More back to topic:
Very interesting, Joe, and I hadn't thought much about it until I started watching "Gods and Generals" again the other night. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, et al. were more dedicated to their own states rather than to the Union as a whole. Am I more dedicated to Missouri, and am I willing to defend it at all costs from any invader, foreign or domestic?
A rather interesting question that the invasion of the South during the Civil War certainly changed how the States are in view of the Federal gov't. If you were to ask me, do I think the states have more power than the federal gov't, I'd of course say no. But did they at one point? Was the United States that George Washington, et al. envisioned the same United States we have today? Certainly not.
Very interesting nonetheless
Yeah, state loyalty has changed. I think it's a little obnoxious whenever, at party national conventions, each elector starts with "From the great state of...." It's something that's just kinda lost on me.
Changing gears, I'll ask a question:
What is your foreign policy?
Actually the US Civil War can be viewed as a 2nd Constitutional Convention. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the original convention was the issue of slavery, and more specifically did the "federal" government have the authority to dictate to the states on the issue. In order to get around the impasse the issue was loosely left up to the individual states to decide. As the nation became more and more divided the slave holding states became ever more disassociated with national feeling and felt the feds were over stepping their authority. This ofcourse led to the Civil War. Lincoln's ONLY objective, as stated by himself repeatedly during the course of the war, was to restore the Union as a whole. He personally detested slavery but initialy had no intention of abolishing it. It was a political move to keep European nations out of the conflict that finally forced his hand in freeing the slaves. After the war ended and slavery was no longer an issue the issue of state's rights took a back seat and was no longer discussed on the national stage. Any politician who tried was accused of being a "bloody shirt" ie warmonger and that was also a term applied in general to Democrats during the Radical reconstruction years. It wasn't until WWI that the federal government assumed more power and then during FDR's tenure of office and his many social programs did the federal government assume the proportions we know it by today. It continued to grow as a result of WWII, the Cold War and then from JFK's vision and LBJ's enactment of his Great Society. Ronald Reagan was swept into office iin 1980 in part with a promise to get "big government off the people's backs" and today we see the federal government become larger and more intrusive than ever.
Thanks for the political history reminder, Cagliostro (interesting choice of a name, by the way). I had lost sight of Lincoln's prime objective (restoration of the Union) and his main driving factor in Emancipation (ironically: foreign politics).
You call the Civil War a "2nd Constitutional Convention." It strikes me, that at the first, a vision for the U.S. was finally adopted by all by the means of persuasion and argument, whereas the interpretation of that consensus was fought over with guns, and the winner got to have his interpretation of the Constitution become the law.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 01, 2004 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Mastedon Farm ]</font>
Forgive my rambling, but I'm not trying to organize anything here-- just get everything in my head down before this page expires...
Anyhow, I'd like to remind everybody to do a gut check on their gut feelings, and try to establish why you feel the way you do. You say you've had a abd feeling over recent US foreign policy joe-- my personal belief is that this is exactly what the folks in the mass media biz want you to think. You almost never see anything good on tv or in print regarding US policy, so it doesn't surprise me at all that you have a sourness over the topic. I've on occasion felt the same way.
That said, let me ask this-- How united would the united states be were the state governments dominant? IN some sense I think the idea of unity involves collective submission to a common authority. Unfortunately, I believe that this common authority the the states in the union submit to is being corrupted and is in a state of decay. To some extent, I consider this a natural result of the US gov.t being in the hands of men, as anything that remains in mans' hands will be corrupted. (Take the catholic church, for example. Inquisitions, anyone?)
I find it unfortunate that we are at conflict with our brothers in the flesh around the world, but the reality of human nature dictates that force be used on occasion. More unfortunately, practical considerations limit the amount of intelligence that can be passed on to me, so I am not able to make judgement calls on actions that are carried out in the name of my nation; I am relegated to trusting those in authority to make decisions in these matters on my behalf.
More later. Gotta sleep.
onemore thought I forgot to add-- We are instructed that "if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek to him, that he may slap it also." not "if someone cuts off one arm, turn the other to him, that he may sever it also."
I'm not entirely convinced, but I suspect that admonitions to endure persecution for Christ's sake do not necessarily scale to the national level.
I was reading that early on (during the late 1700s) the name of this country was spelled: the united States. The "united" almost seemed an afterthought? It certainly isn't now the way it was once envisioned.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Switzerland a very loose confederation of Cantons, but not really a very united nation, and Italy for a very long time wasn't the Italy we know it today, but a loose collection of states?
I wonder if a country the size of the current United States would survived with the states having more authority than the Federal government itself? It might have when there were only 13 of them, but with 50, and the current size of our country, would it even be possible?
I heard something interesting this weekend.
I heard someone pray that God would enable President Bush to rule justly.
It struck me: was the office of president *ever* considered a position of "ruling?" Isn't ruling what kings do?
Regarding the media: man, I don't know. I could watch Fox News all day and still probably come away thinking that we're in trouble.
The other thing that's informing my sour gut is something I've heard Rush Limbaugh say many times: oil is the fuel of freedom. His point is always that the freedom of Americans to do what we want depends on having cheap oil. At first I thought he was kidding (he's been hammering that line for a year and a half or so, so it wasn't just an isolated comment) -- my freedom DEPENDS on my having access to cheap oil??? But no joke from "el Rushbo;" he means exactly that, and "whether we like it or not, that's the way it is."
[sigh] I don't know. But stepping back, I know that the U.S. has made it policy in the past 100 years to "promote" governments and governors around the world who are "friendly" to U.S. interests (e.g., the School of the Americas). This goes so contrary to how I try to live my life: Be me, if Canada or North Korea or the Netherlands like me, cool, we can work together; if they don't like me, mind my own business, and of course defend myself when attacked (unless it's for Christ's Kingdom, but as you pointed out, Aristarchus, that's a different matter completely - I'm not a pacifist). No riding and wrangling to install Joe-friendly regimes so that I can get cheaper ice cream (mmm... moosetracks).
Derwen,
The reverse question might be asked: can this bohemoth of a national government survive? And wouldn't things like health care and food programs and social security (beginning with the for-the-sake-of-the-argument premise that these programs must exist at all) be better handled in small batches, by the states, or even further down the ladder to the county or city levels?
Interesting about the Swiss: that might explain why they're always "neutral" in wars and stuff. mmm... cheese and chocolate.
You guys rule. Yes, all of you.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well said, Joe. I know there are people out there (Pat Buchanan, namely) who wish that the U.S. were more of an isolationist nation like Switzerland. I know the idea was around there during the World Wars, and during WWII, I don't know if we would have gotten involved if it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor. (Or that's what I hear, anyway).Originally posted by Mr. Mastedon Farm:
[sigh] I don't know. But stepping back, I know that the U.S. has made it policy in the past 100 years to "promote" governments and governors around the world who are "friendly" to U.S. interests (e.g., the School of the Americas). This goes so contrary to how I try to live my life: Be me, if Canada or North Korea or the Netherlands like me, cool, we can work together; if they don't like me, mind my own business, and of course defend myself when attacked ... No riding and wrangling to install Joe-friendly regimes so that I can get cheaper ice cream (mmm... moosetracks).
Cheap gas is nice, but should we be the world's police officer taking down bad regimes and setting up ones that like us? ...?
Sometimes I wish we had a more isolationist stance toward the world, but is it possible when you're the largest (in terms of money), most powerful nation in the world? Would it be possible for us to reverse course and to stay out of world affairs? Probably not. It's something to hope for, perhaps.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks