A message to our Leadership in America

[DuncanONeil]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[denuseri]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[Bren122]

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Duncan is partially correct; had it been possible for the previous compromises to continue in relation to the admittance of the states on the basis of free and non-free then the war either would have been long delayed or never have taken place. mechanisation of cotton production would have effectively seen slavery die out anyway. it was the unwillingness of the North to change constitutional conditions for state entry that ultimately led to the war. combined with a fear that the industrial strength of the North, already quite pronounced and shortly to become overywhelmingly dominant in the world, made an attempt at secession an increasingly now or never alternative- even 10 years on would have made a big difference in terms of population and economic power. eventually the south was swamped in a war of attrition.
slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis. the election of Lincoln was the spark to a volatile situation. while publicly stating he had no intention of legislating an abolition of slavery, as Duncan himself has pointed out in a previous thread, there was no guarantee for the south that he would keep his word when in office.

[DuncanONeil]

slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis.

Actually I would say the major difference between the North and the South was Agriculture vs Manufacturing, as you stated earlier. The fact that the South was almost totally agrarian did place them at a serious disadvantage in a war.

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it was not about slavery! I said the war was not a single issue event.
Ask most anyone what the Civil War was about and the answer you get is "slavery". On the face of it that can not be the raison d'être for the war. Else there would be no slaves in the North. As there were something else had to be the primary impetus for the war. Note I said primary!

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[denuseri]

I seem to recall our founding fathers wanting to make a seperation between church and state.

[DuncanONeil]

I seem to recall our founding fathers wanting to make a seperation between church and state.

Not really! The desire was to prevent a reoccurrence of the Church of England. Also to prevent supremacy of a single religion by fiat.

[denuseri]

Not really! The desire was to prevent a reoccurrence of the Church of England. Also to prevent supremacy of a single religion by fiat.

Well considering that when one carefully studies the various writtings of many of the founding fathers and finds that a lot of them were practicioners of deism, as well as other heritical paths such as apotheoscy like Washington and others (masons and other secret colleges) and wore the matle of the so called "faithful" in their country of origin to hide from persecution; one must also consider that the founding fathers did not wish only to avoid a state controlled religion, but to exclude the state from promoting or having any part whatsoever in religion of any kind.

In the words of ole Tommy J himself:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Basically:

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

[DuncanONeil]

"In the words of ole Tommy J himself:

'No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.'"

Your quote sounds an awful lot like the first amendment! As for the focus of you message, that is exactly what I say!
I go a bit further though. Court decisions restricting exposure of the citizenry to anything deemed to be a religious icon, usually of one category of religion, are in fact in violation of the Constitution. A violation of the free expression clause.

[Stealth694]

I have always felt the Constitution is a work in Progress,,, and must evolve according to the environment. Once Slavery was legal, now its a crime, Alcohol was illegal, once now its legal again, there are proposed amendments to legalize drugs ( I am against it) but still the Constitution has worked for over 200 yrs. BUT our Congressmen should be reminded that they "SERVE" at our pleasure, and after what happened in Massachuetts, hopefully this will wake them up to the fact that they are not in office for life, and we are not pleased.

[steelish]

There's a huge difference between adding to the Constitution with Amendments, and "changing" the Constitution or simply twisting it to fit a particular viewpoint.

Slavery is inhumane, therefore it should be illegal. Alcohol only became illegal after a progressive movement, at which point the government thought they were doing Americans a favor by making it illegal. So the prohibitionists had a field day and it backfired on the government. It caused more problems than it solved. So...they legalized it once again.

Not only did the Constitution work for over 200 years, it created one of the greatest nations on earth.

I am not holding my breath that the election in Massachusetts woke up the Democrats. A few have murmured that "maybe the majority of the people don't want this health care after all". But I for one think it's a ploy to save their seat. I don't think they've changed. They knew a majority didn't want it but they were plowing ahead anyway. Now that they're in danger of being voted out, suddenly they're singing different songs. I don't care for their songs anymore.

[DuncanONeil]

However the leadership still wishes to "plow ahead". The day after the vote Madame Pelosi said we have heard you and will move forward, but we will move forward. The President still is of a mind to take over this industry.

There's a huge difference between adding to the Constitution with Amendments, and "changing" the Constitution or simply twisting it to fit a particular viewpoint.

Slavery is inhumane, therefore it should be illegal. Alcohol only became illegal after a progressive movement, at which point the government thought they were doing Americans a favor by making it illegal. So the prohibitionists had a field day and it backfired on the government. It caused more problems than it solved. So...they legalized it once again.

Not only did the Constitution work for over 200 years, it created one of the greatest nations on earth.

I am not holding my breath that the election in Massachusetts woke up the Democrats. A few have murmured that "maybe the majority of the people don't want this health care after all". But I for one think it's a ploy to save their seat. I don't think they've changed. They knew a majority didn't want it but they were plowing ahead anyway. Now that they're in danger of being voted out, suddenly they're singing different songs. I don't care for their songs anymore.

[MMI]

An amendment is what it says: a change, a correction, or rectification, etc. If the American Constitution had not been altered by the Bill of Rights, or by the various other amendments giving, for example, the vote to women, or abolishing slavery, the USA would not be "one of the greatest nations on earth," which it undoubtedly is.

The fact that, in 1919 it was felt necessary to use the Constitution to prohibit the production of alcoholic beverages, and, in 1933 it was felt necessary to amend that part of the Constitution again, to repeal the earlier amendment shows that changes can be made to the document, if necessary over and over again.

[denuseri]

I dont think the issue with the constituionalists is about the document and its amedments in and of itself.

Its with the blatant sidesteping of it by passage of all sorts of regulatory laws (some by legal descision in the courts other through various resolutions and side votes in committeees and other pork barrel aditives).

[oww-that-hurt]

Wouldn't it be grand if all of the U.S. citizens could write as well as denuseri did with the opening post to this thread? Yeah, I know, only the first couple of lines were hers, but for her to write those lines and present the text for us is outstanding.

denuseri, i shake your hand, for writing much of what I feel, through your many thread contributions.

Thank-you

oww

[steelish]

I dont think the issue with the constituionalists is about the document and its amedments in and of itself.

Its with the blatant sidesteping of it by passage of all sorts of regulatory laws (some by legal descision in the courts other through various resolutions and side votes in committeees and other pork barrel aditives).

Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to get across and it just wasn't coming out, no matter how I tried to explain it!

[Midnytedreams]

I'm just pondering how long it will be before we see an Obama shoe or line of clothing" would the slogan read now you can feel the power". Maybe he could solve the economy with his endorsements.

[denuseri]

They allready have a load of Obama novelty products out there.

[Midnytedreams]

The Obama's have replaced picture of Lincoln in the white house with new art

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...455287432.html...

The art says nothing but the word .... Maybe

makes you wonder what that means

[TwistedTails]

The Obama's have replaced picture of Lincoln in the white house with new art

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...455287432.html...

The art says nothing but the word .... Maybe
makes you wonder what that means

From the article....

"and a blood-red Edward Ruscha canvas featuring the words,
“I think maybe I’ll…,” fitting for a president known for lengthy
bouts of contemplation."

It is not a very good picture of the work, and I don't see anything
about replacing any presidential portraits. I rather doubt the curator
would allow that. As far as the residence goes, it has always been the
First Lady's prerogative to redecorate.

[Midnytedreams]

thank you twisted that's what I get for not wearing My glasses when I read

[MMI]

Maybe I look at life from a different angle
Maybe there are some knots that we don’t need to untangle
Maybe I look at the world from a different point of view
Maybe all lies are not false and all truths are not true
Maybe I look at the heavens with rose colored glasses
Maybe there’s one rainbow that was meant for all the masses
Maybe I looked at poverty from a different position
Maybe an empty plate means poor recognition
Maybe I look at war from a different prospective
Maybe fighting wars leaves one a little defective
Maybe I listen to the wind with different ears
Maybe the wind is a lullaby to calm babies’ tears
Maybe I’ll just pilot a giant craft like Noah’s Ark
Maybe it will open peoples’ eyes and they will see a new spark
Maybe I’ll plant around the world a seed of desperation
Maybe then we will awaken to a new realization
Maybe I’ll sell this planet a better tomorrow
Maybe peace and harmony will keep down the sorrow
Maybe I’ll say penance for the errors of our ways
Maybe we should get down on our knees and see how it plays
Maybe I look at creation as something artificial
Maybe coloring it with crayons makes it official
Maybe I look at the unknown with ambiguous eyes
Maybe being cynical is an inherent disguise
Maybe I look as destiny as a vehicle of hope
Maybe we just haven’t thrown out enough rope
Maybe I’m just a creature of apprehension
Maybe it’s true that love is the mother of invention
Maybe I look at starvation and it just doesn’t make any sense
Maybe that is why happy people talk about salvation in the past tense
Maybe I look at democracy with a tired eye and closed mind
Maybe the rich shouldn’t get richer stealing the poor blind
Maybe I look at dreams from a different optical plane
Maybe a kaleidoscope isn’t fragmented, it’s only our brain
Maybe I’ll just go hide behind a dead tree and throw up
Maybe I was just too gullible to think someday we would grow up
Maybe I look at the cutting edge of society with a dull sense of despair
Maybe a better tomorrow will never come, we’re already there
Maybe I look at spilt blood as more than external pain
Maybe a river of blood is but a sad refrain
Maybe I look at silence as the king of betrayal of our fall
Maybe a tongue tied artist can’t speak for us all
Maybe I picture the mother earth as a black pearl in the sky
Maybe, just maybe we need to ask the question why

Alfred Ramos

[Energizer]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

[Bren122]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

there is a very good argument that in guaranteeing property rights and rule of law, the US Constitution made the necessary conditions for wealth creation possible. very hard to create wealth in some countries when the authorities keep leaning on you to pay 'protection' money and 'special' contributions.

[DuncanONeil]

The referenced document at time of its creation was unique. It retained that distinction for a little over 13 years, at which time the French began to develop their own constitution based on ours. It is possible that there now exist a few more documents based on ours, however, I am unable to name any.
It is entirely possible that Japans governing document is very similar, since it authors were not locals.

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

[steelish]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is.

The American Constitution is EXACTLY the reason why America became such a great and powerful nation.

Excerpt from The 5000 Year Leap;

The Constitution [Benjamin] Franklin and his friends gave to us resulted in the greatest nation in history. With the adoption of our Constitution our nation became a nation based on law, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. A quick review of our history as a nation certainly supports Franklin's observation that our nation represented a rising sun. Consider, for instance, that the United States represents approximately 5% of the world's population but has created more new wealth than all the rest of the world combined. Moreover, during this time period we have never suffered a famine, this in spite of the fact that even today famines continue to stalk the world over. Throughout the ages humans have gone hungry and many have starved, in spite of their fertile land and the manpower to work it. "The ancient Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks were intelligent people, but in spite of their intelligence they were never able to get enough to eat. They often killed their babies because they couldn't feed them. the Roman Empire collapsed in famine." For more than a hundred years the United States has been the food basket of the world.
During the past two hundred years the United States has outdistanced the world in extending the benefits of inventions and discoveries to the vast majority of its people in such fields as medicine, housing, education, power-energy, transportation, space, aircraft, and agriculture. Furthermore, Americans have been responsible for more discoveries and inventions in science and elsewhere than any nation on earth. It's young men and women have fought in wars throughout the world in defense of freedom, asking nothing for their efforts and sacrificing their lives in return. The U.S. is always the first nation to provide relief and aid to other nations that have had natural calamities, sometimes even providing aid to our enemies. We have given more dollars in aid and relief than most other nations combined. In spite of our largess we are the target of the hate and envy of the rest of the world.

[Energizer]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

[steelish]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

The excerpt (not quote) stated how much of a change in the world the United States brought about. Do you think the U.S. would have been able to wrought such change in the world had it still been under sovereign rule?

The constitution limited and defined the powers of the American Government, and gave the U.S. a balanced form of government. Rather than having a ruler's law, where there is tyranny...or a no law, where there is total anarchy, the founders placed the U.S. government directly in the middle. We have people's law, where most of the power is to reside with the individual, family, municipality/community and then moves on up to the state then finally with the federal.

We were formed as a Republic by our founders. A democracy becomes increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows. A republic, on the other hand, governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison in the Federalist Papers, (No. 14, p. 100.) explained it thus;

In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

Equal rights, not equal things! The founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves. For example; every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all the people. But suppose a kind-hearted man saw that one of his neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in the spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property. Of course, the two-car neighbor could donate a car to his poor neighbor, if he liked, but that is his decision and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted neighbor who wants to play Robin Hood.
Now, suppose that kind-hearted man decided to ask the mayor and city council to force the man with two cars to give one to his pedestrian neighbor. Does that make it any more legitimate? Obviously, this makes it even worse because if the mayor and city council do it in the name of the law, the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is the "law") he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property.
The reason I bring this up is because the equal rights doctrine protects the freedom to prosper...and this is what the constitution did for America.

There is more I could type, but suffice it to say that I recommend reading The 5000 Year Leap. It touches on almost every argument that has been leveled against the U.S. and it's founders in this thread. The book addresses welfare, it addresses religion and men's/women's rights in the bible. It touches on "re-distribution" of wealth, and explains the pitfalls of such...in logical terms anyone could easily understand.

The founders lived under tyranny. They lived under sovereign rule. They are the ones who designed this nation to (hopefully) avoid reverting back to such a tyrannical state. Read the book and you will understand the minute ways that the U.S. has been changing in the past 80 years (and much more swiftly recently) towards a nation the founders were trying to avoid.

[DuncanONeil]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

"the Constitution being the supreme law of the land."

[DuncanONeil]

"The Constitution [Benjamin] Franklin and his friends gave to us resulted in the greatest nation in history. With the adoption of our Constitution our nation became a nation based on law, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. A quick review of our history as a nation certainly supports Franklin's observation that our nation represented a rising sun. Consider, for instance, that the United States represents approximately 5% of the world's population but has created more new wealth than all the rest of the world combined."

Just a little tidbit gleaned from the History Channel.
"At the start of the Revolution Americans has the highest standard of living and the lowest taxes in the Western World.