Freedom To Fascism

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

FWIW you can trace the overt decline of the Republic to "The War of Northern Aggression". The measures Lincoln instituted to preserve the Union (suspending the Constitution and usurping the will of the people and States Rights by force of arms) were as pivotal as throwing a switch in a rail yard. The train is on a different track and has been moving away from the "original intent" for at least 160 YEARS.

Whoa.....I can't see how "Sherman's night out with the boys", could be that pivotal, as you say. I just think you "Johnny Rebs" are still bitter you LOST.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

The next major turning point (in my mind) was FDR and the Great Depression. Enter Socialism (actually it can be argued that it's the American Fascism your video complains about). As the pace of society increases so too do the opportunities to "influence" the train's route, e.g. Johnson's "Great Society". Since the original usurpation, whenever a decision point has been reached, it has become easier to shift further from individual freedoms (and responsibilities)/States Rights and closer to a tyrannical (as defined by the Libertarians) stateist regime.

This, I totally agree with. Hit the nail right on the head.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Returning to the path envisioned by the Founding Fathers will require a profound shift in the American psyche. Change is either evolutionary or revolutionary. We've gotten where we are today as the result of a perfectly natural evolution. We no longer have the government the Founding fathers envisioned, mainly because the vast body of "the People" don't want it. (Most of them have no understanding of it, nor do they care so long as their lives aren't inconvenienced.) Maybe it will come back around though probably not in our lifetimes. Freedom exists best on a frontier. We'll need a new one before conditions exist again to foster the "rugged individualism" that is the antithesis of modern society yet is required for true freedom to thrive.

Do you feel that the "Revolution" of the 60's has any impact on the "evolution" of the govt today? Most of the govt officials today, are from that "revolution", and are making their impact felt today.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

I just think you "Johnny Rebs" are still bitter you LOST.

+1

[Peregrino]

OK you clowns - keep fishing and you're gonna catch a "Dupont Lure". I stand by my assertion that the CW marked the end of the original Republic. The damage done to the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, has (IMO) proven irreparable. To bolster my argument with a sledgehammer I need only point to the diminished (might as well not exist) status of the 10th Amendment. (Wish I could afford a Lexus Nexus subscription - I'd get in way too much trouble.) Yes, the CW was a national tragedy, and we lost for a multitude of reasons, none of which included being wrong about the right to secede. Despite his methods, the country as a whole owes Lincoln an immeasurable debt. America would not have achieved nearly its present greatness had he allowed the South to go its own way unmolested.

RL - Shame on you. Any good lawyer knows when it comes to a representative democracy, it's not the majority vote - it's "the right vote". How else do you explain the power Nancy Pelosi wields despite representing a tiny fraction of the population, one that entertains values/mores substantially different from the mainstream? Quit clouding the issue, which was the rule of Constitutional principles.

Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

LOL, I am largely a "states rights" guy, but I also think Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President in the history of this country.

And I don't like grits or sweet tea. LMAO

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

....And I don't like grits .... LMAO

Try them with some Maple Syrup and sugar.

[bandycpa]

RL - Shame on you. Any good lawyer knows when it comes to a representative democracy, it's not the majority vote - it's "the right vote". How else do you explain the power Nancy Pelosi wields despite representing a tiny fraction of the population, one that entertains values/mores substantially different from the mainstream? Quit clouding the issue, which was the rule of Constitutional principles.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather
an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in
people's minds.." --Samuel Adams


I think I see smoke on Capitol Hill.

Bandy

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by bandycpa

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather
an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in
people's minds.." --Samuel Adams


I think I see smoke on Capitol Hill.

Bandy

LOL, I see that Peregrino's diversion worked. Not a big surprise, since he's a QP and all.

OK, everyone ignore the fact that there was institutionalized slavery in the South!

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

LOL, I see that Peregrino's diversion worked. Not a big surprise, since he's a QP and all.

OK, everyone ignore the fact that there was institutionalized slavery in the South!

Bandy’s comment is well taken; you’re the one who insists on returning to the slavery issue. Despite what your Yankee sensitivities and a perverted education would have you believe, slavery was a peripheral issue of the Civil War. Lincoln didn’t even bring it onto the table until Nov, 1863 – after two years of fighting. And then only because he was losing public support and needed a diversion from the ineptitude of his generals. He still had to wait until Meade got lucky at Gettysburg.

The rights/wrongs of slavery were not the point of my assertion. Besides, slavery was not unique to the southern states. FWIW - legal slavery still exists today; and surprise, surprise it's happening in Africa (and clandestinely throughout Muslim countries); and nobody is doing anything effective to stop it! In fact all ancient and most early modern European societies appear to have gone through a period where (some form of) slavery was accepted/commonplace (serf = slave for all practical purposes). Even the North had them until the early 1800's. While we’re on the topic, let's not forget the appalling conditions of indentured servitude experienced by European immigrants into the industrial centers of the North. (Where were the abolitionists fighting for the Irish?) Yes, slavery is still a morally repugnant institution. It’s also about economics. So was the American Civil War. Pre-mechanized agrarian societies (like the American South) required large quantities of unskilled labor to cultivate the land. Slaves were (initially) the cheapest way to meet the requirement. Changing American law and the British, with their national policy and control of the sea lanes had already removed most of the economic incentive from the slave trade – much to the annoyance of certain Yankee trading consortiums. The South was already realizing that slavery was a losing proposition economically. (Sharecropping was a much less capitol intensive system that exploited far more efficiently – thank you Yankees for the idea.) It would probably have disappeared sooner had Eli Whitney not introduced the cotton gin with its resultant effect on Southern economics. At that point it became a battle of conflicting economic necessities. The North was far more concerned about enacting high tariffs (with ruinous effects on the Southern economy which relied on trade with Europe) to protect their fledgling industrial base than they were about freeing Southern slaves. I love listening to people condemning the South for slavery and racism. They always get so incensed when reminded of the institutional racism in the Northern States during the same period. Riots, lynching, and assorted other unpleasantness that Yankees hesitate to acknowledge. Northern workers certainly didn’t want to encourage a flood of ex-slaves into the Northern cities jeopardizing their jobs. (Funny, that’s exactly what happened after the CW. The results are still indelibly scribed in Northern cities today.) The entire issue is far more complex than our “sound bite” culture can deal with. Maybe someday the country will be able to honestly examine what really happened and move past it. My .02 - Peregrino

Editorial note: Yes I know I'm guilty of gross simplifications - I'm not typing all night to clarify needlessly.

[Roguish Lawyer]

LOL, I hereby acknowledge that neither you nor any other Southerner on this Board is either a racist or pro-slavery.

But it is pretty fun to watch you get defensive about it.

[Peregrino]

The sacrifices we make in the pursuit of truth and enlightenment. Peregrino

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

LOL, I see that Peregrino's diversion worked. Not a big surprise, since he's a QP and all.

OK, everyone ignore the fact that there was institutionalized slavery in the South!

Hmm, did they swim here, or did some Yankee merchants haul them here in chains and sell them to the Southerners?

BTW, nice dodge on Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus, denying representation, and eliminating Constitutional rights to the States they forcibly retained in the Union.

Counsel, surely you are aware that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, permitting Union slave holding states to continue to possess and employ slaves.

TR

[sg1987]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Counsel surely you are aware that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, permitting Union slave holding states to continue to possess and employ slaves.

TR

...which they did until the 13th Amendment was passed in Feb. 1865. (A little later than the Lincoln's proclamation in July 1862 and the start of the war as well.) All well planned strategy to keep England from supporting the Confederates.

I am a little confused on what you learn in school in the US. After talking to Roycroft on Skype previously, it appears most teaching is a recital of events and no discussion around it, for example the circumstances surrounding the writing of the constitution.

So for the civil war and colleges or universities, the latter two being known to be of high quality, I would guess the situation is different and more critical thinking should be allowed (though, after reading MITs reading list for political science, I am unsure) and later permeate down to HS level, and lower level history classes.

I have a couple of times previously done searches on the civil war, and your points about secession seems quite common place - after all, it's no secret. Is it based on your own studies or do you get to read and draw your own conclusions in college or HS, or would the liberal professors get upset as have been mentioned elsewhere? Where did you do your research?

[The Reaper]

I hate to say it, but IMHO and experience, most public schools and universities teach a party line that the Civil War was fought because the Southern states were comprised of evil plantation owners with lots of slaves who wanted to perpetuate slavery as an institution.

The political issues of states rights and whether a state which freely joined the association of the US could equally freely depart the Union.

Until the War, the States were more powerful than the Federal government.

After the War, the Federal government became (IMHO) focused on maintaining and expanding its powers.

Lincoln bears a share of the responsibility for that, but I am sorry that he did not survive to help with the post-War period. It would have been interesting to see the approach he would have chosen. Then we would have seen if he were truly a great President or not. Many have won wars without winning the peace. We are seeing some of that today.

Reconstruction was ugly for everyone involved and the post-War treatment of the South is, I believe, a primary cause of the animosity today between Southerners and Yankees.

TR

[Pete]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

....Until the War, the States were more powerful than the Federal government.

After the War, the Federal government became (IMHO) focused on maintaining and expanding its powers.....TR

I was going to jump in on Peregrino's post at the top of the page but you had a better hit on the head of the nail.

As has been noted about in more than a few places, the cause(s) of the War Between the States were many. Economic power was a big player coming from many angles.

One of the key points of the war was that America went in as a collection of states and came out a Nation. Many southern military leaders resigned from the US Army and followed their states into the war, Gen. R E Lee from VA as just one of many.

That "Nation" concept laid the foundation for the building of bigger government.

OK, off the soap box.

Pete