|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Well, for one thing conservative states wouldn't be subject to laws conceived in liberal states and implemented by a central governing authority,...because there would be no central governing authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
Perhaps lots Of variables could come into play. There were still European powers interested in portions of North America. Great Britain, France, and the soon to be on the scene Unified Germany. Not to mention the czar and don't forget Spain ...and Mormons, this from Smithwick.... http://www.lsjunction.com/olbooks/smithwic/otd26.htmI found a number of my old Mormon friends in California, and without an exception found them secessionists, not from any partiality for the Southern people, who were even more intolerant of Mormonism than the Northern people, nor yet because of any sympathy with the peculiar institutions of the South. They wanted to see the South succeed in its purpose to withdraw from the Union, thereby establishing a precedent - which Brigham Young would have made haste to follow. Had there been no other reason for opposing secession, that dangerous precedent, which would have been a constant menace to the South as well as to the North, would have been sufficient ground.I do recall reading of the difficulties faced in the war years by a Confederacy struggling to reconcile the dire necessities of war with the prerogative of states' rights and the difficulties encountered therein. DOn't recall much of the specifics though. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Good read: http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtmlHow Tyranny Came to AmericaExcerpt: The Civil War, or the War Between the States if you like, resulted from the suspicion that the North meant to use the power of the Union to destroy the sovereignty of the Southern states. Whether or not that suspicion was justified, the war itself produced that very result. The South was subjugated and occupied like a conquered country. Its institutions were profoundly remade by the federal government; the United States of America was taking on the character of an extensive, and highly centralized, empire. Similar processes were under way in Europe, as small states were consolidated into large ones, setting the stage for the tyrannies and gigantic wars of the twentieth century.
Even so, the three constitutional amendment ratified after the war contain a significant clause: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Why is this significant? Because it shows that even the conquerors still understood that a new power of Congress required a constitutional amendment. It couldn’t just be taken by majority vote, as it would be today. If the Congress then had wanted a national health plan, it would have begun by asking the people for an amendment to the Constitution authorizing it to legislate in the area of health care. The immediate purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for a proposed civil rights act.
But the Supreme Court soon found other uses for the Fourteenth Amendment. It began striking down state laws as unconstitutional. This was an important new twist in American constitutional law. Hamilton, in arguing for judicial review in Federalist No. 78, had envisioned the Court as a check on Congress, resisting the illicit consolidation or centralization of power. And our civics books still describe the function of checks and balances in terms of the three branches of the federal government mutually controlling each other. But in fact, the Court was now countermanding the state legislatures, where the principle of checks and balances had no meaning, since those state legislatures had no reciprocal control on the Court. This development eventually set the stage for the convulsive Supreme Court rulings of the late twentieth century, from Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade.
The big thing to recognize here is that the Court had become the very opposite of the institution Hamilton and others had had in mind. Instead of blocking the centralization of power in the federal government, the Court was assisting it.
The original point of the federal system was that the federal government would have very little to say about the internal affairs of the states. But the result of the Civil War was that the federal government had a great deal to say about those affairs — in Northern as well as Southern states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
Perhaps lots Of variables could come into play. There were still European powers interested in portions of North America. Great Britain, France, and the soon to be on the scene Unified Germany. Not to mention the czar and don't forget Spain THAT's what my question addresses.  The west coast would be Russian, bet on it. I can also see the European powers warring over the rich middle farmlands, much of which already settled by Germans, and there was a large German population in Texas. Spain, France, and England would have no doubt squabbled over portions of the east coast. France and Spain might have bloodied noses over the Mississippi river system. Floridians would probably be speaking Spanish exclusively, who knows about Texas...Spanish, German...?? The rest of the southeast could well be a British colony or a little warm Canada. The southwest sure could be under either Spanish or Mexican flags. We just might not be one nation. 
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
Even so, the three constitutional amendment ratified after the war contain a significant clause: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Why is this significant? Because it shows that even the conquerors still understood that a new power of Congress required a constitutional amendment. It couldn’t just be taken by majority vote, as it would be today. If the Congress then had wanted a national health plan, it would have begun by asking the people for an amendment to the Constitution authorizing it to legislate in the area of health care. The immediate purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for a proposed civil rights act.
But the Supreme Court soon found other uses for the Fourteenth Amendment. It began striking down state laws as unconstitutional. This was an important new twist in American constitutional law. Thanks for a concise recap, tho it should be pointed out that IIRC the state laws the Supremes struck down back then included the more blatant Jim Crow legislation. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Perhaps lots Of variables could come into play. There were still European powers interested in portions of North America. Great Britain, France, and the soon to be on the scene Unified Germany. Not to mention the czar and don't forget Spain THAT's what my question addresses. The west coast would be Russian, bet on it. I can also see the European powers warring over the rich middle farmlands, much of which already settled by Germans, and there was a large German population in Texas. Spain, France, and England would have no doubt squabbled over portions of the east coast. France and Spain might have bloodied noses over the Mississippi river system. Floridians would probably be speaking Spanish exclusively, who knows about Texas...Spanish, German...?? The rest of the southeast could well be a British colony or a little warm Canada. The southwest sure could be under either Spanish or Mexican flags. We just might not be one nation. Maybe,..maybe not. But what's more important to you,....being free or being part of a large nation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Thanks for a concise recap, tho it should be pointed out that IIRC the state laws the Supremes struck down back then included the more blatant Jim Crow legislation.
Birdwatcher There's always going to be a boogeyman to point to when it comes to defending the empire. But the over-riding fact of all empires, is that it's population is never anything more than subjects of the empire. Don't want Obamacare? "Fug you!, says the empire. You get it anyway. There's thousands upon thousands of other examples, but Obamacare is the freedom draining legislation that's in the news today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Don't want millions upon millions of illegal aliens flooding into your state? Fug you!, says the empire. You get 'em anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5 |
The problem with "free" small nations is that bigger nations have a tendency to swallow them. At which point they're not free anymore. For most of its history, the US has been pretty isolated geographically, but a US composed of loosely federated states might not have stayed that way too long, even if the War between the States had not happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
The problem with "free" small nations is that bigger nations have a tendency to swallow them. You just described the American Civil War.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1 |
The problem with "free" small nations is that bigger nations have a tendency to swallow them. At which point they're not free anymore. For most of its history, the US has been pretty isolated geographically, but a US composed of loosely federated states might not have stayed that way too long, even if the War between the States had not happened. Gottcha, trade freedom for security. What do you have now that we've done that? No freedom and no security.
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
Okay, who has finished the reading list and gotten started on the newspaper research? 
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5 |
That's one way to look at it, although the North was not technically another nation until secession occurred. My point was that some other political entity or combination of entities might have taken over some states if they had stayed loosely federated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5 |
There's always a tension between freedom and security. And there are rarely simple answers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
That's one way to look at it, although the North was not technically another nation until secession occurred. My point was that some other political entity or combination of entities might have taken over some states if they had stayed loosely federated. So we all should be happy that we got conquered,...or we might have been conquered?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Here's how the empire is undermining my state's security these days. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/28/syrian-refugees/22477773/Syrian Refugees Coming to KentuckyLOUISVILLE, Ky. — Twenty-one Syrian refugees will arrive here in the next two weeks, a figure expected to increase as the U.S. begins to take in an expanded number of refugees fleeing Syria's bloody civil war.
The refugees, from four families who fled to Jordan and Egypt, are part of a larger U.S. resettlement effort expected to bring as many as 10,000 Syrians to cities across the USA over the next few years, according to the U.S. State Department.
___________________________________________________
Kentucky, home to two Louisville resettlement affiliates, has taken in 6,428 refugees since 2011, including 1,113 from Iraq, according to State Department figures. That has left the area with resources and interpreters that could make it a landing spot for Syrians, Koehlinger said, though exact numbers are unknown.
___________________________________________________
Advocates said the refugees from Syria bring added security concerns, in part because of fears of Islamic extremism among Islamic State followers and others.
In 2013, two Iraqi refugees living in Bowling Green, Ky., were sentenced on terrorism charges. They were arrested in 2011 after helping a confidential government informant load cash and weapons that they thought were bound for al-Qaida in Iraq into a tractor-trailer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 Likes: 2 |
Don't want Muslim refugees relocated to your country? "Fug you!, says the empire. You get 'em anyway".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,753 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,753 Likes: 4 |
Even birds know not to land downwind!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,044 Likes: 5 |
That's one way to look at it, although the North was not technically another nation until secession occurred. My point was that some other political entity or combination of entities might have taken over some states if they had stayed loosely federated. So we all should be happy that we got conquered,...or we might have been conquered? All I'm saying is that reality is messy. And doesn't necessarily comport with an idealized version of how the world should be. But I too am unhappy with the way the feds are pushing their agenda down out throats. So I'll agree with you on that.
Last edited by bowmanh; 07/03/15.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
What we really have in this country are two basically different peoples, and the difference is not geographic.
There have always been those who are restless, unsettled, and discontent unless they know the exact pecking order and know their place in it.
Others are confident in their own abilities, don't seek to control another, and reject the others' claim to an interest in making them conform "for the greater good".
The first group longs for "a benign dictator" who will bring the unruly ones into line.
The second groups' primary wish is to be left alone.
The second group gets smaller each generation and has never been represented by ANY political party.
Lots of the first group are represented here.
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,538
Posts18,531,088
Members74,039
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
