History

[teamnelson]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

I'm convinced few Americans are familiar with this phrase; I know very few of my service members would know this for what it is and not assume its a posting by the IRS bomber. How about you? Do you know where this came from and what it means?

[mcwoodduck]

Declraration of Independance.

[Squib]

that's what scares me about the nwo crap, the military fighting force is comprised of young guys that are probably conservative ethically but not truly ideologically motivated, and they're looking for ideology and belonging in the service.  with it getting anti-gun and pro-gay they're gonna get a thorough liberal brain-washing next generation.  people wonder how the louisiana national guard could take their guns- that liberal tide in the military is how.

I know I was a dumb kid when I was kicking in doors and rounding up guns from "terrorists" a few years back.  If I'd have been told to go do it to an american I'd have probably gone along with it... 19yr old kids that look up to nco's do as good little lemmings are expected to do.  god country corps is all a lot of them know, but they aren't taught much about country or god, just following orders from the corps command structure.  usually that means the UN dirty work.  if the UN can keep israel and palestine going at it while iraq and iran fall then who's next? europe or america, and europe is already beaten psychologically and economically.....

[blind ear]

squib, you are right. If the soldiers wern't young and programmable they wouldn't make it very long in thier service. that is why young people are chosen for the military and not 40 year olds. If they choose military as a carear they will often quote the military doctrin they were taught the rest of thier life. Problem is as you said they might be getting indoctrination that doesn't support the past doctrins of the citizens with "old time beliefs" that this country supported.eddie

[Oldshooter]

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This is also found there!

So where do we begin?

[Squib]

Federalism.... I think to really understand it we need to understand the poison of federalism.  remember that before the civil war a lot of small battles took place for tax enforcement and such to break the articles of confederation.  the constitution can work but mainly against a severe and imminent threat- the kulturkampf is an incremental threat and it's obscuring the constitutional understanding of the citizenry.  the constitution only matters to AMERICANS, not random people that just happen to live here.  the articles of confederation probably wouldn't have worked either, but back then it was known it would come to this (federalism = consolidation of power and corruption of said power).  I'm glad it's taken this long, which seems unlikely when the 1920's on is considered. 

[teamnelson]

Most of the officers I went to combat with were thoughtful, intelligent skeptics who leaned towards non-intervention, or at least conservatism. My last co was a libertarian from Vermont. My experience does not hold up with your theory that career military are brainwashed out of touch with traditional values. Yes, the young recruits we draw in wartime NOW are compromised before they step on the yellow footprints. My experience show the stamp of public school socialism is the biggest ideaological hurdle, and few can overcome. It is not the military asking to go to war, just the means to win and I've witnessed senior leadership advocating what I see posted here, denied by the political civilian leadership appointed or elected over them.

[blind ear]

TN, I'm not saying all are brainwashed nonthinkers. "More of them" and what they are indoctrinated with is what is scarey. They learn what ever the current doctrin is. That doctrin could change 180 degrees from the point of view taught when you went through training. eddiegjr

[teamnelson]

If you want to know current doctrine google USMC doctrine. They have a website on it; some might be disappointed though. It's all about winning wars with terrorists; no social agenda, disarmament of civilians, etc. Totally open about it, unlike the school system that has indictrinated recruits without parental intervention for 13 years before they step out to serve. They were told the founding fathers were slave owners so we shouldn't pay attention to them or their writings. They are always shocked when they read the declaration, constitution and especially the articles of confederation - I have copies to hand out.

[Oldshooter]

You radical right winger you!

thanks for the effort though!

[blind ear]

TN, as you said, they are starting in school with a different message/conditioning. Where do we watch for the change to be applied to the military aged person or soldier? The UN homeland force? They (politicals)will try to sneak it on us somewhere.  eddiegjr

[SHOOTALL]

Think why would a NATIONAL POLICE FORCE be needed equiped equal to the military ?  Maybe cause the Military can't be depended on to trash America ?

[Heather]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

I'm convinced few Americans are familiar with this phrase; I know very few of my service members would know this for what it is and not assume its a posting by the IRS bomber. How about you? Do you know where this came from and what it means?

I read this document to my children in class just the other day.  I posted a little on it in another thread.  I agree with you that most don't have a clue where this phrase came from.  The rights and responsibilities of our Government and citizens are laid out rather plainly in  The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The problem is that over the years we the people have accepted the theory that the Constitution is open for interpretation to be changed with each new agenda.
 
Did Lincoln really have the power to force the other states to abolish slavery?  No, it completely violated the 10th amendment and set the precedent to abolish states rights!  Was slavery wrong both morally and ethically?  Yes, but it was the STATES responsibility to come to that conclusion.   Contrary to popular opinion that the Civil War was a great war that granted freedom to the enslaved people, it really was the beginning of the end for freedom. 

The government whose powers were CLEARLY LAID OUT IN THE 10th amendment as very limited have now expanded to where they now play a role in almost EVERYTHING.  Since then we have had the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc.  With each new 'crisis' more and more Federal laws are created that limits our personal freedom.  We have decided to give the Government a larger and larger role in our personal lives in return for handouts via food stamps, health-care, the bailouts, and welfare. 

Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves with each new bailout and handout.  Ben Franklin said something like "he who would trade freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both. “ Well folks you are looking at a society who has traded in a hard working, self-reliant, moral and free life, for free food, more federal ‘assistance, and MONEY.  We allow the Government to play the role of protector and provider to all.  It sickens me to know that most will trade freedom for comfort!

Heather

[Oldshooter]

It sickens me to know that most will trade freedom for comfort!

Since that has been bandied around here very liberally lately, I guess I would need a clarification on what you mean by that. Don't get me wrong, I know what it means, but there are some that obviously don't, and use it when you don't agree with their point of view. (Rhetorically speaking of course)

Sadly the reason They will give up freedom for comfort is that for years now they have been indoctrinated to believe that "its all free" and the rich "owe the poor" cause they have too much. (remember obamas pie speech) They want a piece of the pie that the rich have been keeping to themselves. I remember the girl on tv saying "obama is gonna pay my gas and my rent and get me a new car" . They believe that and he builds on that knowing he cant produce.

[SHOOTALL]

I lived thru. the roits in the late 60's . That was the African American people in this country . What would it look like if they were joined in a common cause by all Americans ?

[magooch]

Well, at least I now know what "evinces" means.  I had to consult my litte dick&harry.  Doubt if I'll ever use the word, though.

[sagegrouse715]

Heather,

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you interpretation of Lincoln and the Civil War.

The Civil War took place because of states trying to leave the nation.  In February, 1861, a provisional government of the Confederate States was established.  Lincoln takes office in March.  Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution says,"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". It further states," No State shall without the Consent of Congress ......engage in War".

In entering in the Confederation and than South Carolina firing on the U.S. governments attempt to resupply FT. Sumtner, the South violated the Constitution.  I would argue, according to the Constitution,  they couldn't leave the United States and form a new confederation without the consent of Congress.

Per his oath, Lincoln's job was to defend the Constitution, thus he sent troops into the rebellious states.  During the war Lincoln did free all slaves in states in rebellion, which actually freed no one.  It is the 13th amendment that abolishes slavery.

[blind ear]

Before the civil war the wealth of the US was concentrated in the south, farm products and raw materials. The railroad barrons and bankers knew the industrial revolution was begun. The south was tradeing with Europe selling raw goods. Taxes and tarrifs were put in place to curtail the trade. That is when the southern states tried to leave the union.

Cotton mills were kept at a disadvantage in the south even up to present day as a political trade off. There are few US mills of any kind today and most of the cotton is sold overseas. (Subsidies are the only reason cotton is grown anymore. Japan and other countries went to polyester as thier promary fabric 20 years ago.)

Such is politics and money. eddie

[SHOOTALL]

The Civil War was because of several things . Most centered around the South being forced to pay for the war of 1812 .

[Oldshooter]

Before the civil war the wealth of the US was concentrated in the south, farm products and raw materials. The railroad barrons and bankers knew the industrial revolution was begun. The south was tradeing with Europe selling raw goods. Taxes and tarrifs were put in place to curtail the trade. That is when the southern states tried to leave the union.

Right on the money!   It was States rights !  Still is !

[SHOOTALL]

Heather , lincon must have felt like the king 

[teamnelson]

Heather,

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you interpretation of Lincoln and the Civil War.

The Civil War took place because of states trying to leave the nation.  In February, 1861, a provisional government of the Confederate States was established.  Lincoln takes office in March.  Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution says,"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". It further states," No State shall without the Consent of Congress ......engage in War".

In entering in the Confederation and than South Carolina firing on the U.S. governments attempt to resupply FT. Sumtner, the South violated the Constitution.  I would argue, according to the Constitution,  they couldn't leave the United States and form a new confederation without the consent of Congress.

Per his oath, Lincoln's job was to defend the Constitution, thus he sent troops into the rebellious states.  During the war Lincoln did free all slaves in states in rebellion, which actually freed no one.  It is the 13th amendment that abolishes slavery.

You could argue that, but the document itself requires the consent of the governed. And that consent is conditional by the governed, which includes all of those folks in the south. Using your logic, once the people have voted, they lose their right to consent.

You also failed to mention the politics preceeding the formation of the confederation. With your post alone, I am left to assume that like Taiwan to China, the south was comprised of capricious member states who just felt like leaving for no legitimate reason greater than a whim.

But as eddie pointed out, the northern states sought to redistribute the wealth coming into the south through legislation. Would you argue that a group of states have the right to exploit the wealth of another state, and pass legislation at the federal level that only applies to certain targeted individuals or states? Taxes and tarrifs were passed that did not apply to the Union, just the South. Can all of the states who failed to make budget this year tax your state to make up the difference? Just your state, not theirs? Do states have a right to wealth?

And the other glaring example of passing legislation at the federal level that only applies to a certain geographic political district is the emancipation proclamation, which didn't free slaves in the Union, just the south.

[skarke]

+1 TM, you libertarian.

[Squib]

not freeing northern slaves destroys the argument completely, also it seems that liberals/democrats/progressives really try hard to claim that white conservatives are all anti-black/racist/evil yet the Ku Klux Klan was involved with the democratic party in the early 1900's.... hmmmm

[Dand]

I've been having my 11 yr old recited those portions of the Declaration of Independence every day this week for his home school work.

[Heather]

I've been having my 11 yr old recited those portions of the Declaration of Independence every day this week for his home school work.

You should hear my 5 year old recite "We hold these trufs to be self evidence that all men were created evil! That they are empowered by their creator with certain alien rights among these are life liberty and the purse of happiness! We are still workin on it! 

Heather

[skarke]

I've read a few history book reviews of late regarding works that oppose the more leftist, liberal points of view.  I find a general theme:

1.  The reviewer talks about his entrance into the book, and already by page 20, they've found some grievous historical error
2.  They state something to the order of "I laughed histerically at the naive, imbecilic words of the author, because he is such an idiot", purpose being to force the prospective reader away from the work for fear of learning "misinformation"
3.  They state the "correct" view of history, demonstrating their vastly superior education and intellect to the prospective reader
4.  They often recommend a "much more suitable" alternative that is more "mainstream" in its leftist, progressive view.

The problem is, the history books of the past 100 years are so full of fiction, citations from fiction sold as fact, and recitations of citations that, when traced back, lead to a black hole of fallacy that only the diciplined investigator can figure it out.

The commies think that if they repeat the same lies often enough, and have those lies stated in textbooks and historical works, that the lies will become true.  Don't believe it.  If you are a living human, much of what we've been taught in our lifetimes is nothing more that progressive fiction.  Do yourself a favor, and read history books written by those who lived at the time of the incidents.  Then you can begin your quest for who is telling the truth.

[Oldshooter]

The commies think that if they repeat the same lies often enough, and have those lies stated in textbooks and historical works, that the lies will become true.

SO True!  Seems to be a common thread for some political parties as well!

The pity is, that once they are in the text books they become true! at least to the sheeple!

[no guns here]

Heather,

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you interpretation of Lincoln and the Civil War.

The Civil War took place because of states trying to leave the nation.  In February, 1861, a provisional government of the Confederate States was established.  Lincoln takes office in March.  Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution says,"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". It further states," No State shall without the Consent of Congress ......engage in War".

In entering in the Confederation and than South Carolina firing on the U.S. governments attempt to resupply FT. Sumtner, the South violated the Constitution.  I would argue, according to the Constitution,  they couldn't leave the United States and form a new confederation without the consent of Congress.

Per his oath, Lincoln's job was to defend the Constitution, thus he sent troops into the rebellious states.  During the war Lincoln did free all slaves in states in rebellion, which actually freed no one.  It is the 13th amendment that abolishes slavery.

According to this, there is no prohibition on a state leaving the Union.  The prohibition is against Treaty's, Alliance's and Confederation's.  So a single state choosing to secede would not violate such a prohibition.  Even multiple states choosing to secede would not violate the prohibition.   They just couldn't agree formally amongst themselves to do so.

As for the "war" thing... the Civil War was one, thing.  A state that chooses to secede, may well have to defend itself.  If it secede's it is no longer bound by the Constitution and any prohibition concerning war.



NGH

[BBF]

................The commies think that if they repeat the same lies often enough, and have those lies stated in textbooks and historical works, that the lies will become true...............  

It has been and is very effective as it achieves the dumbing down of the masses and overcoming any opposition.