Imperium in Imperio

LewRockwell.com ^ | 1950 | Frank Chodorov

[billbears]

This was printed in 1950 and fifty years later we're in a worse position that we are now.

[billbears]

are now=were then

ping

[AUgrad]

Great post bump.

[stand watie]

dixie LIBERTY bump!

[Ff--150]

BTTT

[LiteKeeper]

dittoes

[stainlessbanner]

placemarker

[x]

The doctrine of dualism came up for discussion many times between ratification and the Civil War. Almost always the debates were legalistic. On this ground, the nullifiers and the secessionists had the best of it, for nothing could be more certain than that the Union was conceived as a voluntary association of the thirteen states and that the states had existed as political entities for nearly a hundred and fifty years before the Constitution was thought of. Nor was there any question, as John C. Calhoun constantly insisted, that the Union was an organization of states, not of citizens; a Virginian was a Virginian before he was an American, and that was written into the Constitution as a condition of ratification.

Questionable assertions baldly stated as fact. "States" did not exist before the Revolution. Colonies did. The original states were born as states with independence, and other states were born after the formation of the Union, through its actions. There was growing national sentiment throughout the post-Revolutionary period. Secessionist sentiment flared up in crises, but the idea of unilateral secession wasn't a fixed feature of the national mind. Calhoun was certainly not typical.

It was, indeed, a mass attack on private property that spurred the Founding Fathers in their work and furnished them with ammunition in their fight for ratification. In Massachusetts, a mob of farmers, burdened with mortgages and taxation, had attempted to force the state government to issue fiat money with which they could rid themselves of their obligations. Whether or not their grievances were justifiable, their action was a threat to the principle of private property, to which even these farmers held; they would have been in the forefront of a fight to retain possession of their holdings. However, the danger of mob action put the Fathers on their guard; they wrote into the Constitution provisions which, they expected, would prevent a majority, having got hold of the reins of government, from executing a policy of confiscation. The system of checks and balances was designed as a bulwark of private property.

This was the main reason why Northerners reacted so strongly against secession in 1861. It was accompanied by the one-sided repudiation of debts, the expropriation of private and federal property, and the violation of constitutional rights and immunities. Absolute state sovereignty is as much an enemy of property rights as absolute federal power.

If you look at Madison's original proposed bill of Rights there's one amendment establishing that: "that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Notice that there was no mention of the states as constitutents of the government.

Another proposed amendment asserted that: "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." Just how this would have been interpreted or enforced is hard to say. It would have required some action by the federal government. In any event, distrust of absolute state sovereignty had been present from the beginning.

The actual amendments adopted were different, but the indications are that any view of the Constitution as a mere compact between sovereign states is mistaken. Certainly the framers and promoters of the Constitution did not agree with Chodorov's oversimplistic view.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Ditto]

This was printed in 1950 and fifty years later we're in a worse position that we are now.

Are we? Look at his bottom line.

"Already labor is looked upon as a useless occupation when doles are available, and investment in enterprise of a long-term nature is regarded as folly. That the American standard of living must decline, that our civilization must sink to a lower and lower level, is a certainty to which the history of intervention testifies.

We have probably twice the percent of population employed now than 50 years ago, welfare as a way of life is on the way out, our standard of living is improved immensely by any economic measure, and while our "civilization" surely has problems, I would argue that we are a better, more compassionate people and the blessings of liberty are far more widespread than 50 years ago.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Questionable assertions baldly stated as fact.

Have these neo-reb sumbucks got black helicopters, or what? They're everywhere. They're like cockroaches.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Constitution that came out of the Philadelphia convention in 1787 was not acclaimed a "divine document."

Well, then who are you "quoting"?

Walt

[Constitution Day]

* Placeholder for later...

[WhiskeyPapa]

Absolute state sovereignty is as much an enemy of property rights as absolute federal power.

Property rights!? States!?

Lord love a sinner, Dekalb COUNTY here in the People's Republic of Jawja has outlawed smoking in PUBLIC! Bars, mercifully, are exempt. Restaurants can designate 25% of their area as smoking areas (which they pretty much do any way).

Just because its the feds doesn't mean they're oppressive, and just because they're local doesn't mean they can't oppress.

You know what the feds have done that the states and localities haven't?

The feds have more civil rights legislation.

And that's what drives the neo-rebs nuts.

Walt

[Enterprise]

Will have to read it later.

[1rudeboy]

Questionable assertions baldly stated as fact.

Ain't that the truth. For all practical purposes, the above is an editorial opinion.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[madfly]

ping

[4CJ]

I just love to hear all the explanations of how the Union created the states: that colonies did not secede from Britain before the Declaration of Independence or have independent governments, that those same colonies the union that didn't secede previusly then seceded en masse as a single union - while it maintained existing state/colonial borders, and those same colonies/states that same union then formed the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union - notwitstanding why an entity form a confederation with itself, only to have between 9 and 13 parts of that same indissolvable union secede from itself to re-make the same union that previously existed?

ROTF!

[billbears]

So unless it agrees with your revisionist history of the northern tyrant and union above all it's an opinion. Do I have that right?