Replies

(This is a general address - it was just simpler to append the last post than start scratch....) A whole lotta' yadda yadda here....Lots of quotes from founders on both sides of the divide, but, curiously, no one here has asked the questions ( & I do not have the impression the questions remain unasked due to their highly rhetorical nature...),that lies at the heart of the entire debate: were the anti-federalists correct in their suspicions of the federalists' motives; were they correct in their predictions of the adverse implications that would ensue if the federalist agenda were to be adopted; were they correct that appending a bill of rights to the constitution would prevent the adverse implications...? The answers are yes,yes, & no. The Lincoln-worshippers fall squarely ito the federalist camp, and without irony, fully support consolidated, centralized, 'federal' power (the exact opposite of what 'federal republic' is supposed to mean... but we are all used to dishonest appropriations of terms & their definitions by now, right?). Its also amusing that so many of this ilk populate a forum which calls itself 'free republic'...is the forum merely hosting the bloviated blather of liberty's adversaries, or is it yet another nest of neo-con connivers?

By the way, Colt .45, I like that CSA flag insert. How would I go about adding my favorite, the battle flag, to my posts?

Well said. While not on this thread, the questions that you ask have been covered in part and in whole on other lincoln threads. However I have found it hard to get a federalist to admit that as a point of view.

It is an ongoing experiment, but as the wealthiest, most powerful, and, dare I say it, freest nation on earth, so far, I think we are doing rather well. Our nation is not perfect, but I don't think anyone can point out a better one. That is not to say we can't work to make it better.

Lots of quotes from founders on both sides of the divide, but, curiously, no one here has asked the questions ( & I do not have the impression the questions remain unasked due to their highly rhetorical nature...),that lies at the heart of the entire debate: were the anti-federalists correct in their suspicions of the federalists' motives; were they correct in their predictions of the adverse implications that would ensue if the federalist agenda were to be adopted...

Apparently the anti-feds were opposed to becoming the most powerful nation on earth.

No one is suggesting -unlimited- power by the federal government. It is hard to imagine how anyone could oppose the government having enough power simply to maintain its existance in the face of domestic foes too weak to control administration by organic means.

Walt

The Lincoln-worshippers fall squarely ito the federalist camp, and without irony, fully support consolidated, centralized, 'federal' power (the exact opposite of what 'federal republic' is supposed to mean...

George Washington supported the consolidation of the federal government, calling it the goal of every true American. It seems hard to blame Lincoln for adopting the stance of Washington.

But it comes down to the defintion or degree of consolidation. Washington would certainly agree that what we see today is totally beyond the pale. So would Lincoln. You are trying to make a bad thing out of a good thing. It has got to be a -good- thing that we have reasonable stability and security. Those two conditions are directly related to the preservation of the government that George Washington wanted.

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786

Would you be happy if the states could print their own money again?

Whatever -you- personally own is more stable and more secure because of the stable and secure situation that you have now in contrast with the unstable situation that Washington saw in 1785.

You'd think common sense would tell you that.

Walt