Posted on 04/29/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
If everyone could have their own little sandbox to play in, then the CSA theory of government could be allowed to hold sway. But as long as the world is full of Hitlers and Pol Pots and Milosovecs, (sp) we are better off sticking together.
In a very real sense, it is just that simple.
Walt
The exact argument made by world government socialists to persuade people to give up their liberty for a false security.
Thanks St. Abe, thanks a lot.
False security?
Did Hitler drop mortar bombs in your back yard? No. Did Pol Pot? No. Did Milosovec? No.
Would they if they could? Yes.
That is real security, not false security.
I am sorry for whatever is bugging you, but it is not going to be helped by Balkanizing the country.
Walt
one of the "bigshots" told me in a FReepmail that the "moderators are NOT damnyankees AND southHATERS.
i told him, that based on past performance, they we GUILTY till PROVEN INNOCENT!
for dixie LIBERTY,sw
What's with all of the comments on this thread being removed except those of the Apester Booster Club?
BTW, we rented the new PLANET OF THE APES movie for the kids this weekend. Did you realize that they have a picture of Ape Linkum at the end of the movie? If you know where a jpg of this 'true' Ape Linkum resides on the net and can direct me to same I would appreciate it.
so saith the LORD of HOSTS: "Let my people GO!"
for a FREE dixie REPUBLIC,sw
let LIBERTY come & SOON,sw
let LIBERTY come & SOON,sw
You are just saying that because you think you could convince them to adopt your daring and innovative new rules of capitalization and punctuation.
In the unlikely event that our country split apart, the fragments would either sink into decay or fall under the influence of the European Community or whatever the new world power would be. Break up this country and you inevitably doom what remains of the American ethos from playing much of a role in the world or even holding its own at home. You would either opt out of the global economy and grow poorer and more isolated and inbred or remain in the world economic system under terms set by the new ruling powers.
Talk of America becoming a "colony of the world" would then be even truer. So when the Gulf Coast becomes the North shore of a Latin lake and your poor Blacks and Whites are angry about Mexican labor and European or South American bosses, you will regret today's bravado.
Die-hards who are always complaining about their state or local Republican or Democratic parties and the "country club" types fail to realize that after secession those would still be the people running things. Freed from having to keep up their end of the North-South opposition and given an independent country to rule over, Southern political elites would demonstrate their true liberal leanings. Perhaps they could save the new country from falling too much under foreign domination, but the price would be becoming more like European and Latin American elites in order to compete with them more effectively and cope with the new Eurocentric world.
But then your last comment reveals you to be a quixotic utopian, so I don't think you'd agree.
BUT we would be FREE to have the sort of society that southrons want and the damnyankees would be free to have the sort of mean-spirited,imperialist,interventionist,anti-religious,anti-semitic,hatefilled,racebaiting,PRO-abortion,BIG tax, self-righteous AND SOCIALIST country that they seem to desire!
EVERYONE WINS!
then the damnyankees can cuss us and look down on us to their hearts content---we won't care, because we'll be FREE!
for a FREE dixie REPUBLIC,sw
YES, i do believe that those of us from the old rebel families will have MUCH to say about writing the Confederation Documents that will form the basis of a new, and much improved, SR. AND we southrons have learned much about how to improve our new country by WATCHING the damnyankees ruin what USED TO BE the best nation on earth. hopefully, we will not make the same mistakes as the socialist, damnyankee-controlled, "new & modern amerika" has made since the FDR administration.
i am hardly a "country clubber", though, as i have a job in the HVAC service business & am a retired LEO!
do i detect a bit of the usual and pervasive damnyankee RACISM in your response? your "latin lake" comment makes me squeamish, as BOTH of my much-beloved daughters are adopted from foreign countries and BOTH are beautiful,multi-talented,educated,well-dressed,intelligent,well-spoken, lady-like and religious. NO MAN could ask for more from ANY daughter! BOTH are MUCH smarter than their old man, being engineers (MSEE & MSCE!).
as for my "creative" spelling/capitalization, well you'll get used to it OR you'll quit reading my posts. frankly, i don't care a damn what you or any other FReeper thinks about that subject.
for a FREE dixie REPUBLIC while i'm young enough to enjoy it,sw
longterm,i believe that NA will have the following nations:Azatlan,Canada,Mexico,Repulique Quebecois,Southron Republic & the USA.
NONE of the nations will be destroyed by being FREE;none will sink due to having too much diversity of form;three may be destroyed/splintered by trying to keep the staus quo AND by failing to free their minorities, which otherwise,longterm, might become trading partners and good neighboors!
for a free dixie,sw
Each new "country" would quickly reflect it's own cultural, economic, and political ideology.
Throw in treaties for commerce and mutual defense and the world would turn away from it's present globalist/socialist path.
This could be done in the present United "States" if the Constitution was honored.
Liberty is a virus that, unfortunately, is hard to catch and easy to destroy.
Pardon my quixotic moment for the day, I just had to let it out.
Did Davis not ignore his own constitution by failing to fill an entire branch of government that it called for?
Simple. A reading of the confederate constitution shows that like the United States Constitution it calls for three branches of Government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Jefferson Davis never established a confederate supreme court as called for in Articel III. He ignored his own constitution.
Were people not locked up and newspapers not censored under his regime?
In his book "Southern Rights:Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" Mark E. Neely Jr. details many of the estimated 8000 political prisoners held by the confederacy during the Civil War. On a per capita basis those 8000 far exceed the 25,000 that Lincoln is supposed to have held. McPherson has several quotes in his book on the effects of censorship in Richmond.
Did the state not take control of whole industries like textile and salt, and exert undue control over others like shipping and railroads?
In his new book "Look Away: A History of the Confederate States of America" William C. Davis has a chapter titled 'Cotton Communism, Salt Socialism, Whiskey Welfare' where he goes into great detail on how the states took over and ran whole industries, allegedly for the war effort. One state, I believe it was Mississippi, had to import cotton cloth through the blockade for domestic use.
Enjoy.
Always eager to be proven wrong, I would love to see the text you have in mind.
You mention the fact that a search shows the topic arising in several of the debates. I think I know why. Another equally spurious pattern of DiLorenzo is to misunderstand Lincoln's invocation of the Jackson Bank Charter veto as an economic point. I have not yet seen a single instance where Lincoln expresses his opinion that the bank was Constitutional in the Lincoln Douglas Debates -- in fact, at any time in the late '50's. Each time I have seen the matter referred to by Lincoln, it is scrupulously restricted to his point that Douglas and the Democrats have spent 30 years rejecting the Supreme Court decision on the Bank, and now want to demand that the Republicans accept Dred Scott simply because the Supreme Court issued it.
In fact, if you (can bear to) read DiLorenzo closely in the past months, you will see that he has seized on my expression that there is not a "word" on economic doctrine in the debates. Your word search shows, what I never intended to deny, that economic words occur. The point is that they do not occur as expressions of economic doctrine, but of discussions regarding the authority of the Supreme Court wholly contained to the context of the question of what authority the Dred Scott decision must be granted. This is a subtle enough point (having about a teaspoon of subtlety) that DiLorenzo has seized on it as an occasion to avoid admitting that McPherson is right, and the exclusive topic of the debates was slavery.
The point, again, is just whether there is any text in which Lincoln explicitly or even by clear implication goes beyond noting that the Democrats have opposed a Supreme Court decision, and goes on to make the separate point that he, Lincoln, AGREES with that Supreme Court decision.
Thanks for your help in settling this matter one way or another.
Always keeping in mind, of course, that this all started because DiLorenzo said that Lincoln "championed" the "corrupt Whig economic agenda" in "virtually every one of the Lincoln Douglas debates." This, I think we all agree is an entirely different and totally unsupported claim.
I'll look forward to seeing what texts you find. I may have missed something.
But as you note, with need for treaties for defense and such, there will still be need for some kind of common framework. My own hope is that
a) the founders were right in identifying which functions were properly national, and which more local, and that therefore
b) technological developments will naturally tend to make federal control more difficult in those areas where that control is being already exercised beyond its natural limits, and that, therefore,
c) technology (if the people maintains its energy to use it for decentralizing behaviour, which is certainly questionable) may be leading us rather painlessly toward a restraint of federal tyranny, even though our politicians are still passing laws, and our media and pundits still speaking, on the premise of the old centralized system.
Perhaps it's quixotic, and it is certainly optimistic, but my hope is that functions of social control, educational tyranny, economic centralization, etc., are precisely those that the feds will find increasingly hard to enforce, whatever silly ambitions they have to do so. But that common defense, for example, will be less threatened by technological change -- perhaps because the purpose is so clear, so necessary and unifying, and so directly aided by technological expertise.
All depends on a people willing to press its advantage, and increasingly withdraw its energetic servility from centralized projects that it does not believe in. If we remain a people capable of self-government, material factors (in the sense of technology) may be moving our way. I'm not sure that even local socialism, as you mention, would have much of an advantage over liberty just from the fact of decentralization. It's a cheerful thought.
While I am still hopeful today, I am less so than 10 years ago.
Technology, in my opinion, has always been a double-edged sword. As capable of enslaving as it is of liberating, from Gutenberg to Atomic power to todays embryonic research. As always, like you said, it all depends on people to demand for themselves, liberty and autonomy versus the "economy" of centralization and false security.
Liberty requires a great effort to establish and maintain. Mankind, imo, has yet to prove that it is capable of sustaining the effort, but there is always hope.
Seems most of the big "mistakes" made since FDR were made by Presidents from Dixie. There have been four Southern presidents in my lifetime (not counting Truman from Missouri and counting Bush who is really "West Texas" not Dixie). The first three did more to expand the welfare state mentality, damage national security, degrade our heritage, and overtax the citizens than any president in history, including FDR. Here’s hoping the 4th breaks to mold on Southern failures in the White House. And before LBJ, the last Southroon in the White House was international dreamer and neo-confederate who helped write the fictitious history you boys are sucked into, Woodrow Wilson, a major league nut case.
All and all, the South hasn’t produced a decent leader since James Monroe.
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.