Should the States be Freed?

[BrianMcCandliss]

It seems that all arguments about the legality of secession, seem to be purely academic in nature, i.e. their authors only seek to establish historical fact, rather than modern implications. It seems that while they argue state sovereignty prior to the war, they disclaim any possibility to regain such today.

However, I cannot help but ask the legal implications of the seceding states being legally vindicated in their actions, and proven to have been supremely sovereign under the Constitution. As stated in my somewhat-famous paper "Were the States Sovereign Nations?", this would revise Lincoln to be a ruthless imperialist and dictator of the highest order, as well as a great traitor whose lies destroyed untold freedoms.

Therefore, the question remains:
If it can be legally proven, that the states were indeed originally sovereign from each other-- ala England or Spain-- and thus had the supreme right to secede from the Union by virtue of such (rather than "needing permission" from the Constitution or anything else), then I believe that, legally, they must remain so in spite of the "War Against Northern Treachery" (for such would be the only accurate definition of an act to rescind recognized legal rights and sovereign boundaries).

In this capacity, I would like to address the various arguments against such. Below is my latest article on the subject:

Should the States be Freed?

Various authors, including myself, have forwarded-- and supported-- the claim, that secession by the states was completely legitimate and legal, and that the American Civil War-- which was essentially an act by the federal government to forbid the secession, and the seceding states merely defending themselves in response-- was in gross violation of US and international law (including the legal rights of the seceding states in question, as recognized all states concerned).

Because of the eventual success of this federal effort in 1865-- and the related "surrender" at Appomattox, current US policy forbids secession by any state from the Union. This policy was officially premised the American Civil War-- specifically via Union victory in that conflict.

However, the question of the legal validity of that effort, has never been either resolved or even considered by Congress or the states. Rather, in order to authorize the Civil War, the federal government-- i.e. President Lincoln-- simply claimed that consolidated soveriegnty of "the Union" had always been the original intent of the states-- i.e. that no state would be legally allowed to secede from the constitutional Union; in his own words, Lincoln stated that "the intent of the lawgiver, is the law."
As such, by prohibiting secession, he claimed to have been enforcing the law and Constitution-- and this simple dogmatic claim of intent (and ensuing military action) was made the basis of our current policy, rather than proper establishment of legal proof.

This then brings up the question: if it is legally proven that the Confederacy was right-- i.e. that the states were indeed sovereign, and legally entitled to secede from the Union at will in 1861-- then should the states be freed today?

It would seem, that current US policy would, even after time, depend on the legal accuracy of the original US claim upon which it was based; i.e. if it was to be discovered and proven that the states actually did retain the sovereign right to secede from the Union at will, then this policy must in turn be dissolved, and states be declared free to go their own separate ways. Indeed, legally speaking, this is the only acceptable outcome of such a scenario.

However, modern pro-Union pundits seem to want to have it both ways: i.e. they first defend Lincoln's actions on the basis of his claims being legally accurate; however, when this claim is undermined, they claim legality to be irrelevant, claiming that "the Civil War settled the matter--" i.e. that since a "war" was fought over the issue-- and an official "surrender" made-- then the accuracy of Lincoln's claims becomes irrelevant, since current policy was "made valid by virtue of the war itself."

In other words, they hold that by fighting back against the almighty Union, the seceding states implicitly accepted voluntarily whatever outcome transpired in arms; and thus by surrendering at Appomattox then they supposedly accepted Union-policy as legitimate and legally binding. (Poppycock, I know).

Finally, such "blind pro-Unionists" claim that, regardless of all else, the passage of time itself has "made the policy valid," on the basis that "it's been accepted as valid for so long, and practiced as such, that it's become part of the fabric of American society" etc. etc.  (They likewise accuse the pro-secessionists" of "living in the past" instead of "letting bygones be bygones"-- as well as being "sore losers" etc.)

All of the above reasoning is-- legally at least-- false for several reasons:

Claim 1: "The seceding states gave up their rights by fighting back."

Response:

If the states did have the right to secede, then they were sovereign; and sovereign states have the inherent right to defend themselves against unlawful aggression-- and this includes the seizure of federal forts, or even any other legitimate attempt to secure a proper tactical advantage against such an illegal denial of their proper and legal sovereignty.
 As such, the Civil War would be a treasonous and treacherous act by the Union-officials who ordered it, via unlawful and wrongful suppression of the states' legal sovereignty; therefore, these states would have had every right in the world to fight back-- and would be legally surrendering nothing to outcome or "fate" by doing so, if they were acting within the scope of their sovereign powers as recognized by both sides prior to the conflict.

Unlike the Founders, who appealed only to Natural Law and Divine Providence for their justification, the seceding states appealed only to the written law and understanding, as acknowledged by all states prior, in recognition of their supreme sovereignty. Therefore, if their claim was legally valid, then the Union's act to prevent secession would be a high crime of treason against them by the Union perpetrators-- even as defined under US law; hence, any harm done to the Union in the process, would be entirely justified by the seceding states, as acts of self-defense against an illegal aggressor by a sovereign state.
Consequently, no state legal claims of sovereignty could be afterward denied as "settled in war," since the military act in question was entirely a legal action by the Union-- not a war; and thus, such claims are wholly dependent on the facts regarding the legal validity of each side's claim. These facts would involve both the circumstances, as well as the understanding between the states at the time of ratifying the Constitution regarding the meaning of the law.

Claim 2: "Union-victory 'settled' the issue of state sovereignty."

Response:
Illegal use of force by the federal government, cannot be made "valid," simply by virtue of such being successful-- with "success" applying not only in the perpetration, but the cover-up as well; this is not only well-outside the bounds of the law and Constitution, but is in fact quite Machiavellian in concept, i.e. it forwards the notion that any victory is self-justifying, and therefore the victor-- even if he is one entrusted to uphold the law, and is acting illegally under false pretense of such-- can do no wrong... just as long as he is successful in doing it.

Clearly, one can imagine no concept more abhorrent or antithetical to the concept of freedom; truly, in fact, such ruthless tyranny is the direct opposite of the intentions of the Founders, the Framers of the Constitution, and the states-- all of whom were wholly opposed the prior notion that the People are beholden to the state (or nation)-- which can, in turn, do no wrong; rather, it is made clear in the Declaration of Independence, that the state(s) derive all powers-- and only just powers-- from consent of the individual people, and only for the security of their rights-- never the destruction of such.
Likewise, there can be no appeal to "the dictates of war," since war was not only never declared by the United States against the Confederacy or states thereof-- but in fact, such was explicitly denied, along with the sovereign nationhood of any of such. Rather, the secession was simply termed a "rebellion;" hence, no laws or articles of "war" can ever apply, without first recognizing that very sovereignty which was denied as the very premise of the action against them!

As such, if the states were, indeed, sovereign, voluntary members of the Union, then the federal government thus became destructive to the rights of the People of the states, by forbidding the right secession, which was recognized by both sides prior-- and hence, the Union would have had no just power to do so.

Therefore, the federal invasion of the southern states would be indeed a violation of US law and promises; and hence, the ensuing policy against secession would be wholly corrupt and false. Indeed, to uphold such a policy, would be the ultimate perversion of the law-- establishing a doctrine of "legislation by treason," whereby a successful act of unconscionable abuse of power, in sheer violation of the law, is, even when accompanied my mass-murder, horrors of war, and dictatorial coup, held to be legally valid... simply by being successful. This is indeed a bizarre perversion of the law-- perhaps the most bizarre imaginable.

Claim 3: "It happened so long ago, that it's become part of the fabric of American society, and it's too late to change it."

Response:

There can be no "statute of limitations" for such gross abuse of legal pretense, to claim that the treasonous invasion, rape and conquest of sovereign states-- along with the slaughter and pillage against not only those who properly defend against such, but also non-combatants as well-- can be "validated," simply because said traitors and dictators (and their successors) succeeded in committing totalitarian suppression of the truth for a sufficient period of time! Certainly not under any system of laws pretending to represent "individual freedom;" such simply defies all intellectual honesty. Rather, this would mimic the famous aphorism: "I never pay old debts-- and I let new ones get old."


Even under criminal law, "statutes of limitations" do not accrue in instances of deliberate suppression of evidence or due process by the criminal; rather, they apply only when the victim "sleeps on his rights--" which naturally cannot apply when evidence is actively and deliberately suppressed, since the victim had no just opportunity to due process; for like reasons, no "statute of limitations" ever applies to murder. Similarly in the case of international law, no such statute exists against the liberation of sovereign statehood from under violent-- and illegal-- occupation: and the occupation of the states, has always been under continually-increasing threat of violence against secession-- indeed, such is the very policy which is the topic of this paper.

As to the argument of free states being "in the fabric of American society," this is neither a legal argument-- nor necessarily a good thing;" current American society hampers individual freedoms against the Founding intents, even to the extent of sacrificing individual life, liberty and property for the benefit of the "nation," while likewise denying all recourse against such, by making the federal government the supreme judge of its own powers. If it is proven that the states ratified the Constitution as sovereign powers, then this would simply expand freedom against acts to diminish it. Individuals would still enjoy the protection of the federal government against abuses by any state; however they would likewise enjoy state-protections against the federal encroachments-- which were the primary target of the "American Civil War."

Thus, the original concept of "dual sovereignty" would be regained; for this term originally defined the manner by which individuals delegated some of their inalienable sovereignty as human beings to the state government, and some to the federal government, such that they would enjoy the protections of both against the other, in keeping with the fundamental precepts of liberty by which the states were founded; however, this meaning of "dual sovereignty" was perverted via the "Civil War" to suggest that state sovereignty was merely exclusive privilege to rule individuals-- and existed solely under the greater sovereignty of the overall Union, which thus wielded absolute national authority over the individual. Thus the individual human being fell from being the source of all sovereignty, to being entirely subject to state and federal mercy (again even to the point of life, liberty and property becoming arbitrarily subject to state and federal discretion).

In conclusion: if it is indeed established that the states intended to remain sovereign-- in the sense of being free to quit the Union at any time-- then legally, they must remain free, the "American Civil War" notwithstanding. Likewise, this question of state sovereignty remains, and thus requires proper and official resolution of the legal question of the Civil War-- which the law requires. As such, it is without question that this matter be addressed immediately-- both by the states individually, and by Congress (which is unlikely to limit its own power, however must be held to account for its conduct in contrast with original intent).


Simply put: either the states intended to surrender their sovereignty-- or they did not. There was no "Constitutional ambiguity resolved by force of arms," as some have claimed; for neither side made such a pretext, but rather, that there was clear intent; thus, such must have been violated by one side or the other. Current law and policy, holds that this intent was violated by the Confederacy, and that the Union was thus therefore legally in the right; however this must be verified-- and determined according to fact, not the arbitrary dogma by which the Union currently claims the right of supreme national authority over all states and individuals.

Note: in discussing the above, I deliberately abstain from addressing the issue of the 14th amendment or other post-war acts, since such cannot invalidate, ex post facto, any pre-existing sovereignty-- for the same reason that the Civil War could not do so, i.e. the validity of such rests entirely on the presumption of legal accuracy in their denial of sovereignty. Hence, if sovereignty is proven-- i.e. if it is conclusively established that the states intended to remain sovereign, rather than cede their sovereignty to the greater Union-- then neither "Civil War" nor amendment can rescind such sovereignty, since such was never the claimed purpose of either one; on the contrary, both were premised entirely on the absence of legal sovereignty. Indeed, anything less than a unanimous amendment, could not rescind the supreme sovereignty of any non-ratifying state(s).

Therefore, I believe that "Civil War" discussion is more than simply academic curiosity, but has definite modern legal implications-- i.e. the states must be as free and sovereign as they ever were.

[ironfoot]

None of your arguments are new. Heck, we have discussed the legality of secession in posts in this forum. Lincoln dealt with the subject in his first inaugural address. Here is part of what he said:

If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13
  Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15
  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

If a state can secede because it does not like the results of a presidential election, then the elections become meaningless, and democratic government ceases.

[BrianMcCandliss]

None of your arguments are new. Heck, we have discussed the legality of secession in posts in this forum.

You think I can't read old posts? I have yet to see any of my arguments addressed therein.
OTOH, you might want to try reading MINE before lauching away.

Lincoln dealt with the subject in his first inaugural address. Here is part of what he said:

If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13

This is preposterous; the Constitution was NEVER a "contract!" An association of "states" cannot be such, for states by their nature are supremely sovereign unto themselves-- while a contract is by nature between members under a single supreme sovereign. Pure legal hogwash.

 Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14

Garbage to the 4th power. He's talking about four completely SEPARATE "unions," not the same union-- despite that they might have involved some of the same people and geographical territories-- the similarity ends there. In 1774 all the colonies existed under the sole reigning sovereign of Great Britain, and hence could have no legal "union" between them, while in 1776 the states declared themselves to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES-- not only from Great Britain, but from each other; they were "united" soley by "mutual pledge," not any legally binding pact or consolidation. (This was later granted by the Paris Peace treaty of 1783).

Likewise under the Articles of Confederation, every state RETAINED its "sovereignty, freedom and independence," while likewise exercising such via SECEDING-- get that word? SECEDING?-- from said union unilaterally-- i.e. each "by its own mere motion," i.e. WITHOUT the permission of any, or  all, the others--  in order to RATIFY the Constitution in 1787. Don't believe me? Read Article VII: it requires only NINE states to ratify the Constitution in order to effect it between THOSE STATES. Now tell me: is 9 less than 13?

Likewise, the phrase "to FORM a more perfect Union" indicates that it's forming a NEW and better union-- not perfecting the existing one.

This is clear from the fact that four states: New York, Rhode Island, Virginia and North Carolina first REFUSED to ratify the Constitution along with the other nine-- the nine who unilaterally SECEDED from the Confederate union in order to form the NEW Union under the Constitution.
More legal hogwash to give lip-service to legality, while in reality mounting a coup through brute force.

 But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15

Perpetuity ended with the Confederate union-- from which every state SECEDED to ratify the CONSTITUTIONAL one-- which carried NO such written notion of being "perpetual."
Lincoln simply applies selective and fabricated history.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

Again, more legal hogwash; it does NOT follow from those views, since they are 100% legally and historically false.

If a state can secede because it does not like the results of a presidential election, then the elections become meaningless, and democratic government ceases.

Elections do NOT become "meaningless--" they simply don't override a state's sovereign ability to protect the rights of its citizens, any more than against a vote by the United Nations.

Likewise, the US is not one big democracy- and it never was. Check out Federalist #39, in which Madison stated-- and I QUOTE:

In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.[Emphases in original]

Again I must repeat: Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

I don't know how Madison could have been  any more clear, that secession thus remained a viable option for every state after ratifying the Constitution-- just as before, as when he advocated that every state secede from the Confederated union formed by the Articles of Confederation.

So it seems that Lincoln was simply making up things as he pleased, in order to ruthlessly mount a coup against the existing order. Ironically, he also had the unmitigated gall to say in the same speech, that "the intent of the lawgiver is the law."

[ironfoot]

"Elections do NOT become "meaningless--" they simply don't override a state's sovereign ability to protect the rights of its citizens, any more than against a vote by the United Nations."

If the loser in an election can veto the election results, elections are meaningless.

Of course the US is a democracy. Democracy can take many legal forms:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:democracy

Arguing the 'legality' of a secession which was intended to preserve slavery is an absurd argument anyway.

[Bush Master]

Ironfoot, the more you post the more I realize that you do not know what you are talking about. Why has Arizona passed a resolution that they will seceed if the federal government passes a gun ban? Do you really think Arizona has passed this law because they know secession is illegal? Anytime you enter into a contract with someone else and they break the contract, you are no longer bound by it legally. This is no different than a state or several states seceeding from the union. If the federal government breaks the Constitution (contract) then the others that entered into it (the states) are no longer bound by it legally. Stating that we are claiming a state can seceed because they don't like the election results is just plain absurd.

[ironfoot]

Bushmaster:
You:
Why has Arizona passed a resolution that they will seceed if the federal government passes a gun ban? Do you really think Arizona has passed this law because they know secession is illegal?

Me:
I am not aware of such a "resolution".
If the Arizona state legislature did pass such a resolution, I suspect they did so to demonstrate how strongly they view the issue. It has no legal effect. They can pass a resolution saying the sky is green, but that doesn't make it so.

You:
"Stating that we are claiming a state can seceed because they don't like the election results is just plain absurd."

Me:
That is what happened. That is how the Civil War started. The core southern slave states seceded when Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery Republican platform. http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030822-085758-4689r.htm

If you have a democracy, and states can secede because they do not like the results of an election, then that democracy is not going to last very long. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

[Bush Master]

Ironfoot, your ignorance is showing again. We are not a democracy, a democracy is one of the very worst types of government ever invented. Democracy is nothing more than a two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Democracy = Mobocracy. We are supposed to be under a representative republic.

Of course the Arizona law means something. If the federal government passes a law banning the private ownership of firearms, Arizona automatically seceeds, period. It is also going to surprise you to learn that Vermont has a large, and growing, secessionist movement going on right now:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/article.html

The question is, of course, what will the feds do if either of these comes to pass?

Again you show your lack of knowledge with the election comment. The problem of northern exploitation had been festering for years before Lincoln even came on the scene. Stating that the war of northern agression started because Lincoln won the election is naive and simplistic at best. Read the Hampton Roads article, that should help open your eyes.

[doc_kreipke]

A sidebar about the term "democracy." I've seen it stated on more than one occasion on this forum, as well as other venues, that the US is not a democracy.

However ...

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

de·moc·ra·cy n., pl. de·moc·ra·cies.
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

Don't like AHD? How about the Gospel According to St. Webster:

1. The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.
2. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
3. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

Thus, the term "democracy," when unadorned with an adjective, is a general term for a majority rule government, without specifying its exact form. Now, if one says that the US is a "direct" or "pure" democracy, then a correction is in order. But when folk call the US a "democracy," they're obviously using the term in accordance with its primary English definition and are entirely justified in doing so.

[ironfoot]

Bush Master

You continue the practice of name calling. Perhaps you can rise above that with some effort.

Do you really want our country to fall apart? Do you really think life would be better for the average American if the country broke apart? What kind of government do you want if you despise democracy? The criticisms of democracy from noted speakers usually conclude with the concession that democracy is still better than anything else.

The quote you gave was incomplete. It should read:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759

My interpretation is that Franklin supported democracy, but also supported the right to bear arms. Do you really want to use that quote in support of your contention that democracy is the worst form of government?

What made you come to hate America? The Sunni insurgency in Iraq ideas seem similar to yours.

By the way, can you provide proof that Arizona passed a secession resolution? The links I read indicate a few oddball legislators tried to get it on the ballot, but I have not found any evidence that they were successful:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002ULQ

There are some who want the southwest US to secede and be a Hispanic majority country. Is that what you are hoping for?

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2006/article/2082

[BrianMcCandliss]

"Elections do NOT become "meaningless--" they simply don't override a state's sovereign ability to protect the rights of its citizens, any more than against a vote by the United Nations."

If the loser in an election can veto the election results, elections are meaningless.

Then by that logic the UAW is meaningless, since anyone who doesn't like the vote can quit the union. Somehow, I don't think the UAW would agree.

Of course the US is a democracy.

Not in a manner that supersedes the supreme sovereignty of any given state-- any more than the UAW can stop a member from quitting.

Arguing the 'legality' of a secession which was intended to preserve slavery is an absurd argument anyway.

Maybe if you studied law in a manure-pile-- because that's exactly what that statement is worth, in OFFICIAL legal terms.
A sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its own sovereign boundaries-- however you likewise insist on proving your own ignorance by continuing to ignore my PROOFS that the Civil War had NOTHING to do with stopping slavery.

The reason the Civil War was fought, this is NOT the same issue as the reason why the states seceded! The states had no desire for aggression toward the Union-- and offered none; the Civil War was fought simply because the Union denied the states' rights to secede- -not their right to own slaves! This, the Union did not deny, but AFFIRMED!
To wit from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

...no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
...
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In other words, Lincoln
In contrast, the seceding states offered no violence against the remaining states-- except in defense of their rightful sovereignty.

You can keep on banging your head against that brick wall of reality-- but your head will suffer 'cuz the wall is tougher. But I have no time for fools who are not merely ignorant, but in sheer psychotic denial of irrefutable facts.

Do you really want our country to fall apart? Do you really think life would be better for the average American if the country broke apart? What kind of government do you want if you despise democracy? The criticisms of democracy from noted speakers usually conclude with the concession that democracy is still better than anything else.

Prove that there is a "country" called "America;" cite your sources.
Likewise, prove that such has any legal authority to hold this "country" together by force. I sure can't find any-- and I've been trying for years.

As for democracy, wasn't that premised on a fundamental doctrine of supremely unalienable rights endowed all men, which governments are simply established to secure-- and which "democracy" was simply the means by which said governments derived their just powers "by consent of the governed--" with the like caveat that whenever said governments became destructive to these rights, it was likewise the right of the people to alter or abolish them?

Likewise, didn't the same document enumerating such, likewise declare each state to be supremely free and independent, severed from any political ties to Great Britain-- or, implicitly by omission, from all political ties to each other, since no other official legal ties existed other than to Great Britain-- or were included in said declaration?
And wasn't this freedom, sovereignty and independence specifically retained by each state in the Articles of Confederation of 1781-- and recognized internationally to each state by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783?
And finally, didn't each state ratify the Constitution with the express intent promised Federalist 39, whereby Madison assured each state repeatedly that "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution"?

Convenient little selective-logic system you have there, insisting that democracy implies unlimited submission to the mass-majority-- while you're playing fast-and-loose with the rest, ignoring the part that fails to support your collectivist sentiments.
Had enough, or do you want more?

[ironfoot]

"Elections do NOT become "meaningless--" they simply don't override a state's sovereign ability to protect the rights of its citizens, any more than against a vote by the United Nations."

If the loser in an election can veto the election results, elections are meaningless.

Then by that logic the UAW is meaningless, since anyone who doesn't like the vote can quit the union. Somehow, I don't think the UAW would agree.

Unions require members to abide by union votes!

Of course the US is a democracy.

Not in a manner that supersedes the supreme sovereignty of any given state-- any more than the UAW can stop a member from quitting.

When a union member quits, he doesn't get to retain possession of part of the plant. He has to leave. (Why don't you leave?)

Arguing the 'legality' of a secession which was intended to preserve slavery is an absurd argument anyway.

Maybe if you studied law in a manure-pile-- because that's exactly what that statement is worth, in OFFICIAL legal terms.
A sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its own sovereign boundaries-- however you likewise insist on proving your own ignorance by continuing to ignore my PROOFS that the Civil War had NOTHING to do with stopping slavery.

What are your academic credentials?

Of course the Civil War was about slavery. You ignore my proofs.

The reason the Civil War was fought, this is NOT the same issue as the reason why the states seceded! The states had no desire for aggression toward the Union-- and offered none; the Civil War was fought simply because the Union denied the states' rights to secede- -not their right to own slaves! This, the Union did not deny, but AFFIRMED!
To wit from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

The South seceded in an effort to preserve slavery. Lincoln set it all out in his Coopers union speech. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

...no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
...
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In other words, Lincoln
In contrast, the seceding states offered no violence against the remaining states-- except in defense of their rightful sovereignty.

Their "right" to enslave people.

You can keep on banging your head against that brick wall of reality-- but your head will suffer 'cuz the wall is tougher. But I have no time for fools who are not merely ignorant, but in sheer psychotic denial of irrefutable facts.

More people agree with my interpretation of history than yours.

Do you really want our country to fall apart? Do you really think life would be better for the average American if the country broke apart? What kind of government do you want if you despise democracy? The criticisms of democracy from noted speakers usually conclude with the concession that democracy is still better than anything else.

Prove that there is a "country" called "America;" cite your sources.
Likewise, prove that such has any legal authority to hold this "country" together by force. I sure can't find any-- and I've been trying for years.

Do you or do you not consider yourself an American?

As for democracy, wasn't that premised on a fundamental doctrine of supremely unalienable rights endowed all men, which governments are simply established to secure-- and which "democracy" was simply the means by which said governments derived their just powers "by consent of the governed--" with the like caveat that whenever said governments became destructive to these rights, it was likewise the right of the people to alter or abolish them?

Likewise, didn't the same document enumerating such, likewise declare each state to be supremely free and independent, severed from any political ties to Great Britain-- or, implicitly by omission, from all political ties to each other, since no other official legal ties existed other than to Great Britain-- or were included in said declaration?
And wasn't this freedom, sovereignty and independence specifically retained by each state in the Articles of Confederation of 1781-- and recognized internationally to each state by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783?
And finally, didn't each state ratify the Constitution with the express intent promised Federalist 39, whereby Madison assured each state repeatedly that "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution"?

Convenient little selective-logic system you have there, insisting that democracy implies unlimited submission to the mass-majority-- while you're playing fast-and-loose with the rest, ignoring the part that fails to support your collectivist sentiments.
Had enough, or do you want more?

The alternative is minority rule? Fine, your family can be slaves this time around!

Arguing with you must be like arguing with Osama Bin Laden.

[BrianMcCandliss]

"Elections do NOT become "meaningless--" they simply don't override a state's sovereign ability to protect the rights of its citizens, any more than against a vote by the United Nations."

If the loser in an election can veto the election results, elections are meaningless.

Then by that logic the UAW is meaningless, since anyone who doesn't like the vote can quit the union. Somehow, I don't think the UAW would agree.

Unions require members to abide by union votes!

Not by force, last time I checked-- at least not legally. The most that a union can do to coerce compliance, is threaten the person with expulsion.

Of course the US is a democracy.

Not in a manner that supersedes the supreme sovereignty of any given state-- any more than the UAW can stop a member from quitting.

When a union member quits, he doesn't get to retain possession of part of the plant. He has to leave. (Why don't you leave?)

US Constitution, Article IV, section 3, clause 2: Nothing in the Constitution may be construed to deny or disparage the territorial claims of any state.
Haven't you even READ what you're arguing? You don't seem to have a clue about what you're arguing.

Arguing the 'legality' of a secession which was intended to preserve slavery is an absurd argument anyway.

Maybe if you studied law in a manure-pile-- because that's exactly what that statement is worth, in OFFICIAL legal terms.
A sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its own sovereign boundaries-- however you likewise insist on proving your own ignorance by continuing to ignore my PROOFS that the Civil War had NOTHING to do with stopping slavery.

What are your academic credentials?

Logical error: Appeal to authority. Suffice it to say that I know what I'm talking about with regard to the law.

Of course the Civil War was about slavery. You ignore my proofs.

The reason the Civil War was fought, this is NOT the same issue as the reason why the states seceded! The states had no desire for aggression toward the Union-- and offered none; the Civil War was fought simply because the Union denied the states' rights to secede- -not their right to own slaves! This, the Union did not deny, but AFFIRMED!
To wit from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

The South seceded in an effort to preserve slavery. Lincoln set it all out in his Coopers union speech.

Again, ASSUMING this to be true, how did this authorize Lincoln to ATTACK? And I've made it clear, that Lincoln claimed that he had NO authority to PREVENT slavery!
So I don't see how your brain keeps figuring any truth to this claim.
A war, requires an attack, and a defense. Lincoln attacked, the South defended.
I guess you just don't understand the difference between secession and wer.

...no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
...
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In other words, Lincoln
In contrast, the seceding states offered no violence against the remaining states-- except in defense of their rightful sovereignty.

Their "right" to enslave people.

No, their right to govern themselves-- as opposed to being governed by the Union. Whether or not you like it, is irrelevant-- I refuse to recognize your fitness to judge the law. That's up to the people, and their supreme creator-- and you're neither.

You can keep on banging your head against that brick wall of reality-- but your head will suffer 'cuz the wall is tougher. But I have no time for fools who are not merely ignorant, but in sheer psychotic denial of irrefutable facts.

More people agree with my interpretation of history than yours.

Logical error: appeal to popularity. I've PROVEN you wrong-- so if you keep believing you're right, you must be insane.

As for democracy, wasn't that premised on a fundamental doctrine of supremely unalienable rights endowed all men, which governments are simply established to secure-- and which "democracy" was simply the means by which said governments derived their just powers "by consent of the governed--" with the like caveat that whenever said governments became destructive to these rights, it was likewise the right of the people to alter or abolish them?

Likewise, didn't the same document enumerating such, likewise declare each state to be supremely free and independent, severed from any political ties to Great Britain-- or, implicitly by omission, from all political ties to each other, since no other official legal ties existed other than to Great Britain-- or were included in said declaration?
And wasn't this freedom, sovereignty and independence specifically retained by each state in the Articles of Confederation of 1781-- and recognized internationally to each state by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783?
And finally, didn't each state ratify the Constitution with the express intent promised Federalist 39, whereby Madison assured each state repeatedly that "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution"?

Convenient little selective-logic system you have there, insisting that democracy implies unlimited submission to the mass-majority-- while you're playing fast-and-loose with the rest, ignoring the part that fails to support your collectivist sentiments.
Had enough, or do you want more?

The alternative is minority rule? Fine, your family can be slaves this time around![/quote]

No, the alternative is the system everybody AGREED to under the Constitution: that every state is sovereign, bound by it own voluntary act.

We're ALL slaves under the current ILLEGAL system of centralized nationalism. Do you really think we need this mass-government just to keep people at home from robbing and murdering one another? Or rather to exploit and CONTROL them?
At least TRY and get a clue.

Arguing with you must be like arguing with Osama Bin Laden.

I was just wondering how long it would be before you said something extreme like that. In reality, if we had followed the Constitution there wouldn't BE a Bin Laden... or a Hitler, or communism. This all came about because of Lincoln and the Civil War.

[Graybeard]

Still here Brian, twice in fact.

[ironfoot]

"In reality, if we had followed the Constitution there wouldn't BE a Bin Laden... or a Hitler, or communism. This all came about because of Lincoln and the Civil War."

Sounds like more "blame America first" rhetoric.
Bin Laden's terrorism should be blamed on Bin Laden.
(Or blamed on Mohammed, who set the example of spreading Islam at the point of a sword.)
The evils committed by Hitler and the Nazis should be blamed on Hitler and his Nazis.
The evils of communism should be blamed on Stalin and his contemporaries who took the ideas of Karl Marx and employed them for supporting totalitarian states.
One can speculate on "what if's" about history.
But the only history we can be sure of, is what actually happened.
What actually happened, is that slavery was widespread in America before the civil war, and was eliminated as a result of the civil war.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Jeez, put away your fife and drum, will you?
For someone who discredits speculation, you certainly do a LOT of it-- even coming to the absurd conclusion that slavery would have lasted much longer if the states had been left to secede peacefully. (Obviously you never studied economics).

And explain how 95% of the slavery in the western hemisphere alone, was OUTSIDE of America-- and yet it ALL ended WITHOUT Civil War? And race-relations in these countries are ALL better there, than in the US, if "freeing the slaves" was such a great and noble gesture?
And I have YET to hear you address pre-war Yankee racism, compared to southern integration... and I won't hold my breath, since you're clue-challenged there as well.

In reality, the Civil War enslaved EVERYONE; the first thing done, was to draft people, imprison them without trial, and set all sorts of other nifty little precedents which were later used to get the US into WWI and WWII in the name of "national security" (as well as impose the income tax, national bank, New Deal, and otherwise grow the government to critical mass).

Likewise, it illegally conquered the soveriegn states, leading to mass-corruption.
It's irrational to think that mass-government is going to "save" anyone from anything-- Lenin called such people "useful idiots" who believed that.
And that's a direct quote from HIM.

You REALLY need to learn some history-- beyond the 6th grade.

[Bush Master]

Doc, you need to go back and re-read US history and the Constitution, we have a republic, Ben Franklin replied as such when asked what kind of government did they give us. The United States is not a democracy by any definition, it is (or is supposed to be a representative republic) so your side bar is meaningless. If you will recall, the only people who were supposed to vote were male land owners. If you will recall, senators were supposed to be elected by the state representatives, not popular vote.  

Ironfoot, were you get the absurd idea I am a Sunni or hate this country is just out of left field, again proving my opinion of you is correct. I do not like what our government has become, we have gone from a republic to a socialist democracy in the short span of 100 years or less. If you can sit back and accept what this country has become since your beloved War of Norhtern Aggression, then it is you who has the problem with freedom, individual liberty and common law. The founders set out to preserve liberty for themselves and their posterity and if you even attempt to argue that this country still bears any resemblance to that ideal, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

What is my answer? That's easy, abolish government at all levels. Everything that government does can be done better and cheaper by private citizens. I don't need a federal "Massa" (a jack booted thug with a gun) looking over my shoulder 24/7, or a state one for that matter. I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself and I don't need a nanny.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Doc, you need to go back and re-read US history and the Constitution, we have a republic, Ben Franklin replied as such when asked what kind of government did they give us. The United States is not a democracy by any definition, it is (or is supposed to be a representative republic) so your side bar is meaningless. If you will recall, the only people who were supposed to vote were male land owners. If you will recall, senators were supposed to be elected by the state representatives, not popular vote.  

Ironfoot, were you get the absurd idea I am a Sunni or hate this country is just out of left field, again proving my opinion of you is correct. I do not like what our government has become, we have gone from a republic to a socialist democracy in the short span of 100 years or less. If you can sit back and accept what this country has become since your beloved War of Norhtern Aggression, then it is you who has the problem with freedom, individual liberty and common law. The founders set out to preserve liberty for themselves and their posterity and if you even attempt to argue that this country still bears any resemblance to that ideal, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

What is my answer? That's easy, abolish government at all levels. Everything that government does can be done better and cheaper by private citizens. I don't need a federal "Massa" (a jack booted thug with a gun) looking over my shoulder 24/7, or a state one for that matter. I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself and I don't need a nanny.

 I'm simply proposing that the true meaning of the written law be enforced. If people of a state want to change it, that's their affair; however until then, there's really no choice but that the law be enforced as written.

The only alternative, is to declare a moratorium on truth, and favor totalitarian dictatorship-- like we have now, except we LIE about it.

The notion that the US is a "country," is somewhat ambiguous depending on the meaning of the term; if it is used to mean "nation," then it is absolutely FALSE; however if it's simply descriptive poetic of the land in general, then one must be careful to reserve that the states themselves are sovereign nations under the law-- not the US as a whole, which was preserved only under false pretenses of nationhood (ala the USSR not long afterward-- courtesy of the Civil War).

As for going from a republic to a socialist dictatorship-- an EMPIRE, techncially-- that happened in less than 100 years- the US was only a republic under the Constitution (prior to which it was a confederation, and before that only a union of mutual pledge),  and so the period of 1787-1865 was a scant 77 years at most (since some states did not ratify until 1789).

[Bush Master]

Brian I agree with you completely. I only said 100 years or less as people vary as to where the cut off was from republic to socialist democracy (empire). Some, like you and me, say Civil War. Others say the ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution before Washington and others started violating it. Washington with his Whiskey Rebellion, Jefferson with the Louisiana purchase, etc. Others will say Woodrow Wilson really did us in and set the stage for FDR and the rest. Some will say it was FDR and on and on.

I used the term country as I recognize the fact that the US is not a nation, but a collection of several sovereign states.

[BrianMcCandliss]

But the key issue, of course, is sovereignty; if sovereign states remain in a union, it's by CHOICE; however once they are denied this choice, they are prisoners of an evil empire.

THIS enabled Chase, Grant, Wilson, FDR etc. to act as they did, in defiance of the will of the people of the various states-- and even duplicity against them.

If the states had been allowed to seceded peacefully, none of that would have been possible, since they'd always have that absolute trump-card which would have ensured a decentralized relationship among the states.

[victorcharlie]

Brian I agree with you completely. I only said 100 years or less as people vary as to where the cut off was from republic to socialist democracy (empire). Some, like you and me, say Civil War. Others say the ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution before Washington and others started violating it. Washington with his Whiskey Rebellion, Jefferson with the Louisiana purchase, etc. Others will say Woodrow Wilson really did us in and set the stage for FDR and the rest. Some will say it was FDR and on and on.

I used the term country as I recognize the fact that the US is not a nation, but a collection of several sovereign states.

I would be one who believes the ink wasn't dry.  Hamilton and the department of the Tresury issuing notes from a central bank.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Actually, no central bank truly existed prior to the Civil War; indeed, I was about to include that it was the Federal Reserve Bank and System which caused the Great Depression-- just like centralized bank created by Salmon P. Chase caused the panics before it that were used to RATIONALIZE the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Naturally, the Great Depression, caused by government irresponsibility, only led to an EXPANSION of government power; an empire is the only entity which grows stronger with incompetence.

[victorcharlie]

Ok....maybe not a cental bank but.........

Bank of the United States
name for two national banks established by the U.S. Congress to serve as government fiscal agents and as depositories for federal funds; the first bank was in existence from 1791 to 1811 and the second from 1816 to 1836.

The First Bank

The first bank was established under the auspices of the Federalists as part of the system proposed by Alexander Hamilton to establish the new government on a sound economic basis. Congress approved a charter for the bank despite the argument that the Constitution did not give Congress power to establish a central bank and the charge that the bank was designed to favor mercantile over agrarian interests.

The bank had a head office in Philadelphia and branches in eight other cities. The government subscribed one fifth of the capital of $10 million, but a loan of $2 million was immediately made to the government. In addition to acting as a fiscal agent for the government, the bank conducted a general commercial business.

It was well managed and paid good dividends, but its conservative policies and its restraining influence on state banks, through its refusal to accept state bank notes not redeemable in specie, antagonized more exuberant business elements, especially in the West. These interests combined with agrarian opponents of the bank to defeat its rechartering, despite the support given the bank by the Madison administration. The bank concluded its affairs and repaid its shareholders.

The Second Bank

Financing the War of 1812 proved difficult because of the lack of a central bank, and by the end of the war the financial system of the country was in chaos. Enough support was forthcoming in Congress and a new bank was chartered for 20 years. The second bank, capitalized at $35 million, operated much as did the first one, 25 branches being established.

After an initial period of difficulty during the presidency (1816—19) of William Jones, the bank was placed on a sound basis by Langdon Cheves (1819—22). It became especially prosperous under the management of Nicholas Biddle, but was criticized by state banks and frontiersmen on the grounds that it was too powerful and that it operated in the interests of the commercial classes of the East.

Opponents of the bank came into power with the election (1828) of Andrew Jackson. Although the bank's charter did not expire until 1836, Henry Clay persuaded Biddle to apply to Congress for a renewal in 1832. President Jackson vetoed the bill for its recharter, and the bank became a leading issue in his fight for reelection against Clay. Interpreting his victory at the polls as an expression of popular will on the subject, Jackson did not wait for the expiration of the bank's charter but began in 1833, through his new Secretary of the Treasury Roger B. Taney, to deposit government moneys in state banks, referred to by his opponents as "pet banks." Under Martin Van Buren's administration the Independent Treasury System was established to handle the government's funds.

[BrianMcCandliss]

But this didn't control, insure or subsidize private banks, or control the ecoonomy.

When this happened, the corruption really started-- leading to increasing federal involvement, and eventually leading up to the formation of the Federal Reserve System--- the economic "Tower of Babel" that caused  the Great Depression.

However the Civil War was the turning-point in this debacle, since the states lost their power of final say over their self-government; as a result, the federal government gained total power-- and zero accountability.

Therefore they responded to their own screw-ups-- often caused by private corporate banks sacking the economy for their own benefit-- with increased regulations, which only furthered the cycle.

Now we have the entire economy at the mercy of one un-elected idiot at the chair of the Federal Reserve.

As Murray Rothbard details here, the Civil War was the commencement of this:

When the new Lincoln Administration took over in 1861, the Cookes lobbied hard to secure Chase the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury. That lobbying, plus the then enormous sum of $100,000 that Jay Cooke poured into Chase’s political coffers, induced Chase to return the favor by granting Cooke, newly set up as an investment banker, an enormously lucrative monopoly in underwriting the entire federal debt.

Cooke and Chase then managed to use the virtual Republican monopoly in Congress during the war to transform the American commercial banking system from a relatively free market to a National Banking System centralized by the federal government under Wall Street control. A crucial aspect of that system was that national banks could only expand credit in proportion to the federal bonds they owned – bonds which they were forced to buy from Jay Cooke.

Jay Cooke & Co. proved enormously influential in the post-war Republican administrations, which continued their monopoly in under-writing government bonds. The House of Cooke met its well-deserved fate by going bankrupt in the Panic of 1874, a failure helped along by its great rival, the then Philadelphia-based Drexel, Morgan & Co.

Without the Republican takeover of the Union into a corporate empire, none of this would have been possible-- in fact, most of the major US and global disasters would not have.  It's not hard to connect the dots.

[victorcharlie]

Now we have the entire economy at the mercy of one un-elected idiot at the chair of the Federal Reserve.

Never a truer statement made........The most powerful man in the world in my opinion.

[BrianMcCandliss]

The point is that there is absolutely no excuse for the EXISTENCE of a "Federal Reserve Banking System;" state-control of the economy is nothing but high-tech slavery, since people have every right to control their OWN finances, setting their OWN rates of interest and likewise insuring them PRIVATELY.

Not only did the Federal Reserve-- established in order to END market cycles and bank-panics-- CAUSE the Great Depression and market-cycles by trying to PREVENT them (with no accountability, naturally-- ala Sovereign Immunity, i.e. "the king can do no wrong"), but the mass-regulation ever since, has both created an elite monopoly-empire in the banking and finance industry. Now only the licensed mercantiles can compete in these industries, paying proper fees and tribute to the ruling elite; likewise, the mass-regulation destroys any chance of competition between service-providers.

This goes for both banking and securities-exhanges; in a free market, all such activity would be handled on-line, lending funds and exhanging securities on a first-come, first-serve basis as mutually-acceptable prices.

This would naturally reflect the simple supply-and-demand for these market-instruments (i.e. cash, stocks, bonds, insurance etc), just like anything else in the marketplace.

However our corporate-statist empire has firmly established control over any such notions of free trade in the name of paternalism and public safety; however the reality is that it's a definite eco-political PATTERN of gradual bureacratic expansion-- characteristic of ANY centralized, all-powerful bureacracy to grow like choke-weed into every facet of a civilization (ala "Parkinson's law") and reduce it to subsistence level (since a parasite never kills its host) .

The banking industry gradually expanded since the Civil War (beginning DURING the Civil war via the 1863  "Banking Act" accomplished by the work of one Salmon P. Chase, for which the Chase Bank was named after him in his honor), acquiring increasingly more power and regulation over free trade in the money-market; basically, interest rates are just the cost of borrowing money, and are based on the supply of loanable funds vs. the demand. This is, naturally, inversely proportionate to the discounted value of the loans in producing revenue by the borrower vs. the lender.

Whent the government interferes in this price-information system, it naturally results in economic losses, since optimum productivity requires both 1) the free flow of information via the echange of products and price-information, and 2) absence of taxation, fees and other barriers such as unnecessary regulations (bureacracy).

This all dates back to the Civil War; without the competition between states provided by a de-centralized government, there is simply no limit to the level of such bureaucracy, as our current system shows since the Civil War. Which is not surprising, given the above statement regarding unlimited bureaucracy-- it's simply a "pattern of force," like any other physical law.

[Bush Master]

If you want to have some fun, and see just how badly we've been taken to the cleaners by the fed, find an inflation calculator like this one:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

You will see that the dollar held its value from 1800 until the creation of the federal reserve in 1913. After that it is all downhill, epsecially if you start at 1929 and go forward. What this clearly illustrates is yet more stolen treasure transferred from the citizens to the government in the form of devaluation of the money supply. For a startling example, what cost a dollar in 1800 would cost you 0.49c in 1900, a growth in the value of your dollar. However, if we change it to compare a dollar in 1900 to today, what cost you a dollar in 1900 would cost you $22.16 in 2005. Call 9-1-1, we've been robbed!

[El Confederado]

Well my turn. First let me say that my family has fought in every war this nation has had since in was a nation, myself being one of my family that has served.Now that that has benn said,when a nation has become so corupt or the government has got so out of touch, why not call for it to be parted out?Would I fight against the United States for a enemy power, hell no. Would I fight the United States if it became an enemy to it's people, hell yes.The United States is nothing more than a collection of like minded "states", once the centeral government has perverted the ideas of the founding fathers to oppress the common American, it becomes the enemy. Is that simple enough?My family, my county, my state, in that order. I owe no oath to any single government, I owe it to the People and the Constitution, period

[victorcharlie]

The federal government now has 88 agencies that have authority to make law, set fines an dole out punishment as well as making policy and performing other administrative functions.

So,  a federal agency has legistative, judicial, and executive powers.  I see this as a fourth branch of government assuming powers of the other 3 and is not based on the constitution.

Doesn't this upset the balance of power as defined by the Madison debates and the Federalist papers?  Under what authority do government agencies operate?  Illegal in my mind......

[victorcharlie]

If you want to have some fun, and see just how badly we've been taken to the cleaners by the fed, find an inflation calculator like this one:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

You will see that the dollar held its value from 1800 until the creation of the federal reserve in 1913. After that it is all downhill, epsecially if you start at 1929 and go forward. What this clearly illustrates is yet more stolen treasure transferred from the citizens to the government in the form of devaluation of the money supply. For a startling example, what cost a dollar in 1800 would cost you 0.49c in 1900, a growth in the value of your dollar. However, if we change it to compare a dollar in 1900 to today, what cost you a dollar in 1900 would cost you $22.16 in 2005. Call 9-1-1, we've been robbed!

The federal deficit is now very near 9 trillion dollars.  9 and 12 zeros.  The current cost of the war in Iraq is near 400 billion.  The federal debt for every man woman and child in ameica is said to be near $30,000 each.  Congratulations, the federal goverment has assumed the equivelent to a new car loan for all of us.  The problem is, a lot of americans don't make $30,000 a year so where do you think the money to pay this debt will come from?

Mr. Bush and his republicans and Mr. Dean and his democrats have raised the deficit 4 out of the last five years.  The size of the federal government has grown much, much larger during the Bush years.  Disappointing to say the least.  

Who owns the debt america owes?  Think this debt might have some influence on the Uninted States foriegn policy?  

The borrower is always the slave to the lender.

[El Confederado]

VictorCharlie,

You know the part I realy love? The fact that the national debt is money WE owe ourselves. How in the hell can one owe himself money, that is just stupid. What we have here is a systen that has run amuck and now uses the people to fund their little prt projects. The Republicrats and the Demoians are one in the same, marching us all to slavery just one is trying it quicker than the other.Thanks Mr Lincoln, you jack horse.Mr Boothe you acted too late pard, but thanks for tryin. :twisted: