Fuck Ron Paul

[publius]

I do not doubt this revision of Reconstruction arms some sections of the Right at all. Left and Right have this moment in history as their foundation. And it actually is the case that the South was a defeated and conquered country for several generations, possibly until LBJ gave them NASA. Henry Miller remarks on the South in his tour across America in the 1940's. Other writers have as well. Miller though brings it forward in Remember to Remember, where he remarks somewhere about the 80 years the South has been feeling the control of the Northern victory.

The point simply is that Ron Paul appeals to atavism knowing full well it is propaganda, rhetoric, you can't go home again. The question going forward is what type of Federalism best fits a free people who purportedly have a free nation of laws and no man above the law.

Is it the super Federalism of a NAFTA and GATT and North American Union and the War on Terror? Is it instead a radically de-centered Bio-Regional Federalism?

Where is the political Ed Abbey?

[NeonLX]

[JackRiddler]

(never mind, you fixed it)

[Elihu]

The point simply is that Ron Paul appeals to atavism knowing full well it is propaganda, rhetoric, you can't go home again.

why not? the accrual of absolute power in the 10 square mile corporate headquarters of DC was incomplete in 1871. it's obvious the process continued with the heavy body blows to the "organic" constitution occuring with the 16th & 17th amendments and the federal reserve act, all in 1913 on the eve of world war. and perhaps the coup-de-grace with the 1933 gold confiscation.

The question going forward is what type of Federalism best fits a free people

seeing we've already been subjugated, this sounds like marketing talk. where are you headed with this?

Is it instead a radically de-centered Bio-Regional Federalism?

see original "organic" constitution, imho...

[barracuda]

if you know what i mean.

I know exactly what you mean. I guess there's a school of thought that grants the pre-reconstruction United States an exemplar status in terms of the proper functioning of republican governance. I don't happen to be a member of that school, myself. The "old nation" sucked eggs as badly as this one, if you have to make a distinction between the two. All this concentration on maritime law, the second constitution, personal sovereignty, and CAPITAL LETTERS is roughly 99% concerned with the negation of manumission, at least that's how it plays out in the real world. The other 1% of it is an interesting historical side note. Which is to say that it's fine to take an interest in the subject, but like most subjects you should attempt to be aware of the subtext it carries and the historical background of its genesis. Believe me, there are plenty of people in Georgia still holding an abiding grudge against William Tecumseh Sherman.

The question going forward is what type of Federalism best fits a free people who purportedly have a free nation of laws and no man above the law.

Is it the super Federalism of a NAFTA and GATT and North American Union and the War on Terror? Is it instead a radically de-centered Bio-Regional Federalism?

This is one of the problems within the Constitution as it is framed: there is no mechanism to dilute or supercede the power of the largely identical super-parties which have come to dominate national politics. The very existence of this issue, lack of real representative choice, demonstrates the flawed character of the founding document.

[publius]

I agree the Foundation was rotten. However where the division arises in our contemprary moment is the Civil War rise of the Federal State.

[Elihu]

I guess there's a school of thought that grants the pre-reconstruction United States an exemplar status in terms of the proper functioning of republican governance. I don't happen to be a member of that school, myself. The "old nation" sucked eggs as badly as this one, if you have to make a distinction between the two.

there is alot of accusation that paul supporters want to take us back to the pre-reconstruction US. I don't happen to be a member of that school, myself. i always thought that the civil war was fought because of the un-tenable position of a nation founded upon the notion of "all men are created equal." well, does all mean all, or not?

Believe me, there are plenty of people in Georgia still holding an abiding grudge against William Tecumseh Sherman.

i don't doubt it. what constitution (or tyrannical force, or marketing persuasion) could ever cure the feelings in people's hearts? the baseline is to extend the law's protection to all equally. btw, it's degrading to relate racist phenomena in geographical terms. as if there's no air up north.

This is one of the problems within the Constitution as it is framed: there is no mechanism to dilute or supercede the power of the largely identical super-parties which have come to dominate national politics.

on the contrary. as i understand the odious amendments, senators used to come from state legislatures and could be recalled at any time. the house was the people's representation and the senate was each state's representation. by making senators popularly elected, the influence of non-geographic political parties expands over all politics. aside from pork there are no local issues. all issues become national issues. ever sit in front of your set on election day hoping and praying that a demo or repub wins some key election in some random state? now is it far-fetched that a madison ave ad agency could take over the whole country?

[eyeno]

barracuda wrote:

All this concentration on maritime law, the second constitution, personal sovereignty, and CAPITAL LETTERS is roughly 99% concerned with the negation of manumission, at least that's how it plays out in the real world.

That is an interesting take on the subject but I am not seeing what you are seeing. I probably have not studied every nuance of the movement but I did look into it in an effort to learn what it was all about. It appeared to me that the throwing off of the shackles of the federal government, attempting to use some form of what they consider legal means, is the goal. Negation of manumission is something that never entered my mind as I studied the movement. What is your angle on this? How are you seeing negation of manumission as a goal or outcome?

[barracuda]

i always thought that the civil war was fought because of the un-tenable position of a nation founded upon the notion of "all men are created equal." well, does all mean all, or not?

That's odd, I always thought the civil war was fought for economic reasons having to do with irreconcilable conflicts between the respective production requirements of the agrarian south and the industrialised north. Alternatively or concurrently, to "preserve the union", so-called.

btw, it's degrading to relate racist phenomena in geographical terms. as if there's no air up north.

People in Georgia don't hate Sherman because they're racists, they hate him because he killed all their families and burned their civilization to the ground. They may, as an adjunct, be racists, but it's not a requirement for hating Sherman.

on the contrary. as i understand the odious amendments, senators used to come from state legislatures and could be recalled at any time. the house was the people's representation and the senate was each state's representation. by making senators popularly elected, the influence of non-geographic political parties expands over all politics.

No. The mechanism of state legislatures electing senators failed precisely because divergent and independant political parties within these legislatures became increasingly unable to reach agreement on candidates for the Senate, until in the 1850's certain senatorial seats were impossible to fill due to lack of compromise. An outcome unforseen by the founders.

ever sit in front of your set on election day hoping and praying that a demo or repub wins some key election in some random state?

No.

That is an interesting take on the subject but I am not seeing what you are seeing. I probably have not studied every nuance of the movement but I did look into it in an effort to learn what it was all about. It appeared to me that the throwing off of the shackles of the federal government, attempting to use some form of what they consider legal means, is the goal. Negation of manumission is something that never entered my mind as I studied the movement. What is your angle this?

We had a seven page thread about most of these issues here in which you were a participant. My angle is pretty much spelled out there.

[JackRiddler]

i always thought that the civil war was fought because of the un-tenable position of a nation founded upon the notion of "all men are created equal." well, does all mean all, or not?

That's odd, I always thought the civil war was fought for economic reasons having to do with irreconcilable conflicts between the respective production requirements of the agrarian south and the industrialised north. Alternatively or concurrently, to "preserve the union", so-called.

And yet a look at the years directly preceding the Civil War to me show it was fought over slavery: not to end slavery in the South, but because slavery and its consequences were not and could never have been limited to the South. Struggles over which if any of the Western territories would become slave states were increasingly violent, with a miniature civil war breaking out in Kansas Territory. Preserving slavery in the South required northerners to enforce the Southern slave code. Slavery in the South meant accommodating slavery everywhere. That was the context in which northerners elected an anti-slavery (if not exactly abolitionist) president, prompting the South to secede. If the southern states had been left to secede - and who knows that they wouldn't have been, had they not begun attacking federal forts? - the war would have followed regardless, as neither side would have surrendered the West. A war for the West alone was impossible, it necessarily meant full-scale war for supremacy on all fronts. The Confederacy would have surely also looked to invade Cuba, Mexico and Central America, as had long been the southern ambition. It's fantasy to think this constellation would not have inevitably meant war - for territory, the most old-fashioned reason of all.

b, the conflicts between economic systems that you highlight in themselves need not have caused a war. Both sides needed desperately to grow, as an economic imperative. Given enough time, industrial North would have overwhelmed the slave-plantation South in any scenario. The actual war started because of secession, and secession was chosen because Lincoln was elected.

As for publius's thought-provoking posts, I submit "the machine" was always on the way - the industrial revolutions were international (forcing an international race to industrialize among the imperialist powers) and in brought up similar conflicts in all nations where they occurred, both between classes under capitalism, and by pitting the demands of efficiency, standardization and rationalization against any aspect of the human spirit that is contrary. But for me the key moment when "the machine" dynamics became irreversible through politics came not in the Civil War but by the compromise to end Reconstruction in 1877, which unleashed the industrialists in the North as it restored full power to racists in the South. And yet, while both the Civil War and the conflict of 1877 were essential events in the development, I tend usually not to think there was a great, identifiable moment of transition or an actual re-founding of the republic in the road from what in retrospect we can classify as the pre-Civil War and modern federal US. Or maybe you can actually point to the agreement or charter that made it so?

.

[Elihu]

That's odd, I always thought the civil war was fought for economic reasons having to do with irreconcilable conflicts between the respective production requirements of the agrarian south and the industrialised north. Alternatively or concurrently, to "preserve the union", so-called.

interesting tangent. enigmatic conflict for sure but the knock on conclusion is that the production requirements were resolved in favor of the industrialized north. i can't see how the north (given that the average northern soldier was not an "industrialist" but average joes and farmboys themselves) could have been persuaded to fight for these unspecified ends. or that they fought on behalf of "industrialists". regardless emancipation was the result which takes us back to the point. the outcome put the nation at the crossroads of being able to move the constituion forward. to realize the words it contained for all. it was father abraham's time to put up or shut up. like washington at the conclusion of the revolutionary war. unfortunately he was murdered and we'll never know. for me that's strong evidence that there was invisible agitation behind the war and reconstruction under him would have been completely different. "with malice toward none and charity toward all" or something like that. anyway, i guess it's this aborted future for the newly forged union under the constitution that some of us feel is a reasonable way forward (or backward in this case). it's not inconsistent with an understanding of modern economics. again, an honest money standard for example is not to regress society into different un-equal classes as some slander the idea. WE'VE GOT THAT NOW, hello. not the gold standard of the antebellum past but the honest civics of the future where wanton duplicitous racist war would not be so easy to prosecute.

People in Georgia don't hate Sherman because they're racists, they hate him because he killed all their families and burned their civilization to the ground. They may, as an adjunct, be racists, but it's not a requirement for hating Sherman.

touche'

No. The mechanism of state legislatures electing senators failed precisely because divergent and independant political parties within these legislatures became increasingly unable to reach agreement on candidates for the Senate, until in the 1850's certain senatorial seats were impossible to fill due to lack of compromise. An outcome unforseen by the founders.

i am a product of government schools. i shamefully admit my ignorance of this history. we were informed that it was an "enlightened" democratic change. i'm suspicious. at least they got the amendment. i bet it was of the congressionally initiated sort. but i wonder was the remedy an improvement? changing the spirit of the constitution because they couldn't fill some seats? it stinks. i retain my point.

[publius]

Yes the Civil War is quite over-determined.

You have arguments over Federal power and money. Di Lorenzo writes on this aspect of the Civll War. Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln’s official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, "Protection for Home Industry." (That is, high tariff rates to "protect home industry" from international competition). In a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("Steeltown, U.S.A."), a hotbed of protectionist sentiment, Lincoln announced that no other issue was as important as raising the tariff rate. It is well known that Lincoln made skillful use of his lifelong protectionist credentials to win the support of the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican convention of 1860, and he did sign ten tariff-increasing bills while in office. When he announced a naval blockade of the Southern ports during the first months of the war, he gave only one reason for the blockade: tariff collection.

As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," and then threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to "back down" to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done. Another Court Historian's False Tariff History by Thomas DiLorenzo
Jan 18, 2011 ... Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Latest New York Times Nonsense ... In discussing the role of federal tariff policy in precipitating the War to ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html - Cached - Similar

==
Then the Mexican War has it's role. First you had to have Manifest Destiny.

Despite initial objections from the Whigs and abolitionists, the Mexican war would nevertheless unite the U.S. in a common cause and was fought almost entirely by volunteers. The army swelled from just over 6,000 to more than 115,000. Of these, approximately 1.5% were killed in the fighting and nearly 10% died of disease; another 12% were wounded or discharged because of disease, or both.

For years afterward, veterans continued to suffer from the debilitating diseases contracted during the campaigns. The casualty rate was thus easily over 25% for the 17 months of the war; the total casualties may have reached 35–40% if later injury- and disease-related deaths are added.[citation needed] In this respect, the war was proportionately the most deadly in American military history.

During the war, political quarrels in the U.S. arose regarding the disposition of conquered Mexico. A brief "All-Mexico" movement urged annexation of the entire territory. Veterans of the war who had seen Mexico at first hand were unenthusiastic. Anti-slavery elements opposed that position and fought for the exclusion of slavery from any territory absorbed by the U.S.[74] In 1847 the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso, stipulating that none of the territory acquired should be open to slavery. The Senate avoided the issue, and a late attempt to add it to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was defeated.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the result of Nicholas Trist's unauthorized negotiations. It was approved by the U.S. Senate on March 10, 1848, and ratified by the Mexican Congress on May 25. Mexico's cession of Alta California and Nuevo México and its recognition of U.S. sovereignty over all of Texas north of the Rio Grande formalized the addition of 1.2 million square miles (3.1 million km2) of territory to the United States. In return the U.S. agreed to pay $15 million and assumed the claims of its citizens against Mexico. A final territorial adjustment between Mexico and the U.S. was made by the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.

As late as 1880, the "Republican Campaign Textbook" by the Republican Congressional Committee[75] described the war as "Feculent, reeking Corruption" and "one of the darkest scenes in our history—a war forced upon our and the Mexican people by the high-handed usurpations of Pres't Polk in pursuit of territorial aggrandizement of the slave oligarchy."

The war was one of the most decisive events for the U.S. in the first half of the 19th century. While it marked a significant waypoint for the nation as a growing military power, it also served as a milestone especially within the U.S. narrative of Manifest Destiny. The resultant territorial gains set in motion many of the defining trends in American 19th-century history, particularly for the American West. The war did not resolve the issue of slavery in the U.S. but rather in many ways inflamed it, as potential westward expansion of the institution took an increasingly central and heated theme in national debates preceding the American Civil War. Furthermore, in doing much to extend the nation from coast to coast, the Mexican–American War was one step in the massive migrations to the West of Americans, which culminated in transcontinental railroads and the Indian wars later in the same century.

[compared2what?]

I think the argument is logical.

But it's not. It's not even coherent. It is, in fact, senseless, as any argument that randomly assigns quasi-supernatural and eternal powers and properties and meanings to stuff -- such as Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215 -- that have no basis whatsoever in law, reason, history, politics or -- not to put too fine a point on it -- reality. I mean, try to stay with me here, publius, okay? I want to try to explain something to you. It's not really that complicated. And besides that, it's news you should be happy to hear. So. Here goes nothing.

The non-repeal of those statutes does not mean that the President of the United States has had emergency war powers since 1861. Or that any President of the United States ever does or can have them without invoking them. Which is a de jure process, by definition, because -- contrary to your apparent understanding of it -- the United States Code of Statutes is not by definition "no law." Rather, it is "a body of law enacted by congress in keeping with its Article 1 powers, subject to review for constitutionality by the judiciary in accordance with Article 3."

Long story short: The President does not have some kind of permanent, hereditary right to confiscate your property on a whim. Some particular president could, of course, try to do so -- either under false color of law or by force -- at some hypothetical future point, for one or more of any number of hypothetical reasons. But the odds that he ever will are very, very remote at the moment. And they're getting more so every day, property values being what they are.

So you can just relax on that point. The traditional invocation of those statutes as representative of a real or threatened federal encroachment on individual property rights did originally correspond to a real diminution of the property rights formerly enjoyed by those invoking it -- ie, they were still sore about losing the right to own human property. And understandably so. Because they still thought some humans were born as persons and others as property.

But publius, that was a long, long time ago. And it didn't actually turn out to be the thin end of a wedge that the federal government then went on to use again and again as part of its ever-escalating drive to appropriate more and more of your individual property rights. It was a sui generis event that did not in any way diminish anyone's constitutionally protected property rights in connection with any form of property that's still recognized as such -- eg, land, one's own person, tangible goods, fruits of ownership and/or labor, etcetera.

You still have all of those in one form or another, and your right to have them is not only just as constitutionally protected as it would have been in 1861, it's considerably more unalienable. Because prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, states' rights still included the right to ignore your constitutionally protected rights in matters of state law.

So unless you want to own slaves or live in a state that isn't obligated to the Bill of Rights, your complaints do not arise from any change in property law consequent on events before, during or after the civil war.

Happy now?

[publius]

No. Explain corporate UNITED STATES.

The argument is as a result of the Civil War a new national system formed from the ruins of the old. As a result of this change, the UNITED STATES corporate system formed. This system of government in effect was now Imperial. Flowing from that moment in history we have this outcome today.

This is focus: Left and Right come together here on this Civil War ground. The Right has it's ideas and the Left has it's ideas. Both are ideas. Both are grounded on the outcome of that conflict. I add to tthis that in my opinion the absence of Proudhonian ideaalism shaped the Professivem ovement into one of upflit and not radical wealth resdistribiuton. We have the rise of the Expert State. This is an Administrative State.

[JackRiddler]

No. Explain corporate UNITED STATES.

The argument is as a result of the Civil War a new national system formed from the ruins of the old. As a result of this change, the UNITED STATES corporate system formed. This system of government in effect was now Imperial. Flowing from that moment in history we have this outcome today.

Okay, by what process was this new UNITED STATES formed, as you say? What statute, treaty, procedure, decision, declaration or ritual in what venue of law (or other realm of power) caused the formation or defined this new UNITED STATES -- including, but not limited to, the distinction rendered by putting the name in all-caps and calling it a corporation? Who made this decision? What backed up this decision, such that the UNITED STATES as of 1861 superceded the prior government under the 1787 constitution? What is the current carrying institution of this UNITED STATES? Does this sovereign authority actually call itself the UNITED STATES, or is that a name you prefer for it? Who is in on it? How do they exercise power? Where do they meet, how do they make decisions, how do they enforce their will? How do the officials, lawyers, courts and cops conform to this system, when most of them don't even know it exists? Where is the jurisprudence?

.