Posted on 04/25/2002 9:41:56 AM PDT by Korth
It is likely that virtually any politician would act similiarly to FDR when faced with the prospect of mass starvation and an armed violent communist revolution.
Remember simplicity is mostly for simpletons.
No greater calamity to the pursuit of Justice and Liberty could have happened to this nation than if the Slaveocracy had triumphed. Secession was an ignoble cause postulated on concepts which were the opposite of those espoused in the Declaration and would have destroyed mankind's "last best hope."
No greater calamity to the pursuit of Justice and Liberty could have happened to this nation than if the Slaveocracy had triumphed. Secession was an ignoble cause postulated on concepts which were the opposite of those espoused in the Declaration and would have destroyed mankind's "last best hope."
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. BTW I don't consider threatening to arrest legislators and Supreme Court justices to be "unexceptional". I also don't recall secession being mentioned in the DOI or the Constitution. I'd love to chat but I've got to work. Be back this evening.
You are correct that the "ideas" of Jefferson resulted in the bloodletting imposed by the Slaveocrats' attempt to destroy the Union and constitution. Fortunately, those ideas were so half-assed that they were inevitable failures.
Southern insistence on States Rights was one of the major reasons it lost. The states of the Cornfederacy were incapable of operating together as a nation and thus, dissapated much of the little strength it possessed because of this incapability. Hamilton correctly rejected a radically decentralized power and an agriculture-based economy understanding that such would never succeed in a contest with a modern state and a modern economy.
His understanding of the basis of political power was most fully validated by the results of that war and the growth of the world's greatest nation using his financial system.
Which woud have resulted in no USA. So they wish there was no USA, or they refuse to acknolwedge what the consequenses of what they wish for would be.
I am not aware of anyone who thinks that the south would ever have volutarily rejoined the northern States in political union, especially after the brutal treatment the north inflicted on non-combatants in the south.
I have had that argument used on me by neo-Confederate Lincoln haters on this forum when I argued that the result of succession would be no USA. They say if Lincoln would have accepted succession, the South would have abolished slavery on their own, and rejoined the Union, so the Civil War was unnecessary. Of couse the fact that the South started the war belies the argument.
Any drastic change in history such as the South winning its independence would have greatly altered course of history throughout the world. We don't know the details of what those changes might be, but it is rash to assume that communism and national socialism would automatically have arisen in any event.
You are right, we don't know what exactly would have happened. But I cannot believe that the world would be a better place without the USA. Do you believe it would?
I do not attack FDR out of any sense of "fashion". When he re-interpreted the Commerce Clause, and replace the historical meaning of the word "regulate" with the more modern meaning "to control or have authority over" he caused a systemic shift in the balance of power in favor of the federal government. I firmly believe that it was a serious error to do this based on no more than creative semantics, and without the consent of the states through a constitutional amendment. It's legacy is an ever expanding federal bureaucracy, and a growing mistrust of the federal government. History records that he was advised at the time that his New Deal policies were unconstitutional without an enabling amendment, and that he basically resorted to blackmailing the USSC with the Court Packing Bill to get them to agree to his interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Desperate measures taken during desperate times are not immune to constitutional requirements.
I wish that some of the posters here would pursue the historical debates with less venom. I agree that they are important; that they have implications for the present. But we are more allied on present issues than these debates often suggest. We need to work together, where possible, to recapture the common aspects of our heritages.
Having said all of that, I feel that Keyes is seriously wrong in supporting Federal attempts to intervene in Oregon on questions that are clearly within the traditional State Police Powers. If Oregon wants to allow physician assisted suicide, what possible business is that of anyone outside of Oregon? This sort of interventionist approach embarrasses Conservatives in academic debates, and loses us the potential support of those who have not yet made real commitments.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!!! Would that be the same 'system' that has this nation falling apart at the seams? Tell me one part of Hamilton, Clay, and lincoln's 'American System' that has worked. Wait, it's the Federal Reserve, isn't it? No, the Fed Chairman sneezes and capitalist Wall Street drops 200 points. Talk about govenment control of the economy. No, no, that can't be it. Wait. It's the infrastructure. That's it!! All the roads that the government built for us taking 4 times longer than necessary to build the roads? No, no, because the owners of the Union Pacific did that so much it bankrupted the company and cost three to four times more than other railroads just like it. It's the social programs!! That's it, the social programs!! They take care of us and rape us of 20 percent of our income just for Socialized Security. Wait, that's going broke too!!
Maybe you could point out to me what part of the 'American System' Clay, Hamilton, and Clay's lackey lincoln envisioned that actually has worked?
Parts of FDR's program were found unconstitutional and parts were not. But more court time has been devoted to the commerce clause than any other aspect of the constitution.
Supreme Court rulings as early as 1793 did that. See Chisholm v. Georgia.
George Washington urged an immovable attachment to the national union.
President Lincoln used the power given the president in the Constitution to preserve the government established by the framers.
Walt
Davis also contended that the central government had the right to coerce the states.
"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
Walt
The record shows that, despite myth, the CSA armies mostly deserted and went home more than they were defeated in battle.
Walt
True?! Hardly. Frankly, nothing of your inflammatory remarks were true. But I see, you've got yourself convinced otherwise. Congrats.
Since when is being a former liberal a requirement for being a neocon? Neoconservatism is a philosophy founded by former Democrap party liberals...
Talk about contradicting oneself!!! I seriously suggest, you start using a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines neoconservative as, a former liberal espousing political conservatism. One of the founders of neoconservatism, some even call him the father of neoconservatism, is Irving Kristol. Kristol, along with his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb are well known for their neoconservatism dating back to the 1950`s. BTW, their son is the editor of the neoconservative magazine, The Weakly Standard, Bill Kristol.
The remainder of your rant is typical of someone who knows nothing about politics, power and the presidency. You may be on the rightwing of American politics, but your rhetoric and ideology is more in tune with that of a reactionary absolutist and not with the mainstream conservative movement in America today. But nice try, bucko.
Precisely. The Commerce Clause was place there to keep the states from enacting tariffs and engaging in destructive trade wars.
"To regulate commerce among the several states"
"Regulate" meant to make regular, or keep in good working order.
An analogy can be made to the power company. The have the authority to do whatever is necessary to regulate the electricity in your home, meaning they keep the voltage and phasing within prescribed limits, and insure that the cabling and infrastructure are up to the loads being placed on it. It does not mean they can come into your home and dictate what appliances you may own, or when you can and cannot use them, or for what purpose.
How so? Murder is prosecuted by the states, with the exception of so-called "hate crimes".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.