Author Topic: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?  (Read 3876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sectionhand

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2011, 01:52:26 AM »
Today the result would be disasterous for any state foolish enough to even attempt to secede . Of course any individual who wanted to leave the Union has always been welcome to pack up his goods and split .

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 64068
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2011, 07:46:44 AM »
The Civil War definitely made secession a tough row to hoe, having said that I do not think it impossible if approached properly.

As stated earlier, to the victor go the spoils.

I do not find it altogether inconceivable that if The Regime began declaring martial law on flimsy grounds and ushered in a defacto police state, I could see several states refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the federal government on legal, moral and ethical high ground.

But since I view the quality of modern man to be fat, lazy and stupid I am not sure there are enough leaders of principle and courage able to rouse such a moribund mass into a quality resistance force.

So we are back to praying for a bold leader to pull the ship of state into a full 180, settling for a rudderless Ruling Class/RINO/Rovian puke of a ABO or a speedy collapse under Duh Wun.

I like option A...I see little difference in option B or C!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Sectionhand

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2011, 09:58:27 AM »
The Civil War definitely made secession a tough row to hoe, having said that I do not think it impossible if approached properly.

As stated earlier, to the victor go the spoils.

I do not find it altogether inconceivable that if The Regime began declaring martial law on flimsy grounds and ushered in a defacto police state, I could see several states refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the federal government on legal, moral and ethical high ground.

But since I view the quality of modern man to be fat, lazy and stupid I am not sure there are enough leaders of principle and courage able to rouse such a moribund mass into a quality resistance force.

So we are back to praying for a bold leader to pull the ship of state into a full 180, settling for a rudderless Ruling Class/RINO/Rovian puke of a ABO or a speedy collapse under Duh Wun.

I like option A...I see little difference in option B or C!

The federal government has so many tools to lock down a state or region that it would make our heads spin . Too much is dependent on wireless now . Any state which was to try it had better have damned good relations with its neighbors . Even then the result would be a tragedy on both an economic and human level .

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 64068
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2011, 10:02:54 AM »
The Civil War definitely made secession a tough row to hoe, having said that I do not think it impossible if approached properly.

As stated earlier, to the victor go the spoils.

I do not find it altogether inconceivable that if The Regime began declaring martial law on flimsy grounds and ushered in a defacto police state, I could see several states refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the federal government on legal, moral and ethical high ground.

But since I view the quality of modern man to be fat, lazy and stupid I am not sure there are enough leaders of principle and courage able to rouse such a moribund mass into a quality resistance force.

So we are back to praying for a bold leader to pull the ship of state into a full 180, settling for a rudderless Ruling Class/RINO/Rovian puke of a ABO or a speedy collapse under Duh Wun.

I like option A...I see little difference in option B or C!

The federal government has so many tools to lock down a state or region that it would make our heads spin . Too much is dependent on wireless now . Any state which was to try it had better have damned good relations with its neighbors . Even then the result would be a tragedy on both an economic and human level .

Well, we already have economic and human tradgedy in the White House...all that would increase is the scale...

We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2011, 10:20:58 AM »
It will become a viable possibility as the central government continues to drown itself in debt and loses global power (economically and militarily).

This is why I hate the historical baggage of secession in the American case. I think the South was philosophically justified in severing what was in theory a voluntary relationship in a republic of free and independent states. But the bondage of human beings was the central issue precipitating that severance, and that casts an enormous taint on the whole concept ever since. I think, though, the concept of secession will regain a certain respectability in the near future as our Feral government continues to urinate on the compact it made with the states.

As for the issue of Southern secession, I don't think you would find any apologist for slavery even amongst people styling themselves as neo-confederates. The uncomfortable truth is that we look back on it with modern eyes, forgetting that slavery was absolutely the norm for all of human history to that point. That does not make it right, and that does not make it any less odious; but it is why I am not prepared to condemn the concept of secession in the abstract. Secession is, after all, what created the USA in the first place. Right now I would be lying if I said the idea of severing ties to Washington DC wasn't becoming more attractive.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 64068
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2011, 11:33:57 AM »
I cannot argue with that at all G, and seeing the general trend we are on, I can only hope we have both enough time and enough sense to make a clean break of things should it prove necessary.  There is just too many if's, but's and maybe's between here and there to give me any sense of comfort though.
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline LadyVirginia

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5168
  • Mt. Vernon painting by Francis Jukes
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #46 on: November 03, 2011, 07:28:46 PM »
As I read through the comments a few things crossed my mind.  I readily admit I'm not well-versed in this so perhaps someone here has more background but I offer what occurred to me.


If the Framers intended for secession to be an option, then why did they write about creating "a more perfect union"? What would be the point? If we still operated under the Articles of Confederation, then yes it would be an option. But the Articles did not work, which is why the constitutional convention happened.

While it is true that slavery is present throughout much of human history, there is a very distinct and important difference between "the norm for human history" and what happened in the U. S. (and the Caribbean, etc.) and that is race slavery. Never before had slavery been based specifically on the color of one's skin. Race slavery is a particularly nasty type of slavery and can poison a society for decades, as one can see happened in American history. With that in mind, it is perfectly justified to make a distinction over what happened here compared with the rest of human history.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #47 on: November 03, 2011, 08:01:23 PM »
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dilorenzo2.html

Secession and Liberty

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The presidential election of 2000 showed that America is now divided into two great political classes: the productive, taxpaying class and the parasitic, live-at-others’-expense class. The latter group includes millions of welfare bums, federal, state and local government bureaucrats and "contractors," and their massive supporting propaganda apparatus in the universities, on television, and in print journalism. Now that the vast majority of what the central government does is unconstitutional, there is almost no restraint at all on the extent to which the latter class can use the coercive powers of the state to plunder the former class.

The federal system of government that was created by the founding fathers was designed explicitly to deter this outcome, but that system was overthrown in 1865. The founders understood that democracy would inevitably evolve into a system of legalized plunder unless the plundered were given numerous escape routes and constitutional protections such as the separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, election of senators by state legislators, the electoral college, no income taxation, most governmental functions performed at the state and local levels, and myriad other constitutional limitations on the powers of the central government.

The most important protection was the right of secession, which Peter Applebome of the New York Times suggests we should revive in light of the election returns. This was quite natural, for the United States were founded as the direct result of a war of secession waged against Great Britain. The very principle of the American Revolution was the right of secession against tyrannical government. The founders understood that even the threat of secession would hold would-be governmental tyrants in check.

In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Jefferson and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional federal actions was a means of effectively seceding.

The election of 1800 was a battle between Jefferson and the supporters of limited, decentralized government and the Federalist Party, which advocated a more powerful and centralized state. The Federalists were so bitter about their electoral defeat that they immediately began plotting to secede from the Union. The important point about this episode is that this secession movement, which was based in New England, was led by some of the most distinguished men of the founding generation and was never opposed on principle by Jefferson or anyone else. It was argued that secession might have been an unwise strategy, but no one denied that states enjoyed a right of secession.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

At the outbreak of the War for Southern Independence in 1861 the vast majority of Northern opinion leaders still believed that a right of secession was fundamental, and that the South should be allowed to go in peace. The abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune and the preeminent journalist of his day, wrote on December 17, 1860 that "if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861" (Howard Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession). "Nine out of ten people of the North," Greeley wrote on February 5, 1861, "were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union," for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

Similar statements were made by newspapers all throughout the North on the eve of the war, and are perhaps best represented by an editorial in the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat, which on January 11, 1861, wrote that secession is "the very germ of liberty" and declared that "the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."

"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

Lincoln never attended West Point, but he supported secession when it served his political plans. He warmly embraced the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, for example, and was glad to permit slavery in West Virginia (and all other "border states") as long as they supported him politically. Indeed, in a July 4, 1848 speech Lincoln said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Lincoln biographers never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech.

After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in the harshest of conditions but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession, as Charles Adams describes in his brilliant book, When in the Course of Human Events. After his release from prison Jefferson Davis wrote what would have been his legal defense of secession in the form of a two-volume book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

The centralization of governmental power not only leads to the looting and plundering of the taxpaying class by the parasitic class; it also slowly destroys freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. One of the first things every tyrannical government does is to monopolize the educational system in order to brainwash the young and bolster its political power. As soon as Lee surrendered at Appomatox the federal government began revising history to teach that secession was illegitimate. This was all a part of Lincoln’s "revolution" which overthrew the federal system of government created by the founding fathers and put into motion the forces of centralized governmental power. Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty. As Frank Choderov wrote in 1952: "If for no other reason, personal pride should prompt every governor and state legislator to take a secessionist attitude; they were not elected to be lackeys of the federal bureaucracy."

November 28, 2000

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

Copyright 2000 LewRockwell.com


Offline Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5610
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #48 on: November 03, 2011, 08:33:44 PM »
I'm sorry to see you quote hacks like diLorenzo or rockwell.  ::whatgives::

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #49 on: November 03, 2011, 09:06:57 PM »
Shall we give it a nicer, more palatable name? How about "devolution"? Whatever it is, people better get used to at least thinking about it, because one way or other this show is over. Creators and Parasites aren't going to coexist forever. Statism and republicanism aren't going to coexist forever. The combination of its sheer size and ever-increasing diversity (be it ideological, religious, ethnic, regional, whatever) means the USA has taken on many of the characteristics of an imperial rather than republican entity. Empires can achieve phenomenal things when they have some unity of purpose and all are basking in its light, but the flip side is they more easily devolve into subentities whenever these unifying threads are challenged and the light dims.

The strains have increased in magnitude more than I ever thought possible, just since 2008. It's not just political strain, that would actually seem surmountable in comparison. What I've seen laid bare is the extent of cultural strain, and I don't know how you surmount it at this stage in the game.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #50 on: November 03, 2011, 09:49:55 PM »

I have suggested before that "we" would not be leaving, that they
have left the Constitution and "we" would be the conservators of it.


Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #51 on: November 03, 2011, 10:27:00 PM »
Oh I agree. What we seek is the restoration of the American Experiment, embodied in our Constitution. That's the thing about the controversy surrounding the word "secession" -- actually secession has no ideology, it has no politics, it indiscriminately finds traction with all factions that resent being stuck with all those other factions. Since 2000, I've heard more talk of "secession" from the Left than the Right. Remember Michael Moore's infamous tantrum after Bush was reelected in 2004, where he showed a map of America with the enlightened Blue states bracketing a mass of Red that he labeled "Jesusland"?

That's what I'm getting at, I just don't know how to reconcile with the Left under a common system of government and neither do they.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Sectionhand

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2011, 04:29:46 AM »

I'm not talking about slavery, I'm talking about the right of secession.



Then let's not use the American Civil War as an example . Southern secession was irrevocably tied to slavery . I don't know of a single credible historian of The Civil War who doesn't believe that if there had been no slavery there would have been no secession .

Offline Sectionhand

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2011, 04:45:36 AM »
I'm sorry to see you quote hacks like diLorenzo or rockwell.  ::whatgives::

Di Lorenzo's "history lessons" are viewed with a jaundiced eye by many historians . As an example "The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798" were only that ... "resolutions"... not law . Citing Timothy Pickering is also an unfortunate one . He was basically Washington's last choice for Secretary of War after the resignation of Henry Knox . Washington would have been appalled at Pickering's suggestion that the union could be so easily dissolved . Also the idea that W. Virginia "seceded" from Virginia is absurd . It was a political region friendly to the north and deemed a state as one of the exigencies of war .
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 06:28:56 AM by Sectionhand »

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 64068
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: How Can You Tell Whether a President is Great or Not?
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2011, 07:29:39 AM »

I'm not talking about slavery, I'm talking about the right of secession.



Then let's not use the American Civil War as an example . Southern secession was irrevocably tied to slavery . I don't know of a single credible historian of The Civil War who doesn't believe that if there had been no slavery there would have been no secession .

 ::thumbsup::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.