberal cabinets, introduced the secret ballot into British law, pulled troops out of Afghanistan in the 1880s, was leader of the Liberal party in opposition, nearly became PM, and finally broke with Gladstone over home rule for Ireland, becoming leader of the breakaway Liberal Unionists � an irony for a man who had sided with the Confederates 20 years previously.
Yet as Foreman shows, Hartington's support for the south was anything but unusual among liberal and progressive 1860s Britain. This country was almost as torn over the civil war as Americans themselves. Many went to fight. The war even crossed the Atlantic, with a battle between Union and Confederate ships in the Channel in 1864. The political parties, and Lord Palmerston's Whig government, were split down the middle over the issues.''
The writer also mentions that the Guardian itself was conflicted over which side to take, given their anti-slavery position. But oddly (to the article's writer, at least) it seemed that the Guardian's support for the principle of self-determination resulted in their taking a very anti-Lincoln stance.
''The Guardian's anti-Lincoln obsession reached its heights in the April 1865 editorial on, of all things, the president's assassination. "Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty," the paper wrote, before tactfully adding that "it is doubtless to be regretted that he had not the opportunity of vindicating his good intentions".
It's interesting that some cracks are beginning to appear in the façade of Lincolnolatry, at least in this country. Lately there has even been some public discussion of Lincoln's support for repatriating freed slaves to Africa. Yet it seems that the Guardian and its readers are not cognizant of that fact.
The following quote from Lincoln is not one with which most Americans or British people are familiar with these days:
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
Those words were Lincoln's from the fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, which took place on September 18, 1858. They are quoted in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings (New York: Library of America, 1989)on p. 636.
As for the fact that many in England were pro-Confederate, that is what I was taught as a child in school, so it is not a new revelation to me. But I will be looking for the release of 'A World On Fire'. It promises to be interesting.
The picture posted above is of Robert E. Lee and his generals. It was an interesting experience recently, on a forum where British as well as Canadian and a couple of Americans gather, a picture like the one above was posted. It was identified only as General Lee (who was noted by the English commenters as being of English descent) and his generals. I was pleasantly surprised that a couple of the men from the UK recognized many of the generals, while the American who was there confessed that he knew who none of them were, apart from General Lee. Everybody in the South surely knows Robert E. Lee's face, but my fellow Southern American did not know the others, not even Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, whose face is also very well-known in the South -- or used to be.
I confess I can't name them all, though I recognize, from other pictures I've seen, John Bell Hood, my great-granddad's commanding officer. Then of course J.E.B. Stuart, and the very topical Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Braxton Bragg. Can anybody else name the others? It seems our history is being neglected. It's pretty bad when someone in England knows our history and our heroes better than we do.
Not altogether off topic, at the Guardian website, there is an article discussing the fact that at the time of the American War Between the States, the majority of British 'liberals' sided with the Confederacy, and held a negative view of Abraham Lincoln.
The writer of the article cites material from a book by Amanda Foreman, called A World On Fire.
''Foreman stumbled on her subject while researching her bestselling 1999 biography of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. In the family archives she discovered that the heir to the Devonshire title � later the eighth duke � had spent Christmas Day 1862 making eggnog for Robert E Lee's Confederate cavalry officers in Virginia.
This Devonshire heir, though, was not some deranged rightwing romantic but one of the pillars of Victorian Liberalism. As Lord Hartington, he served in Gladstone's first two Liberal cabinets, introduced the secret ballot into British law, pulled troops out of Afghanistan in the 1880s, was leader of the Liberal party in opposition, nearly became PM, and finally broke with Gladstone over home rule for Ireland, becoming leader of the breakaway Liberal Unionists � an irony for a man who had sided with the Confederates 20 years previously.
Yet as Foreman shows, Hartington's support for the south was anything but unusual among liberal and progressive 1860s Britain. This country was almost as torn over the civil war as Americans themselves. Many went to fight. The war even crossed the Atlantic, with a battle between Union and Confederate ships in the Channel in 1864. The political parties, and Lord Palmerston's Whig government, were split down the middle over the issues.''
The writer also mentions that the Guardian itself was conflicted over which side to take, given their anti-slavery position. But oddly (to the article's writer, at least) it seemed that the Guardian's support for the principle of self-determination resulted in their taking a very anti-Lincoln stance.
''The Guardian's anti-Lincoln obsession reached its heights in the April 1865 editorial on, of all things, the president's assassination. "Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty," the paper wrote, before tactfully adding that "it is doubtless to be regretted that he had not the opportunity of vindicating his good intentions".
It's interesting that some cracks are beginning to appear in the façade of Lincolnolatry, at least in this country. Lately there has even been some public discussion of Lincoln's support for repatriating freed slaves to Africa. Yet it seems that the Guardian and its readers are not cognizant of that fact.
The following quote from Lincoln is not one with which most Americans or British people are familiar with these days:
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
Those words were Lincoln's from the fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, which took place on September 18, 1858. They are quoted in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings (New York: Library of America, 1989)on p. 636.
As for the fact that many in England were pro-Confederate, that is what I was taught as a child in school, so it is not a new revelation to me. But I will be looking for the release of 'A World On Fire'. It promises to be interesting.
Labels: American History, Books, Confederate States Of America, Robert E Lee, StateS Rights
0 comment Sunday, May 11, 2014 | admin
South Carolina has introduced a state sovereignty resolution in their state legislature:
On February 12, legislators from the State of South Carolina introduced a bill to affirm the rights not only of their own state, but of all states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. (h/t Paul Graham and George McLeod) Here�s the full text: TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; and Whereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, "that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised"...
The whole thing may be found at the link.
And Tennessee apparently has introduced such a resolution, although I have not been able to track down a link to a newspaper article about it. If anyone has such a link, please share it with us.
It's good to see more Southron states getting into the act.
On February 12, legislators from the State of South Carolina introduced a bill to affirm the rights not only of their own state, but of all states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. (h/t Paul Graham and George McLeod) Here�s the full text: TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; and Whereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, "that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised"...
The whole thing may be found at the link.
And Tennessee apparently has introduced such a resolution, although I have not been able to track down a link to a newspaper article about it. If anyone has such a link, please share it with us.
It's good to see more Southron states getting into the act.
Labels: Decentralization, South, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment