- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 452 |
| Registered on: | 5/20/2011 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
What gives you that impression?
As AllbyMyRelf said, "The 10th amendment".
The founders didn't think they should, or needed to address every conceivable thing someone might suggest the general (now-a-days inaccurately referred to as the "federal" government) would have legitimate authority to be involved with. Thus the 10th amendment, which was to make explicit what was the first operable article of the Articles of Confederation (the first constitution).
The 10th amendment is quite simple and quite clear, and has been a thorn in the side of the statists since the beginning.
But look at what the founders actually had to say. One of the first major debates (after adoption of the current constitution) was over the first national bank. Jefferson, allied with the anti-federalists, and Randolph, allied with the so-called federalists (actually nationalists) argued against the national bank as an unconstitutional power grab while Hamilton (a monarchist) saw it as a first step in his plan for unlimited central government. (Hamilton's statements in the "federalist" papers about limitations on government were nothing but an attempt to convince the public, that the so-called "anti-federalists" (the true federalists) were wrong in their suspicions about this new general government being a national rather than federal government which would grow to destroy their liberty.)
This was debated in 1791, during Washington's first term. References to the twelfth amendment are references to what was not yet ratified as, but now known as, the tenth amendment. Jefferson and Randolph laid out why congress did not have the power to create a national bank. They also predicted, correctly, what would be the long-term effect on the government if the bank bill were adopted. Hamilton with circular illogic and arrogant disregard of constitutional limits on government asserts the opposite.
After summarizing what the bank bill is to do, Jefferson said,
quote:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
Randolph ends his first opinion (referring to Hamilton's abuse of the "necessary and proper" clause) with,
quote:
However, let it be propounded as an eternal question to those, who build new powers on this clause, whether the latitude of construction which they arrogate, will not terminate in an unlimitted power in Congress?
In every aspect therefore under which the attorney general can view the act, so far as it incorporates the bank, he is bound to declare his opinion to be against its constitutionality.
These are just a couple of quotes. The full references should be read to really understand what they were saying.
Jefferson
Randolph
0
re: What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted by jerep on 7/10/22 at 6:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
See Civil War
Countries that can’t evolve Tom more representative forms of government are prone to revolutions.
We didn't have a civil war in this country. A civil war involves one faction trying to wrest control of the government from another faction. The South had no interest in trying to take over the government of the North or to impose its will on the North. The southern states seceeded and Lincoln, in violation of the constitution, launched a military invasion of the South. The result was a revolution in the sense that the nature of the government was changed from a volunatry union of states in a more or less decentarlized federal republic into a highly centralized national government held together by threat of military force.
quote:
Monopoly of the minority isn’t better than monopoly of the majority. Also the intent to marginalize that wasn’t every state getting 2 senators. It was the president having veto powers and the SCOTUS having review of constitutional rights.
The equal representation in the Senate was intended to counteract the transitory passions of the majority that might endanger the rights of the minority. There was no idea of "constitutional" rights. The rights of the people were inherent from God. The Bill of Rights was understood as an explicit and redundant restriction on the general government but not as a source of those or any other of the innumerable rights which the people have regardless of whether a corrupt government infringes on them, or a good government protects them.
The people were the source of authority for the states and the states (and thereby the people) were understood to retain all powers not expressly delegated (this does not mean surrendered) to the general government. This was explicit in the Articles of Confederation, it was made explicit in the ratification documents of several of the states, and it was later added for clarification as the tenth amendment.
The idea the Supreme Court had the final authority to say what the constitution meant is not in the constitution. The court (actually Marshall, an ultra Hamiltonian who should have recused himself because of his direct involvement in the case) usurped this power to itself in Marbury vs. Madison. The states mostly ignored this view until after 1865.
The Supreme Court was intended to simply be the final court of appeals and the original court for a very limited number of circumstances. It was not viewed as some important component in protecting the rights of individuals, this was seen as the purview of the state governments which were to remain answerable to the people of the state and not (as has become the case) the general government.
re: What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted by jerep on 7/10/22 at 5:56 pm to baybeefeetz
There are some things that have been said or suggested that aren't quite correct which one should know if you really want to understand the reason for and the value of, the structure of the Senate as it is.
First, one can't really understand the nature of our current constitution without understanding its predecessor the Articles of Confederation, and the context of the Philadelphia convention and the period leading up to it.
Second, it isn't really correct to attribute the current constitution to Madison. Madison did come up with the outline for what became the Virginia Plan which the Virginia delegation discussed and then submitted. But the final result was quite different.
Third, the delegates to the convention were not supposed to come up with a new constitution but only to come up with a list of proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation and then this list would be reported back to the states which would then instruct their delegates in congress how to proceed. Several delegates left when they saw that the convention was ignoring the explicit written instructions many of the states had given their delegates in this regard.
Fourth, it is an insult to Madison to lump him in with Hamilton and his ilk. It is true both were part of a group that labeled themselves as "Federalists". However most federalists wanted a government that was much more national than federal (what we now have) where the states were secondary. Some (Hamiltonians) wanted to completely eliminate the states. Regardless, they called themselves Federalists and their opponents (the true federalists) "Anti-federalists" because they knew that the overwhelming majority of the population strongly supported a federal republic (as existed under the Articles). Hamilton was actually a monarchist and proposed an elected king for life as his form of a national (not federal) government at the convention. He said this was the most he thought could be pushed on the people for now but that his real preference was for exactly the British system.
It is also true that Madison and Hamilton worked together in writing much of the "federalist papers" (newspaper editorials and pamphlets) in opposition to those who opposed the proposed constitution over concern that it would lead to an overbearing central national (not federal) government which would destroy the sovereignty of the states and thereby the liberty of the people. Not long after the current constitution was adopted and Washington became president, it became obvious that Hamilton had flat out lied about his view of the proposed constitution when writing his contributions to the federalist papers. In the Federalist papers he took the position that the general government would be strictly limited in its powers and would not be able to invade state sovereignty. As soon as the the constitution was ratified and he became treasury secretary under Washington he showed his true colors by claiming that the constitution provided the general government innumerable "implied powers" (see the Jefferson-Hamilton debates over the national bank, debt, and taxes) to expand the powers of the central government just as the so-called "anti-federalists" had warned during the ratification debates. In effect, Hamilton took the position that the constitution was a "living breathing document". At this point realizing that the "anti-federalists" had been correct, Madison switched sides and joined the "republicans". (These were the Jeffersonian republicans who believed in a true federal system with a very strictly limited role for the general government with the states retaining virtually all power over internal affairs. This has nothing to do with the "Republican" party of Lincoln which believed the opposite and was the heir to the Hamiltonians).
First, one can't really understand the nature of our current constitution without understanding its predecessor the Articles of Confederation, and the context of the Philadelphia convention and the period leading up to it.
Second, it isn't really correct to attribute the current constitution to Madison. Madison did come up with the outline for what became the Virginia Plan which the Virginia delegation discussed and then submitted. But the final result was quite different.
Third, the delegates to the convention were not supposed to come up with a new constitution but only to come up with a list of proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation and then this list would be reported back to the states which would then instruct their delegates in congress how to proceed. Several delegates left when they saw that the convention was ignoring the explicit written instructions many of the states had given their delegates in this regard.
Fourth, it is an insult to Madison to lump him in with Hamilton and his ilk. It is true both were part of a group that labeled themselves as "Federalists". However most federalists wanted a government that was much more national than federal (what we now have) where the states were secondary. Some (Hamiltonians) wanted to completely eliminate the states. Regardless, they called themselves Federalists and their opponents (the true federalists) "Anti-federalists" because they knew that the overwhelming majority of the population strongly supported a federal republic (as existed under the Articles). Hamilton was actually a monarchist and proposed an elected king for life as his form of a national (not federal) government at the convention. He said this was the most he thought could be pushed on the people for now but that his real preference was for exactly the British system.
It is also true that Madison and Hamilton worked together in writing much of the "federalist papers" (newspaper editorials and pamphlets) in opposition to those who opposed the proposed constitution over concern that it would lead to an overbearing central national (not federal) government which would destroy the sovereignty of the states and thereby the liberty of the people. Not long after the current constitution was adopted and Washington became president, it became obvious that Hamilton had flat out lied about his view of the proposed constitution when writing his contributions to the federalist papers. In the Federalist papers he took the position that the general government would be strictly limited in its powers and would not be able to invade state sovereignty. As soon as the the constitution was ratified and he became treasury secretary under Washington he showed his true colors by claiming that the constitution provided the general government innumerable "implied powers" (see the Jefferson-Hamilton debates over the national bank, debt, and taxes) to expand the powers of the central government just as the so-called "anti-federalists" had warned during the ratification debates. In effect, Hamilton took the position that the constitution was a "living breathing document". At this point realizing that the "anti-federalists" had been correct, Madison switched sides and joined the "republicans". (These were the Jeffersonian republicans who believed in a true federal system with a very strictly limited role for the general government with the states retaining virtually all power over internal affairs. This has nothing to do with the "Republican" party of Lincoln which believed the opposite and was the heir to the Hamiltonians).
re: What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted by jerep on 7/10/22 at 5:45 pm to baybeefeetz
All the states, not just the small ones, were (and still are supposed to be) sovereign.
In the Virginia plan, and as it finally became accepted in its final form in the Philadelphia convention, the Senate was intended to serve two functions. First, it was to maintain the federal nature of the Articles of Confederation by maintaining representation of the states in the general government. In a federal republic, the general government is a creature of the states and acts as their agent. Very, very few people in the country would have accepted any form of government which they did not believe would maintain such a federal republic because they saw the sovereignty of the states as the ultimate protection of their liberty against a distant government and were only interested in forming such a general government for purposes of common defense and handling affairs with foreign countries (that is, countries not part of the Confederation).
Second, within this general government, the Senate was intended to moderate transient passions (think gun control laws passed in the wake of highly sensationalized murders) so that laws would only be passed after careful consideration. At the time it was not gun control but things like laws allowing requiring paper currency which those advocating for the Senate had in mind. They saw the Senate as being made up of the aristocratical class so as to protect against an emotional majority making laws that threatened the property of the wealthy (and therefore ultimately everyone).
Madison and the rest of the delegates from the large (most populous) states, wanted the number of votes and senators for each state to be proportional to the population of the state. However, Madison argued that the number of senators should be small to enhance their prestige in the beleif that this would make it harder for them to be corrupted.
Under the Articles each state had one vote but could send between two and seven delegates, all of whom could be recalled or instructed as the state saw fit and were also term limited. In the new constitution the states would each get two Senators and two votes and would be chosen by the state legislatures. To enhance the aristocratical nature of the senate, there was no recall or term limits.
In the Virginia plan, and as it finally became accepted in its final form in the Philadelphia convention, the Senate was intended to serve two functions. First, it was to maintain the federal nature of the Articles of Confederation by maintaining representation of the states in the general government. In a federal republic, the general government is a creature of the states and acts as their agent. Very, very few people in the country would have accepted any form of government which they did not believe would maintain such a federal republic because they saw the sovereignty of the states as the ultimate protection of their liberty against a distant government and were only interested in forming such a general government for purposes of common defense and handling affairs with foreign countries (that is, countries not part of the Confederation).
Second, within this general government, the Senate was intended to moderate transient passions (think gun control laws passed in the wake of highly sensationalized murders) so that laws would only be passed after careful consideration. At the time it was not gun control but things like laws allowing requiring paper currency which those advocating for the Senate had in mind. They saw the Senate as being made up of the aristocratical class so as to protect against an emotional majority making laws that threatened the property of the wealthy (and therefore ultimately everyone).
Madison and the rest of the delegates from the large (most populous) states, wanted the number of votes and senators for each state to be proportional to the population of the state. However, Madison argued that the number of senators should be small to enhance their prestige in the beleif that this would make it harder for them to be corrupted.
Under the Articles each state had one vote but could send between two and seven delegates, all of whom could be recalled or instructed as the state saw fit and were also term limited. In the new constitution the states would each get two Senators and two votes and would be chosen by the state legislatures. To enhance the aristocratical nature of the senate, there was no recall or term limits.
re: BREAKING: Texas Republicans Call for TEXIT Vote with 90% in Favor
Posted by jerep on 7/8/22 at 3:05 am to hawkeye007
quote:
Current Supreme Court precedent, in Texas v. White, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state. More recently, in 2006, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."
Contrary to popular opinion, the supreme court doesn't have the power to dictate reality.
To say that the war "resolved" whether the people of a state have a right to secede, is no different than to say that if a gang of armed thugs breaks into your house and steals what ever they want, kills anyone who resists, beats you and your family to a pulp and then leaves, "resolves" the question of whether they had a right to do what they did.
Scalia wrote some decent opinions, but this has to be the most intellectually bankrupt statement he ever made.
quote:
Will I still retain my veterans’ benefits after TEXIT?
quote:
What could replace Social Security in an independent Texas?
I've read several of your threads on this subject and I support your effort.
I'm all for states reclaiming their sovereignty and as many as see fit seceding. I would welcome it. If some then want to remain independent fine, and if some others want to then recreate a true federal republic again then I think that would be even better. But as long as people who are considering secession are worried about questions such as the two above, I'm not optimistic that a movement supported by such people has any chance at success.
The U.S. government would never willingly let any state secede. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done or isn't worth the effort, but so long as these are the questions people are worried about, they don't have what it will take to succeed. And even if they did succeed, if the people in the seceding states don't first abandon the idea that it is a legitimate function of government to take care of them, then all the trouble of seceding would be a complete waste of time.
People are right in saying that D.C. is the center of the problem, but it is an invasive cancer that has spread throughout the states and all the way down to petty bureaucrats in city governments. People need to learn what our founding fathers knew about self responsibility, live and let live, and that it is never a legitimate function of government to take care of anyone before anything like this will succeed.
re: What would the Constitution Look Like if the Founding Fathers could see 2022?
Posted by jerep on 6/12/22 at 12:33 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:
They would've kept the Articles of Confederation.
This. This exactly.
Articles of Confederation
It's not like no one at the time foresaw what was going to happen. Virtually everything complained of in this thread was either predicted directly or could only happen as a consequence of what the so-called anti-federalists warned of in the debates over ratification. A good sampling can be found in Ralph Ketcham's summary compilation of the anti-federalist papers.
re: Should wrongful arrest settlements come out of the officers pension?
Posted by jerep on 1/9/22 at 10:09 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
How did police forces exist before the advent of QI?
Good point. QI is just a variation on the protection given the king's men in colonial America.
Q: How did this country exist before the advent of police departments?
A: Just fine for the vast majority of the country for the majority of our history. If someone needed to be arrested it was done by the equivalent of a Sheriff and ordinary people who agreed to help based on what they knew of the supposed crime and evidence, or their experience with, and trust in the Sheriff.
re: Should wrongful arrest settlements come out of the officers pension?
Posted by jerep on 1/9/22 at 10:06 pm to WhiskeyThrottle
quote:
If you don’t have a warrant or any reason to hide your ID, providing identification shouldn't be an issue.
So no problem making someone prove their papers are in order. Welcome to the "land of the free..." And most people are okay with that, "and the home of the brave".
This is why we have a president and governors who see law and constitutions and just a formality to get around, because they know most people don't really have any problem with it.
re: America is a communist country
Posted by jerep on 7/18/21 at 4:26 pm to burger bearcat
quote:
While I think we are headed down a dangerous road you can still own your own home, business and guns. None of those are possible in communist countries. Don’t sling the word around like dems do “racists”.
You are right that too many people throw around "communist" incorrectly. On this point I agree completely. It is frequently and incorrectly used as a synonym for any form of government which is totalitarian, authoritarian, or tyrannical. In practice there are a lot of commonalities but they aren't synonymous, and to combat them, people need to actually understand them.
On the other hand, I think in terms of the operation of the government in D.C., and the compliance or support of the state governments, the OP's assertion is more correct than to say that this is a country described by the principles of the Declaration of Independence or contemplated by any of the founders.
First, you don't really own your house. If you don't pay rent (aka property tax) the owner will use any force necessary to evict you from its property. Setting that aside, as KG5989 points out, people with mortgages don't actually own their house even legally so that probably eliminates most people in the country.
Second, if you could "own" a business, then no one could tell you you had to preform services for people you don't want to, (for example baking a cake), or tell you how much you have to pay (minimum wage) or force you to provide other types of payments (medical insurance), or tell you who you have to hire (What if I don't want to hire red-headed, white, pregnant women?) You also wouldn't need a license (permission) to conduct your business. So I dispute that you can actually "own" a business in this country as you could in say, 1800.
Third, in 1800, if you were wealthy enough, you could buy a cannon or any other "military-grade" weapon without a license (permission), "background check", etc., from anywhere in the world. Contrary to lying Joe, some people did own cannons. The policy under Jefferson was to encourage the general arming of the population. Presently you can't go to the store and by a single-shot rifle without de facto registration (background check) and good luck trying to get a fully automatic rifle, a machine gun, or a functioning cannon. I don't think anyone wants to argue that Iran under Hussein wasn't a dictatorship, but there were plenty of private individuals with fully-automatic rifles. Right now our government is giving fully automatic weapons and ammunition to foreigners and forcing us to pay for them while making it virtually impossible for most people here to even own one.
Next, consider the communist manifesto. Marx listed ten specific points. It can be argued that our government has imposed all ten to some degree. Lets consider three that most people in this country, and many if not most here, would defend.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
5. Centralization of credit to the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. ...
That number two is well in place is not reasonably disputable. In their demands of the communist party on the German government, (1848) Marx and Engels wrote this as, "15. The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of consumption."
Number five is exactly what our Federal Reserve is. Again in their demands the German communist party said,
quote:
10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks.
This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.
This is effectively what we have in place now, and the last two sentences exactly describe Hamilton's intention in creating the first national bank 60 years earlier. Marx and Engel didn't really have much of a clue how the world actually works but Hamilton did. He wanted to import the European mercantilist system which created what we now call "corporate welfare". Central banks undermine free-markets, corrupt governments and sustain a much larger financial aristocracy than would exist in a truly free system.
Regarding number ten of the manifesto, "Free" public "education", it can't be rationally disputed that most people are effectually forced to turn their children over to state run "education". It is true that a self-governing people require education, but we allowed indoctrination and training to replace education long ago demonstrating that public education devolves into exactly what the communists wanted.
Finally, in their 1848 demands the communist party of Germany also included,
quote:
16. Inauguration of national workshops. The state guarantees a livelihood to all workers and provides for those who are incapacitated for work.
Who can rationally dispute that most of the money taken and misspent by government in this country today is directed at this. Legitimate government has one function, and only one function, the prevention of individuals and other governments from infringing on the rights of the governed. Social security, medicaid, medicare, food-stamps, etc., are 100% pure socialism and yet most people in this country support them so long as they go to people who "deserve" it, or the misguided notion that social security would be okay if only congress wouldn't spend social security tax on other things.
Do I agree that people misuse the word communist? Yes, but I think regarding our government, the OP is much closer to the truth than he is wrong.
Edit: Hit the wrong reply but this was really just a general comment.
re: Just went off on Bill Cassidy's Staffer
Posted by jerep on 1/29/21 at 1:50 am to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
... He needs to be primaried.
He was.
There were two very good alternatives in the Nov. 3 primary. Dustin Murphy (Republican) and Aaron Sigler (Libertarian). Both were strongly small government, pro-liberty. Cassidy got 59.3%, Murphy 1.9%, and Sigler 0.5%.
There's the problem. People are too lazy to be bothered to look at all the options and instead simply vote for the R they recognize because "can't let the D win".
Had Cassidy's votes been split among these three, they each would have got 20.6% and two of them would have been in a run-off. The closest D was Perkins with 19.0%.
Cassidy is typical of the intellectually deficient, establishment hacks that the state keeps sending to D.C., and it is completely the fault of Republican voters who allow themselves to be manipulated by the party over and over again.
re: Fox News Chris Wallace: “I’ve Been Here A Long Time, Biden’s Speech Today Was The Greatest
Posted by jerep on 1/21/21 at 12:42 am to OMLandshark
I dispute it. By modern standards Kennedy had a lot of soaring rhetoric, but if you think about what he actually said, and what it actually meant, it wasn't particularly good. Compare Kennedy's,
"To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
...
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
with Jefferson's,
"... with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
...
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;"
This summarizes the difference in theme of the two speeches, and the understanding of the proper role of government. Like Wilson and Roosevelt, Kennedy saw government as a thing to use the resources of the people to spread his Utopian ideals. Jefferson saw government as the creature and servant of the governed, operating for their benefit, and his role as president as nothing but an officer whose job was to execute the actions of such a government.
Jefferson's first inaugural address
Kennedy's inaugural address
In comparing the two, also keep in mind that Kennedy got us into Vietnam.
"To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
...
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
with Jefferson's,
"... with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
...
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;"
This summarizes the difference in theme of the two speeches, and the understanding of the proper role of government. Like Wilson and Roosevelt, Kennedy saw government as a thing to use the resources of the people to spread his Utopian ideals. Jefferson saw government as the creature and servant of the governed, operating for their benefit, and his role as president as nothing but an officer whose job was to execute the actions of such a government.
Jefferson's first inaugural address
Kennedy's inaugural address
In comparing the two, also keep in mind that Kennedy got us into Vietnam.
re: Madison, sedition, and the federal courts
Posted by jerep on 1/15/21 at 1:56 am to AGreySlate
quote:
Is this from a book you’re reading? If so, I’d love to acquire it.
This is from a collection of Madison's writings in several volumes. I don't have any of them as actual books, but you can find the reference and a copy in various formats at
Madison writings
The organization of the foot notes isn't very good, but the nice thing about the collection is that it's the original material. The report begins on page 187. You could probably also find this report elsewhere.
For the benefit of anyone else that might be reading this and who might be interested but hasn't read a lot of the original sources, this probably isn't the best place to start since Madison was writing for an audience very familiar with things that had been going on for the 15 or so years prior to 1798.
A more general place to start is, "Patriots, The Men Who Started the American Revolution" by A.J. Langguth. This is an excellent book, not at all dumbed down or politically slanted, and an easy interesting read.
For those who want to really understand what the founders were thinking in the time leading to the Constitutional Convention and just after I would recommend, "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" by Ralph Ketcham, and "The Anti-federalists Critics of the Constitution 1781 - 1788" by Jackson Turner Main. These are somewhat harder reads than Langguth's book, but well worth it if you want to learn what our Founders understood. Ketcham's book contains a lot of speeches and letters published in news papers. Comparing the intellectual level of the debate at that time to what we have today would make me embarassed to even talk to our Founders. Compare one of Patrick Henry's speeches to the tripe that comes from what like to call themselves "public servants" now days.
The questions these books raise will then lead to looking at the original letters between various men of the founding generation and other documents such as quoted in the OP.
But if you are already familiar with federalists vs the anti-federalists, (both were false political labels), the federalists vs the republicans, the fight over the bank bill between Hamilton on one side, Jefferson and Randolf on the other, the political background leading to the Alien and Sedition acts, etc., then you might want to start with both the Kentucky and Virginia resolves first. The Virginia resolves are in the same collection at page 178. One place to find the Kentucky resolves is
Jefferson writings
NeilBS, I'm can't explain it well enough to do it justice, and I'm definitely not good enough to do it in a few lines, but I'll do the best I can.
What I quoted is a small piece of what was in the report. To really fully get what was going on you have to spend some time reading about what led up to the Alien and Sedition acts, going back at least to the debates over the impost (import tax) under the Articles of Confederation and the debates over ratification of the new (our current) constitution. This was the history of their last 15 years.
When you start to do that, you'll find that they considered and predicted most of what has happened to the general (what most now call the "federal") government almost as if they had been looking backwards from now. You may find some of it confusing at first because we've been given such a distorted, misleading, and simplistic view of our history. It also takes a while to get the hang of the better mastery of the language they (usually) had compared to us. It's like we are children listening to adults talk. Jefferson is easier to follow than Madison, Hamilton is horrible. Jefferson (I think correctly) thought that Hamilton was purposely convoluted and wordy in an attempt to disguise the fact that his arguments were an attempt to mislead people from the truth of what he was really trying to do.
The bit that I quoted was just meant as an example. In this case basically Madison (on behalf of the committee) starts by pointing out that the critics of the Va Resolves had said roughly (among other things) "It's not up to you to say these laws are unconstitutional, that's up to the federal courts."
Then he takes this argument apart piece by piece to show that it's non-sense. Very roughly; He starts by saying that if we accept this argument then no one, not even the parties which created the Constitution (the states) have the authority to stop the judiciary from acting unconstitutionally and enlarging it's own power. The logic was obvious, if this argument were true, then the Constitution served no purpose and was meaningless; the judiciary would be it's own judge and it's own source of power. Next he points out that if the judiciary can do this, there is no logical reason the other two branches (he refers to them as departments) can't do the same except in the specific circumstances that they are explicitly directed to answer to the judiciary.
He then says that this is exactly the kind of thing the particular resolve under consideration addresses. That when any of the branches claims a power not explicitly delegated by the states to the general government, that the ultimate protection is that the states have to say, "Nope, we never gave you that power and you don't have it. We created you, we are the masters and you are the servants. It's not the other way around."
It's hard for us to imagine today because the States have been turned into little more than money-begging provinces of a single national government (what was then referred to with loathing as "consolidation"), but at that time the general government still wasn't quite bold enough to try to use force against the will of a State government, partly because the States were unwilling to trust the general government with a large standing army (that is, any organized armed group of men acting to enforce the will of the government on the population as a whole), and because if force were resorted to, there was a good chance other States would see the threat, come to the aid of the State under attack, and dissolve the general government. Experience with a government that ruled the people rather than the other way around was still in the living memory of most people, and for those too young, they had heard about it from their parents. (The British government had been much less heavy-handed than what we experience today.)
Next Madison points out that the judiciary is the proper branch to have final say in those few specific areas where the Constitution says it is to resolve disputes between different branches (and between the States which were understood to be sovereign parties to the federal compact). But he goes on to say that for everything else, in all the areas not enumerated in the Constitution and therefore not delegated by the States to the general government, the judiciary has no say, no legitimate authority. He then reiterates that this is the obvious nature of things since the general government was created by the states to serve them, not the other way around. This last statement was a trivially obvious historical fact which they had lived through, no more debatable than that we only have one sun in the sky.
He finishes by stating the obvious logical conclusion, that if this were not the case then the judiciary could nullify the power of its creators (the States and thereby the people) and that by working with the other branches to do the same thing, could make themselves absolute rulers and the people absolute subjects thus subverting the very purpose for which the Constitution was created.
In the paragraph that follows, I only included the summary sentence.
I think most people paying attention to government in this country, if honest and rational, can see that what Madison warned against in this quote describes what has come to pass and is now the state of affairs that has existed for a long time. But what I've quoted is only a little scrap of what they left us. The problem is not enough people take the time to read. You can't absorb this from someone talking in a video, you've got to read and mull it over and think about it and read it again and read related things. They told us what would happen if we didn't jealously protect our liberty. We didn't. Now, it's not enough to change one set of politicians for another, we've got start by relearning what was common knowledge for them and then we can deal with where things gradually went off the rails since then.
What I quoted is a small piece of what was in the report. To really fully get what was going on you have to spend some time reading about what led up to the Alien and Sedition acts, going back at least to the debates over the impost (import tax) under the Articles of Confederation and the debates over ratification of the new (our current) constitution. This was the history of their last 15 years.
When you start to do that, you'll find that they considered and predicted most of what has happened to the general (what most now call the "federal") government almost as if they had been looking backwards from now. You may find some of it confusing at first because we've been given such a distorted, misleading, and simplistic view of our history. It also takes a while to get the hang of the better mastery of the language they (usually) had compared to us. It's like we are children listening to adults talk. Jefferson is easier to follow than Madison, Hamilton is horrible. Jefferson (I think correctly) thought that Hamilton was purposely convoluted and wordy in an attempt to disguise the fact that his arguments were an attempt to mislead people from the truth of what he was really trying to do.
The bit that I quoted was just meant as an example. In this case basically Madison (on behalf of the committee) starts by pointing out that the critics of the Va Resolves had said roughly (among other things) "It's not up to you to say these laws are unconstitutional, that's up to the federal courts."
Then he takes this argument apart piece by piece to show that it's non-sense. Very roughly; He starts by saying that if we accept this argument then no one, not even the parties which created the Constitution (the states) have the authority to stop the judiciary from acting unconstitutionally and enlarging it's own power. The logic was obvious, if this argument were true, then the Constitution served no purpose and was meaningless; the judiciary would be it's own judge and it's own source of power. Next he points out that if the judiciary can do this, there is no logical reason the other two branches (he refers to them as departments) can't do the same except in the specific circumstances that they are explicitly directed to answer to the judiciary.
He then says that this is exactly the kind of thing the particular resolve under consideration addresses. That when any of the branches claims a power not explicitly delegated by the states to the general government, that the ultimate protection is that the states have to say, "Nope, we never gave you that power and you don't have it. We created you, we are the masters and you are the servants. It's not the other way around."
It's hard for us to imagine today because the States have been turned into little more than money-begging provinces of a single national government (what was then referred to with loathing as "consolidation"), but at that time the general government still wasn't quite bold enough to try to use force against the will of a State government, partly because the States were unwilling to trust the general government with a large standing army (that is, any organized armed group of men acting to enforce the will of the government on the population as a whole), and because if force were resorted to, there was a good chance other States would see the threat, come to the aid of the State under attack, and dissolve the general government. Experience with a government that ruled the people rather than the other way around was still in the living memory of most people, and for those too young, they had heard about it from their parents. (The British government had been much less heavy-handed than what we experience today.)
Next Madison points out that the judiciary is the proper branch to have final say in those few specific areas where the Constitution says it is to resolve disputes between different branches (and between the States which were understood to be sovereign parties to the federal compact). But he goes on to say that for everything else, in all the areas not enumerated in the Constitution and therefore not delegated by the States to the general government, the judiciary has no say, no legitimate authority. He then reiterates that this is the obvious nature of things since the general government was created by the states to serve them, not the other way around. This last statement was a trivially obvious historical fact which they had lived through, no more debatable than that we only have one sun in the sky.
He finishes by stating the obvious logical conclusion, that if this were not the case then the judiciary could nullify the power of its creators (the States and thereby the people) and that by working with the other branches to do the same thing, could make themselves absolute rulers and the people absolute subjects thus subverting the very purpose for which the Constitution was created.
In the paragraph that follows, I only included the summary sentence.
I think most people paying attention to government in this country, if honest and rational, can see that what Madison warned against in this quote describes what has come to pass and is now the state of affairs that has existed for a long time. But what I've quoted is only a little scrap of what they left us. The problem is not enough people take the time to read. You can't absorb this from someone talking in a video, you've got to read and mull it over and think about it and read it again and read related things. They told us what would happen if we didn't jealously protect our liberty. We didn't. Now, it's not enough to change one set of politicians for another, we've got start by relearning what was common knowledge for them and then we can deal with where things gradually went off the rails since then.
Madison, sedition, and the federal courts
Posted by jerep on 1/13/21 at 12:49 am
In response to the Alien and Sedition acts, a blatant attempt to shut down criticisms of the efforts by the Hamiltonians to grab power, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions (the Va and Ky resolves) condemning them and explaining how they were unconstitutional, violations of the fundamental principles of government held by the people and the states, and therefore illegitimate.
Many state legislatures, in bed with the Hamiltonians, responded by attacking the resolves. (In the following election the people threw out many of those elected officials.) The Virginia assembly responded with a letter to the people of Virginia and with a report on the resolves answering the attacks directed against them. The report of the committee was written by James Madison.
Let's see what he said about the relative authority of the federal supreme court vs the authority of the states in interpreting the the U.S. Constitution.
[Quote]
But it is objected that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner.
On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection, is that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution, and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another; by the judiciary as well as by the executive or the legislature.
However true, therefore, it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the Government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annual the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
... The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind, and at no time, perhaps, more necessary than at present.
[Unquote]
Many state legislatures, in bed with the Hamiltonians, responded by attacking the resolves. (In the following election the people threw out many of those elected officials.) The Virginia assembly responded with a letter to the people of Virginia and with a report on the resolves answering the attacks directed against them. The report of the committee was written by James Madison.
Let's see what he said about the relative authority of the federal supreme court vs the authority of the states in interpreting the the U.S. Constitution.
[Quote]
But it is objected that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner.
On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection, is that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution, and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another; by the judiciary as well as by the executive or the legislature.
However true, therefore, it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the Government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annual the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
... The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind, and at no time, perhaps, more necessary than at present.
[Unquote]
re: What is a patriot?
Posted by jerep on 1/9/21 at 2:49 pm to MintBerry Crunch
To really know what a Patriot is, you have to spend some time reading about the history of our founding. Unfortunately very few people, even those with their heart in the right place, really know more than a comic-strip version of our history and it shows.
Most of us know the names, but very few know what they actually did and the mindset they had. James Otis, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson... Take the time to read what they did, said, and wrote. They knew their history and knew it well. If people now would shift a tiny bit of the time they spend on forums and watching videos to reading history, we would all be in a better position with regard to what is coming.
Here is a tiny tiny example of how a Patriot talks. The first is Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech, and the second is one of several speeches he gave opposing abandoning the Articles of Confederation and adoption of a new constitution to replace it. If you read the debates on ratification, you'll see that those who opposed (so-called Anti-federalists but who were actually the true federalists) predicted exactly where we are today.
Liberty or Death speech
Speech at Va. Ratifying Convention
Most of us know the names, but very few know what they actually did and the mindset they had. James Otis, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson... Take the time to read what they did, said, and wrote. They knew their history and knew it well. If people now would shift a tiny bit of the time they spend on forums and watching videos to reading history, we would all be in a better position with regard to what is coming.
Here is a tiny tiny example of how a Patriot talks. The first is Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech, and the second is one of several speeches he gave opposing abandoning the Articles of Confederation and adoption of a new constitution to replace it. If you read the debates on ratification, you'll see that those who opposed (so-called Anti-federalists but who were actually the true federalists) predicted exactly where we are today.
Liberty or Death speech
Speech at Va. Ratifying Convention
It seems to me the only "twisting and wordsmithin'" is you trying to evade your mis-characterization of S.C.'s secession statement as a declaration of war.
If you want to claim I'm inconsistent in anything I've said, or dispute any of it with actual evidence, then point to a specific statement I've made and provide some actual evidence to refute it.
Here, you've almost narrowed things down to facts that very few people would disagree with.
Many people and groups reacted to the election. However your obsession with tying the Democrats to everything is like the left blaming Trump for anything negative that happens anywhere. If you remove "Democrats" and "(over)" it would be a simple fact. To say that the southerners over reacted would at least be a debatable matter of opinion. I think given what occurred over the decades leading up to 1860 and Lincoln's actions in complete disregard for the constitution both in the north and south, they reacted appropriately. I will say that in hind-sight, the attack on Fort Sumter was a tactical mistake in public relations.
Yes, several southern states did secede and form the C.S.A. before Lincoln's inauguration. They cited the north's violation of the U.S. Constitution and rule of law, using disputes over slavery as the primary example. Some secession documents also cited northern economic combination against the south via tariffs and other illegal acts just as the OP suggested. Other southern states seceded and joined the C.S.A. after Lincoln began raising his invasion army. Some northern states also tried to secede (not to join the C.S.A) and Lincoln used the military to stop them. All of these statements, are also facts.
They seized all U.S. installations within their territory and offered to compensate the U.S. monetarily. You say it was illegitimate. I say it was perfectly legitimate. Except for the offer of compensation, the American colonists did exactly the same thing with British military installations after April 1775. I also think that was perfectly legitimate. I am consistent on this point. Unless you want to say that the American colonists were just as wrong as you claim the southerner's to be, then you would be a hypocrite.
Again you are obsessed with the irrelevancy of the big "D", and have completely ignored the context of the attack. The attack did not lead to the soldier's deaths. They survived the attack completely unharmed and died entirely as a result of an accident after the attack while carrying out a 100 gun salute to the U.S. flag which they insisted on as a condition of surrendeing the fort. Otherwise this is a factual statement.
And yes, in this order of events, "war" followed. But a bare list of events is devoid of any cause or context. The decades of causes leading to the war between the states is what matters and it is a complex part of the history of this country. If it pains you that it can't be reduced to the level of a bumper sticker and you believe that anything more is "a lot of twisting and wordsmithin'" then that's too bad; But, representing history as a series of events without cause and context, and then filtering out those that don't jibe with a desired political ideology, is precisely what those who are running around defacing statues of Jefferson and Washington are doing.
If you want to claim I'm inconsistent in anything I've said, or dispute any of it with actual evidence, then point to a specific statement I've made and provide some actual evidence to refute it.
Here, you've almost narrowed things down to facts that very few people would disagree with.
quote:
The Southern Democrats (over) reacted to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln.
Many people and groups reacted to the election. However your obsession with tying the Democrats to everything is like the left blaming Trump for anything negative that happens anywhere. If you remove "Democrats" and "(over)" it would be a simple fact. To say that the southerners over reacted would at least be a debatable matter of opinion. I think given what occurred over the decades leading up to 1860 and Lincoln's actions in complete disregard for the constitution both in the north and south, they reacted appropriately. I will say that in hind-sight, the attack on Fort Sumter was a tactical mistake in public relations.
quote:
They seceded and formed the CSA (D) before he was even inaugurated and cited his election and the fact that they believed he was hostile toward the institution of slavery as major reasons why.
Yes, several southern states did secede and form the C.S.A. before Lincoln's inauguration. They cited the north's violation of the U.S. Constitution and rule of law, using disputes over slavery as the primary example. Some secession documents also cited northern economic combination against the south via tariffs and other illegal acts just as the OP suggested. Other southern states seceded and joined the C.S.A. after Lincoln began raising his invasion army. Some northern states also tried to secede (not to join the C.S.A) and Lincoln used the military to stop them. All of these statements, are also facts.
quote:
They began seizing US Military Installations, such as Fort Macon and others, that were rightfully owned and maintained by the people of the United States of America.
They seized all U.S. installations within their territory and offered to compensate the U.S. monetarily. You say it was illegitimate. I say it was perfectly legitimate. Except for the offer of compensation, the American colonists did exactly the same thing with British military installations after April 1775. I also think that was perfectly legitimate. I am consistent on this point. Unless you want to say that the American colonists were just as wrong as you claim the southerner's to be, then you would be a hypocrite.
quote:
Less than a month after his inauguration the Confederates (D) attacked Fort Sumter, which did in fact lead to two US Soilder's deaths.
Again you are obsessed with the irrelevancy of the big "D", and have completely ignored the context of the attack. The attack did not lead to the soldier's deaths. They survived the attack completely unharmed and died entirely as a result of an accident after the attack while carrying out a 100 gun salute to the U.S. flag which they insisted on as a condition of surrendeing the fort. Otherwise this is a factual statement.
And yes, in this order of events, "war" followed. But a bare list of events is devoid of any cause or context. The decades of causes leading to the war between the states is what matters and it is a complex part of the history of this country. If it pains you that it can't be reduced to the level of a bumper sticker and you believe that anything more is "a lot of twisting and wordsmithin'" then that's too bad; But, representing history as a series of events without cause and context, and then filtering out those that don't jibe with a desired political ideology, is precisely what those who are running around defacing statues of Jefferson and Washington are doing.
My understanding is that after the fighting was over, and as their condition of surrender, the northerners were carrying out a 100 gun salute to the flag before evacuating the fort. During this, a spark caused an explosion of nearby ammunition. This mortally wounded two and injured four others.
However, the only injuries and deaths were not caused by the southerner's attack. (Although I don't mean to imply that the attack couldn't have been expected to kill people in the fort.) Lincoln then used this as an excuse to invade the south in violation of the U.S. Constitution with a result that over 600,000 people were killed. Hardly a reasonable response. But hey, your argument is that the Germans did the same thing in WWI so that makes it okey-dokey.
So when Russia denied putting arms in a nearby foreign country that threatened the U.S. it was reason to nearly go to nuclear war, but when the U.S. was in the process of doing the same inside the C.S.A., the C.S.A. was just supposed to be happy about it.
No inconsistency there.
You've not provided any evidence that the south "clearly" or otherwise wanted a war. The links I provided in the preceding post are very strong evidence that they didn't.
As I pointed out in a previous post and you ignored, and again with links in the preceeding post, Davis tried to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Gen. Beauregard and the C.S.A. secretary of war both wanted to avoid bloodshed and waited as long as they thought they could without laying themselves open to attack from the fort and the approaching Union ships.
[LINK ]
Again, as Lincoln's May 1861 letter to Gustavus Fox (commander of the naval force involved) shows, Lincoln decided he needed a war and wanted the south to fire the first shot. Also as I pointed out with two examples in the same post, the sentiment that Lincoln wanted a war and had acted to maneuver the south into firing the first shot was common in the north.
So I guess Lincoln and a large number of northern news papers were "smoking crack and full of ...". But in contradiction to your argument about the mis-characterized semi-quote from Stephens, here we shouldn't go by what people at the time said, but instead by what you say.
It is commonly known that Lincoln repeatedly said he would use any means necessary to keep the southern states from leaving the union. When he decided it was necessary, he took advantage of the situation at Fort Sumter.
The reasons are the subject of this thread and are explained in the link provided by RollTide. The southern states had no motivation for starting a war and you have provided no evidence to support the idea that they did.
And if the U.S. had attacked Cuba over the missiles leading to nuclear war, the Russians could have said the same thing.
However, the only injuries and deaths were not caused by the southerner's attack. (Although I don't mean to imply that the attack couldn't have been expected to kill people in the fort.) Lincoln then used this as an excuse to invade the south in violation of the U.S. Constitution with a result that over 600,000 people were killed. Hardly a reasonable response. But hey, your argument is that the Germans did the same thing in WWI so that makes it okey-dokey.
quote:
We damn near went to global thermonuclear war over Cuba stashing some Russian missiles...
So when Russia denied putting arms in a nearby foreign country that threatened the U.S. it was reason to nearly go to nuclear war, but when the U.S. was in the process of doing the same inside the C.S.A., the C.S.A. was just supposed to be happy about it.
No inconsistency there.
quote:
... the South clearly wanted war and clearly started it."
You've not provided any evidence that the south "clearly" or otherwise wanted a war. The links I provided in the preceding post are very strong evidence that they didn't.
quote:
He had been in office for 3 fricking weeks when Jefferson Davis gave the order to attack a US MILITARY INSTALLATION, anybody trying to blame Lincoln is smoking crack and full of shite
As I pointed out in a previous post and you ignored, and again with links in the preceeding post, Davis tried to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Gen. Beauregard and the C.S.A. secretary of war both wanted to avoid bloodshed and waited as long as they thought they could without laying themselves open to attack from the fort and the approaching Union ships.
[LINK ]
Again, as Lincoln's May 1861 letter to Gustavus Fox (commander of the naval force involved) shows, Lincoln decided he needed a war and wanted the south to fire the first shot. Also as I pointed out with two examples in the same post, the sentiment that Lincoln wanted a war and had acted to maneuver the south into firing the first shot was common in the north.
So I guess Lincoln and a large number of northern news papers were "smoking crack and full of ...". But in contradiction to your argument about the mis-characterized semi-quote from Stephens, here we shouldn't go by what people at the time said, but instead by what you say.
It is commonly known that Lincoln repeatedly said he would use any means necessary to keep the southern states from leaving the union. When he decided it was necessary, he took advantage of the situation at Fort Sumter.
The reasons are the subject of this thread and are explained in the link provided by RollTide. The southern states had no motivation for starting a war and you have provided no evidence to support the idea that they did.
quote:
If The CSA (D) hadn't attacked Fort Sumter, this wouldn't have happened
And if the U.S. had attacked Cuba over the missiles leading to nuclear war, the Russians could have said the same thing.
quote:
Somehow you missed this one from page 1
No, I didn't miss it. There was neither a link nor a reference. You simply posted something as a quote. As I previously said, anyone can post anything they want as a quote. It can be accurate, completely fraudulent (as was my quote about a flat Earth and burning puppies), or it can be based on truth and mixed with a lie so as to create a more convincing deception.
You included as part of your unattributed quote "South Carolina's causus belli:" which is a fraud.
Here is a link to the South Carolina's declaration of secession:
[LINK ]
It was passed in convention in December 1860. The term "causus belli" or it's equivalent appears nowhere in it. There is no statement of reasons for S.C. wanting war with the north, or discussion of war with the north. It only discusses reasons for secession.
You said [p. 7]:
quote:
"... in their secession documents and declarations of the war."
quote:
You said the there was a declaration of war
Yep, that's what I said and I stand by it. You said the southern states issued declarations of war giving slavery and Lincoln's election as reasons. That never happened. If you really don't understand the difference between a statement of secession and a declaration of war then you aren't in a good position to call someone else stupid or question their reading comprehension skills.
They (the southern states) did not issue declarations of war, and the secession statements said nothing about reasons for a war. They simply wanted to leave the Union and be left in peace. In February 1861, the southern congress passed a resolution:
"Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."
[LINK ]
and at the end of February, Davis sent a related letter to Lincoln:
"The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens...
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust,..."
[LINK ]
Now regarding the secession statement of S.C., the beginning of the paragraph containing your quote is,
"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line..."
Reading the whole statement (not just one or two paragraphs) in context, one sees that the reasons given for secession (not war) were that the northern states had acted together in violation of the U.S. Constitution to the injury of the southern states. Exactly as the OP of this thread suggests, and the article linked to above explains.
If you look at other secession statements you see the same thing to a lessor or greater degree. The secession ordinance of Virginia is relatively short and the only mention of slavery is as "... the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."
[LINK ]
I am not claiming slavery was not an issue, and some of the language as it referred to black people was clearly racist, but on the whole, separated from emotionalism, as a cause of secession it was mainly a proxy for the economic and political abuse of the south by the north.
In any case, there was no declaration of war by the C.S.A. or the southern states, either separately or as part of their secession statements.
re: Why are tariffs and illegal acts overlooked as a cause of the civil war?
Posted by jerep on 7/16/20 at 12:51 am to RollTide4Ever
This.
quote:
There are multiple references, in this thread alone from official secession declarations and statements from Confederacy (D) leaders about the war.
There have been four links in this thread (not including the one on this page):
page 3 Tariff of Abominations
page 4 How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War of Northern Aggression
page 4 American Civil War Conscription
page 6 Economy of the Confederate States of America
None of them are links to documents of secession by any of the states of the C.S.A. None of them were provided by you. There are no references in the entire thread to documents of secession.
Maybe you don't know what a reference is. It is not just putting something in quotes and asserting it to be true. "Southern Democrats said the Earth is flat and liked to burn puppies", is not a reference. A reference is a description of the source of a quote or other information sufficient to allow it to be independently examined.
In this entire thread you have done nothing but state your opinions and provided not a single bit of verifiable evidence to support any of it. The closest you came was when you posted something as a quote which appears to be someone's commentary about what was described as the "cornerstone" speech.
Each time I, or anyone else, has pointed out inconsistencies in what you've said, or countered your unsupported claims with referenced statements, you've ignored them, or responded with irrelevant, childish vulgarities.
I've repeatedly, and specifically disputed statements you've made and challenged you to support them. You show the weakness of your position by pretending not to notice the challenges.
quote:
There is also Google, help yourself.
You make false statements and when called on them, you respond by telling the target of your dishonesty to find non-existent evidence for you. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you.
So, I'll make it easy for you to prove me wrong.
1) You said the there was a declaration of war in which the C.S.A. gave slavery and the election of Lincoln as reasons for the declaration. Several times I've pointed out there was no such declaration. I say you don't know what you are talking about.
Prove me wrong. Provide a link to the declaration of war and a quote from that link of the part about slavery and Lincoln. Like you said, just use Google.
2) You have repeatedly claimed the attack on Fort Sumter as justification for the U.S. waging war on the south. A war that resulted in over 600,000 military dead (equivalent to almost 7 million of the current population); and thousands more southern non-combatants many of whom were intentionally targeted by the northern army. I've asked more than once for you to tell me how many people were killed or injured in the attack on Fort Sumter. I say either you don't know or care about even the most basic facts of what you are saying or, you are too dishonest to answer.
Prove me wrong. How many people were killed or injured in the attack on Fort Sumter?
Popular
12
