Washington's Farewell Address

[RickSp]

Totally disagree with your analysis. Dred Scott 1857 confirmed that slaves were property. What you label a criminal enterprise had the full weight of the Federal govenrnment behind it. Morally reprehensible, but totally legal, not criminal. And the Fugitive Slave Law was enforced strictly. Slavery was destined to founder, yes. Because labor saving machinery would have outpaced it economically. What modern nation uses "field hands?" Every state has a right to secede from their association with the other states. Having freely entered into an association with other entities the right to associate freely is uncontestable. To utilize force to "preserve the union" was naked aggression.

Slavery is the greatest crime one human can commit against another short of murder, and there might even be an argument there. Defending slavery as "legal" does nothing to change that.

Your claim of the right of secession is pure and simple nonsense. It was claimed only as a means of preserving slavery. That and nothing else. The Southern states in their declarations justifying secession made that clear. Secession in order to maintain three million individuals in bondage is kidnapping on a mass scale.

The "free association" argument is particularly obscene as the purpose of the "free association" you cite is to maintain the slavery of others. Supporting the right of Southerners to succeed with their "property" is nothing more or less than supporting the institution of slavery.

[PatrickHenry]

Supporting the right of Southerners to succeed with their "property" is nothing more or less than supporting the institution of slavery.

Disagree, but I won't hijack the thread any further.

Your arguments are faulty, Rick. You should change your sig if you wanna take this track ol' buddy.

[RickSp]

Disagree, but I won't hijack the thread any further.

Your arguments are faulty, Rick. You should change your sig if you wanna take this track ol' buddy.

I'm not sure it is a hijacking of the thread. Washington's evolution from a supporter of slavery to one who understood its evil, is an interesting story . His comments on the importance of the union relates directly to the conflict that dominated American history in the 19th century.

Your defense of secession and slavery is contrary to both common sense and history. If you can't see that, well, that is your problem not mine.

[SteveA]

The word federation was also used for the union of colonies and this is in imitation of the native American federation.

Maybe a federation is better (I looked at dictionary entries for the two and neither definition seems to clearly correlate with our government ... maybe that makes sense ... though the republic definition has a direct correlation to a representative democracy - something I have mixed feelings about).

The way I view the creation of the U.S. is this:

Independent colonies found it advantageous to bond together for their common defense against outside nations and even possibly aggressions from a neighboring colony but individuals and colonies would find little to reason to agree to be protected from themselves, or give up any individual sovereignty they had over their own affairs.

For example, New York wouldn't feel any pressing need to agree to run its internal affairs according to the desires of Connecticutt, nor would there be any necessity to do so, other than to assure a system of common defense for each could be coordinated.

I'd even say this same thing can extend down to the level of the individual, though social forces, when great enough, will unavoidable intrude on individual, state, federal, or global issues. It's just a matter of whether or not such forces are accepted peaceably or forcibly resisted. I'm certain there were people at the time who didn't even want to be ruled by the colonies either, not just England (and I'm not talking about native Americans or slaves alone).

I wish we had used the term federation instead of republic.
I think the term republic was chosen as we were using the Rome model, not the native American model. Rome was also a republic and that sure as blazes did not mean independence from the Union. Germany was a republic and engaged in war to annex territory.

Yes, Hilter was elected by majority vote too.

I wish people wouldn't feel the need to vote on so much. What does a majority vote mean other than "we outnumber you". I guess it's a might-makes-right philosophy. We could all vote whether or not to rob a neighbor down the street ... but what goes around comes around and that's why the U.S. was great, not because of democracy, but due to individually recognized rights.

How is the connection between republic, choice and independence made?

I wasn't trying to say a republic is better than a federation or visa versa. To be honest, I don't really understand what the differences are. I was mostly trying to indicate that we aren't a democracy and that the term "unity", used by washington is unity of a system that has constitutional limits placed on governments and specifically grants powers outside this to the states and people. So the unity he referred to was the common defense of an institution of various, largely independent people and states, which at the time where even more individually sovereign and independent. He was talking about unity over a federal government that violates terms of the agreement, nor unity of a system of taxes that takes half our countries wealth and places it under government control.

Here are the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution is also a document that details within what limits the Federal government is required to operate. Of course there will always be occasions where things don't go quite as planned and you can't always remain true to the text of the agreement, but you must at least remain faithful to the intent of it. Washington, when he referenced the word unity, was referring to the spirit and ideals of retaining a limited government with a large amount of individual liberty - that's what the first 10 Amendments specifically regarded it's obvious what the intent was - unity in defend against aggressions over our individual liberties and sovereignty.

I might be naive but that's how I see it.

Again, I don't know whether or not the term federation works better but it likely won't change how I personally see things either way. (I'm probably just stubborn )

[PatrickHenry]

Your defense of secession and slavery is contrary to...common sense

I don't defend slavery. On the contrary, it horrifies me, unquestionably evil. Show me where I defended it. I simply stated that the United States defended it with the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave law. This makes the US of the 1850s evil, not me. On secession, I think my position has as much validity as yours, Rick, perhaps more. You, by contrast, defend a fratricidal War, saying it was about liberating slaves, even though your sig shows you have some appreciation for the opposite view. Your signature at present:

All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it. – Alexis de Tocqueville

Is this purposeful or are you really so unaware of the irony? If the War between the States was about freeing the black population of America, why were they kept in bondage by Jim Crow for nearly a century afterwards?

I again suggest we take this to another thread...

[Athena]

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SteveA, thank you for your clear anwser to my question of how the connection between republic, choice and independence made. But I have a problem with your answer.

Democracy is a concept that began in Athens, meaning the citizens have the power to govern themselves, as opposed to having no say in government and being under the authority of one or a few people who have the power to govern over all.

Republic is a concept that began in Rome I believe. It is democracy but not direct democracy as was Athens. Instead of direct democracy, it is representative democracy.

Democracy and republic refer to concepts and a set of values, not the form of government. What is the word for quibbling over the meaning of a word? I don't mean to be picky, but I think understanding the history of democracy and republic concepts and implementation is vitally important, and using the words without a fully understanding of their meaning invites what happened to Germany. Furthermore, it is impossible to understand our foreign politics and involvement with Iraq. Supposedly we are making Iraq a democracy like ours, but can a Muslim theocracy be a democracy?

And about that unity Washington spoke of. It seems clear to me he was counting on religion to provide that unity. The general public wasn't educated to understand democrat principles and our unique relationship to our institutions until after 1840. You see there are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. Our democratic republic, with liberty! was about relying on culture of social unity and control. Jefferson, more educated in philosophy than Washington, was very concerned about public education as the means of perserving our liberty, by teaching a set of concepts and principles. We now have social chaos threatening our democracy once again, because we stopped transmitting the culture essential to our liberty, and reverted back to leaving moral training to the church. This is a very serious threat to our liberty and possibly to our Union.

[RickSp]

PH, if you cannot see that defending the right to secession for the explicit purpose of maintaining slavery is not, in fact, defending slavery, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Your comments regarding the quote from Tocqueville might suggest to me a misunderstanding of the word "liberty" on your behalf as well.

[SteveA]

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SteveA, thank you for your clear anwser to my question of how the connection between republic, choice and independence made.

I've actually heard a "conservative" talk show host make the claim there is no such thing as "State's Rights". He might as well have said citizens have no rights either. I wish someone had taken his "conservative" badge and tossed it in the trash. Anyway, I'm glad you appreciated the post.

... But I have a problem with your answer.

Democracy is a concept that began in Athens, meaning the citizens have the power to govern themselves, as opposed to having no say in government and being under the authority of one or a few people who have the power to govern over all.

Republic is a concept that began in Rome I believe. It is democracy but not direct democracy as was Athens. Instead of direct democracy, it is representative democracy.

Democracy and republic refer to concepts and a set of values, not the form of government. What is the word for quibbling over the meaning of a word? I don't mean to be picky, but I think understanding the history of democracy and republic concepts and implementation is vitally important, and using the words without a fully understanding of their meaning invites what happened to Germany. Furthermore, it is impossible to understand our foreign politics and involvement with Iraq. Supposedly we are making Iraq a democracy like ours, but can a Muslim theocracy be a democracy?

And about that unity Washington spoke of. It seems clear to me he was counting on religion to provide that unity. The general public wasn't educated to understand democrat principles and our unique relationship to our institutions until after 1840. You see there are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. Our democratic republic, with liberty! was about relying on culture of social unity and control.

Thank you for the information, Athena.

Yes, when I looked at the dictionary definitions, republic didn't seem to it be indicative of any individual states but closer to the definition of [re]presentaive [public]/democracy. Hmmm ...

I don't mind using democracy, when it's needed to truly resolve an important issue but it's not a good principle to apply to micromanage peoples lives. I know the south had a lot of complaints about being treated unfairly through taxes on agricultural industries, largely based in the south, while the more technological oriented north had more control over the federal government (look at where D.C. is located, and it seems obvious which states had more influence over it, especially when you consider how difficult it would be for someone to travel there at the time). I know Lincoln had even said that if the dispute had been solely over slavery, he wouldn't have fought the war and there had been people skeptical of the intent of the U.S. Constitution at the time. Up until then, people had been fighting to remove governments from controlling them, and the creation of the U.S. was different in direction.

But like people have said, nature abhores a void, and though anarchy might work between people with few conflicts, it's difficult to expect any group of people, in modern times especially, not finding one group or another of people desiring to control a lot of it. The trick is to fill the void with something that rejects tyranny and at least the initial sentiments and creation of the U.S. seemed to follow this view. We've just lived too long without knowing the costs and benefits of greater individual freedom.

Jefferson, more educated in philosophy than Washington, was very concerned about public education as the means of perserving our liberty, by teaching a set of concepts and principles. We now have social chaos threatening our democracy once again, because we stopped transmitting the culture essential to our liberty, and reverted back to leaving moral training to the church. This is a very serious threat to our liberty and possibly to our Union.

Yes, it would be better to see not just public institutions and religions teaching morality. I think most parents feel that between those two institutions, one of them will do the job.

I just had an epiphany That's a good model of what we have today. Government is not composed of the three branches we're taught in school, it's currently composed of government or religion - two big ideologies battling for power.

I'd love to have a non-of-the above check box available on a ballot but both sides want to use the draft .... :( (Overall, I feel less threatened by religion, than government. Missionaries might come to try to talk but they don't overstay their welcome, while government just doesn't take no for an answer).

Either way, I agree this conflict is going to cause major problems, because many people don't even know of any alternatives. Both of these institutions teach most of our children, (one claims a more forceful right to do so than the other) and so it's not really a wonder that politics is half of what we see on television, and why presidents still reference God so often.

I admit there's an element of zealoutry that's scary at times. I was talking politics with my best friend (he's religious) and was feeling frustrated at his blind support of the war, so I asked him whether or not we should send to troops over there and take out a lot of Palestinians ... my God if he didn't say yes, that was a great plan. Wow.

Some people can only see from their own perspective and hardly realize other people exist. I've since found it very difficult talking politics with him because I'm angry at being stuck with mentalities like that running the show! It sucks.

I've been on the other side of the fence a couple times too. I won't go into detail but after a couple experiences, I realized how hypocritical many of the laws are and serve merely to claim control over people for no legitimate purpose. You almost have to live immorally to comply with some of the laws, IMO. If we don't rediscover what the real intent of establishing government in the first place was, it's going to tear people apart and we'll rediscover it out of necessity.

[Osborn F Enready]

SteveA said:
You almost have to live immorally to comply with some of the laws, IMO. If we don't rediscover what the real intent of establishing government in the first place was, it's going to tear people apart and we'll rediscover it out of necessity.

I say:
I agree completely.

[Athena]

Exactly how is the government in the US going against Washington's Farewell Address?

Our economy depends on oil. It isn't just about having cheap oil for our mobile way of life, but also flooding our banks with the money from oil countries, lowering interest rates and supporting a real estate boom. I wish we could experience what would happen if the mid east countries all began trading oil in Euro's and banking in European banks instead of US banks. We would not have low interest rates, because the banks would not be full of money just waiting to be loaned out.

Also, if so many people weren't able to buy homes, the price of real estate couldn't be so out of sight, and the local governments would not benefit from inflated prices. We are flush with money right now, and it might not have been this way if we had not taken out Saddam. He was trading oil in Euro's and the Euro got strong enough to be a real challenge to the dollar. If things had continued in this direction the wealth associated with oil could have gone to Europe, and we would be in a recession if not a depression, and we no longer have the resources to pull out of a sever economic collapse. Without our federal government doing what it has done, we would be in deep trouble, so why fault the present US government?

[SteveA]

Our economy depends on oil. It isn't just about having cheap oil for our mobile way of life, but also flooding our banks with the money from oil countries, lowering interest rates and supporting a real estate boom. I wish we could experience what would happen if the mid east countries all began trading oil in Euro's and banking in European banks instead of US banks. We would not have low interest rates, because the banks would not be full of money just waiting to be loaned out.

We can stop subsidizing oil with our military for a start.

Also, if so many people weren't able to buy homes, the price of real estate couldn't be so out of sight, and the local governments would not benefit from inflated prices. We are flush with money right now, and it might not have been this way if we had not taken out Saddam.

We aren't really flush with money. We're flush with debt. People don't own their homes as much as just have a large loan taken out with a commitment to repay, with something they can't control the supply of (dollars). If the banks increase interests rates, it will be even harder for people to pay back these loans as not only less money will be borrowed (enter the system) but more money will be taken out (to repay higher interest rates).

It a game noone can win, except central banks. If you keep interest rates low, we just increase inflation and take value from people who saved.

Let's look at who Bush's "Ownership Society" low income assistance for housing works. We take someone who already owns a home, encourage someone else who can't afford it to take out a large loan from a bank, then we give ownership of the home to the bank, while expecting someone with a low income will be able to keep payments up for maybe 30 years.

So we replaced true home owners with bank owners, and not only that, if you happened to have been working and trying to save to buy a home, you've got to compete with your taxes which are paying for someone else to live in a home you can't afford to buy. The only "ownership" in his society is done through a lot of banks.

You said local governments benefit from inflated prices. That's not 100% true. Progressive tax structures take a larger % as incomes increase. Local governments rarely use progressive taxes (though sometimes services are income dependent and so services could be dropped if someones income inflates enough, though they wouldn't have an increased standard of living). The IRS is the one that takes a larger % when prices are inflated, because incomes are higher and that results in a large % of the take. Besides, inflation costs affect local expendiatures as well.

It doesn't matter whether someone earns $10/hour or $100/hour when it comes to government revenues, it's the available products and % taken as a result of taxes that affect its relative size and scope. But with housing prices shooting up, I'm certain a lot of people are wondering where they're going to get the money to keep paying their property taxes with.

He was trading oil in Euro's and the Euro got strong enough to be a real challenge to the dollar. If things had continued in this direction the wealth associated with oil could have gone to Europe, and we would be in a recession if not a depression, and we no longer have the resources to pull out of a sever economic collapse. Without our federal government doing what it has done, we would be in deep trouble, so why fault the present US government?

If the Euro had remained strong, we would have a currency we'd have to compete against, with the result of lower inflation for both sides. Offloading the costs we'd have seen unto Europe, plus the additional damages done by the war only make the overall state of things worse. No wonder Europeans didn't see us as doing them any favors. Sometimes it's best to ignore paper gains and look at tangible value or the destruction of it. We did noone any favors regardin oil in Iraq, except for maybe one oil company.

[mr.perfecto]

If the War between the States was about freeing the black population of America, why were they kept in bondage by Jim Crow for nearly a century afterwards?

Two words: Anti-war movement.

The war was fought because of Regionalism. And regionalism existed because people on both sides believed that the other did not have its best interest at heart. The tension continued until the abolitionist Republicans managed to show signs of winning. The situation spiraled out fo control because neither side was willing to back down.

The idea that slavery would have died out is nonsense. It was never in the best interest of slave owners to emancipate their slaves, and I have never heard anyone point to any slave owner doing so, except where there was a more important moral consideration involved. The very fact that the Black Codes went into effect as soon as the racist Southerners were able to regain control of their state legislature shoud discourage people from accepting that assertion. Tyranny never simply dies out, it always has to be toppled.

The fact the abolistionist who were driving the emancipation and fueling the dislike of the Southerners lost power is the horrific nature of the war and the massive casualties incurred by both sides. Avoiding another war became more important than being correct. The nation didin't really start to psychologically unify again until after Pearl Harbor.