Anatomy Of An Insurrection

First I would like to think the mindless horde for the insurrection of 06 January because it gave me the chance to use an under used diploma in Political History…..where I look at the history of this country the founding and the years forward onto the present.

Since the very beginning the fires of insurrection have been with us….first it was a slow simmer while the country came together politically but not physically and the flame of dissension was turned up to a boil that lead to the American Civil War….after the insurrectionists were beaten down the flame returned to a simmer….the reason for the insurrection was never extinguished and the simmer continued while the country slowly returned to some sort of political unity.

 In the 20th century the flames were once again raised and this time by Reagan…..his demonization of the poor with his tagline of ‘welfare queens’ started us down the path to 06 January.  (This is just my take on the situation I am sure that there will be those in opposition)

Then came the election of the black man as president and the birth of the Tea Party and the flames got higher…..and in 2016 and the election of Trump the stew of racism and hatred came to a full boil.

And that boil gave us the insurrection that breached the Capitol and caused the embarrassment of a sane country.

When I talk with people the most common sane question is….’how could this happen’?

This is an account of that day, 06 January, the events and the people that eventually breached the line and entered the Capitol building….

More than six months after the storming of the US Capitol, more than 550 people have been arrested, with an estimated 800 people surging into the building during the hours-long assault. Members of the Oath Keepers, a loosely organized right-wing paramilitary, and Proud Boys street fighters galvanized by then-President Trump’s call to “stand back and stand by” have been indicted on conspiracy to disrupt Congress, which delayed the certification of Joe Biden as president by almost six hours.

“Every single person charged, at the very least, contributed to the inability of Congress to carry out the certification of our presidential election,” prosecutors wrote in memorandum filed with the court on Tuesday.

The slow-moving tedium of prosecutorial legal machinery and the GOP campaign to deflect responsibility can make it easy to lose sight of the big picture of what transpired on Jan. 6. But based on an aggregate review of individuals cases, along with other sources, a Raw Story analysis of the critical events in the Jan. 6 siege reveals a striking degree of coordination, sustained and intentional violence, planning and preparation, and determined effort to disable the United States’ critical governance apparatus by participants, including many with recent military experience. Many of the rioters who played critical roles in breaching the Capitol came away from the experience vowing to wage war against the United States. Few among those who are being prosecuted have expressed any remorse for their actions.

….Read On….

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-insurrection-timeline/

The difference between this insurrection and the historic ones is easy…..the past was based on an ideal then present insurrection is based on a personality.

The flame has been turned down again but the stew is still at the boiling point and the cook of this fiasco is none other than the ex-president of the United States…..

A cocktail of propaganda, conspiracy theory and disinformation — of the kind intoxicating to the masses in the darkest turns of history — is fueling delusion over the agonies of Jan. 6.

Hate is “love.” Violence is “peace.” The pro-Donald Trump attackers are patriots.

Months after the then-president’s supporters stormed the Capitol that winter day, Trump and his acolytes are taking this revisionism to a new and dangerous place — one of martyrs and warlike heroes, and of revenge. It’s a place where cries of “blue lives matter” have transformed into shouts of “f— the blue.”

The fact inversion about the siege is the latest in Trump’s contorted oeuvre of the “big lie” compendium, the most specious of which is that the election was stolen from him, when it was not.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-trump-misinformation-aa051fa751d718407638dbe308647a7a

The slow simmer has returned and the stew awaits the next person to step up a turn the gas up for the next insurrection.

This is a nation divided unto itself….this chapter of American political life is far from over….and the division keep growing by the day…..

My final thought…..I believe if this had been black/brown insurrectionists the violence would have been greater….probably on both sides.

Image

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

“They Fought To Establish A Country”

College of Political Knowledge

I recently audited a class on the Federalist Papers….and the professor kept saying that the conventioneers fought hard to establish this country……and that the fight brought about the establishing the United States of America to throw off the yoke of English dominance.

First of all I need a definition…his definition of the word fought.

For me the word “fought” means that they actually engaged in the battles that established this country…if that is the definition we use then there are only two…George Washington and Alexander Hamilton….and a lesser Founder, Aaron Burr.

But I will let a historian will in the blanks…..Zack Clary, B.A. History….College of William And Mary…..

To answer this question, I would have to know what distinction is being used to as to what constitutes being a Founding Father. The answer would be very different if you are referring to everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence as opposed to everyone who signed the U.S. Constitution, but neither of these distinctions is ideal, for the former excludes Alexander Hamilton among others and the latter excludes Thomas Jefferson among others. Richard B. Morris, a historian, designated Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington as Founding Fathers, but I do not agree fully with this rather limited distinction. I consider the Founding Fathers to be anyone who played a sizable role in the creation of the young nation, and while that list is expansive, it is not fair to undermine the accomplishments of some really important American historical figures. But for times sake, I will use Morris’s distinction, for by my distinction, every general that accomplished victories that led to winning the war against England deserves a place amongst the Founding Fathers. But, anyway, of the seven listed above only two actually fought in the Revolutionary War: George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. George Washington was the General and Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army or Continental Line during the Revolution. Alexander Hamilton was an aide-de-camp to General Washington, and he was given command of three battalions during the Battle of Yorktown. His troops did well and took Redoubt #9. Benjamin Franklin served as Minister to France for much of the war; he also would’ve been in his seventies for the majority of the war. Thomas Jefferson was at the Second Continental Congress where he penned the Declaration of Independence, and he spent much of the war as Governor of Virginia. John Jay was instrumental in negotiating the Treaty of Paris that ended the war. He was also at the Second Continental Congress, and he spent some times as Minister to Spain. James Madison was rather young when the war began; his major contribution came in penning the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that began the American system of government as we know it.

The darling of most Americans that know a very little history is Thomas Jefferson…..in 1781 as governor of Virginia when Arnold was marching on Richmond Jefferson fought so hard that he ran away and hid…..so much for fighting for principles.

As an former military man I want my leaders to actually stand and fight and defend their principles…it is easy to put words to paper…..it is another to look the enemy in the eye and actually kill to defend.

Back to the course……this was a good course but was too full of editorializing from the lecturer….

The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers are important to understand this country’s establishment and yet little is known about them outside Constitutional scholars and historians…..without knowing what is in these papers then one cannot understand the Constitution (a political prop at best these days).

As usual I will help (I just wish more readers cared enough to check out the links)…..

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/

For god’s sake…if you are going to use the Constitution to make a point at least know how and why it was enacted….without knowledge you are just showing your ignorance.

amicus populi

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The History Of American Federalism

College Of Political Knowledge

This is another in my series looking at our “federalism”.

Even the most ignorant among us (and there are many) have a small grasp of the word “Federalism”….

In case you are scratching your head…then a simple definition should save your scalp from ravishing.

A system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities govern the issues of local concern.

I have given my thoughts on federalism and the need……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/does-federalism-remain-a-good-idea/

But unlike the Constitution the idea of federalism has been changing throughout our history….thanx to peped.org….

In the beginning there was the idea of “Dual Federalism”….

When the Constitution was written, it was widely understood that the federal government and the states would exercise different separate powers. The federal government would be responsible for all foreign affair, national defence and all interstate matters (such as trade that crossed state boundaries); the states would be responsible for everything else, including any powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (known as ‘reserved powers’). For most Americans, this meant that the majority of decisions affecting would be made by their state government which, in principle, best understood them and had their interests at heart. This relationship between the states and the federal government is known as ‘dual federalism’.

In practice, the balance between the two tiers of government was never as neat as dual federalism suggests. During the First World War, for example, the government took direct control of industries that were essential to the war effort and states did not always look after the best interests of all their citizens, for example in the South where African-Americans looked to the federal courts to protect their interests from state governments that practised racial segregation.

Then came “Cooperative Federalism”……

When the Great Depression struck, in the 1930s, the balance between the states and the federal government was decisively altered. The states did not have the resources to help citizens who had lost their jobs and, often, their homes. The federal government did have the resources and it used them, in the New Deal, to help those who were suffering and to stimulate the economy. However, this meant federal government involvement in welfare matters that had previously been considered the exclusive responsibility of the states. This changed, overlapping relationship between the states and federal government is known as ‘cooperative federalism’.

Notwithstanding the clear need to help those who were in no position to help themselves, the New Deal was fiercely resisted by the conservatives in the 1930s as undermining the principle of federalism ad weakening the most important constitutional protection of liberty. Even in the 21st century, some conservatives regard the New Deal as the start of a slippery slope leading to ever greater government and, consequently, reduced freedom. Liberals, in contrast, greatly admire the way in which the Constitution allowed the federal government to step in at a time of crisis and make productive use of people who would otherwise have been idle as a result of mass unemployment. Cooperative federalism continued after the Great Depression had ended, as the federal government continued to play a major role through the Second World War and the Cold War.

Next was “Creative Federalism”……

In the 1960s, the relationship between the states and federal government changed again. President Lyndon B Johnson launched his Great Society programme, designed to end poverty in the USA. In his view, the states had never made a serious effort to tackle the concentrated pockets of poverty, often in the cities (such as Los Angeles South Central district), and could not be relied upon to do so. Therefore his programme often bypassed state governments and worked directly with city or local authorities to implement anti-poverty projects. This further advance of the federal government into matters traditionally seen as the responsibility of the states is known as ‘creative federalism’.

The Great Society Programme provoked a backlash, however. Americans of almost all political persuasions agreed that federalism was in danger of becoming meaningless, as policies concerning communities up to 3,000 miles away were being made up in Washington DC.

Then this country stepped into the recent phase of Federalism…..”New Federalism”…..

Since President Johnson left office in 1969, almost every president, both Republican and Democrat, has introduced programmes to re-empower the states and restore a balance closer to the original model of dual federalism. These programmes, although they vary quite significantly, are collectively known as ‘new federalism’. In brief, they have worked as follows;

  • President Nixon (Republican 1969-74)

Nixon’s programme, called General Revenue Sharing, allowed the states to spend a greater proportion of their federal grants as they chose.

  • President Carter (Democrat 1977-81)

Carter continued the General Revenue Sharing programme of his predecessor, but also cut the amount of federal grants available to the states so that they would have to become self-dependent.

  • President Reagan (Republican 1981-89)

Reagan made sharp cuts to funds available to the states, especially for welfare payments, as soon as he took office. He offered the states a new arrangement, reminiscent of dual federalism (called ‘swaps’), in which they would take full responsibility for some welfare programmes while the federal government would take over others in their entirety . The increased cost to the states of such an arrangement led them to reject the proposal.

  • President Clinton (Democrat 1993-2001)

Clinton oversaw an economic boom that led to the states building up surplus funds, in many cases, for the first time since the 1920s. These funds were then used to pioneer new policy ideas that suited the states’ needs and priorities, for example Wisconsin started a programme to extend school choice by issuing families with education vouchers that could be used in any school, whether state-run or private.

  • President George W Bush (Republican 2001-2009)

Although committed to new federalism in principle, President George W Bush responded to the attacks of 11 September 2001 by increasing government control over any policy that related to national security. Then, when the economy deteriorated sharply in 2008, he introduced an economic stimulus plan that included substantial payments to struggling state governments.

  • President Obama (Democrat 2009-)

The first action of President Obama, taking office in the midst of an economic crisis was an economic stimulus plan on an even greater scale than that of his predecessor.

Overall, new federalism has illustrated the difficulty of achieving a relationship between the states and federal government that resembles the balance expected by the Founding Fathers.

Then came Trump and  I am not sure that he even understood the concept of federalism…..

There is one thing that is obvious…..

The reason that federalism has taken so many forms is that none has worked effectively. The only time that the states have enjoyed a resurgence has been during an economic boom. Whenever there has been a national crisis, the federal government has either chosen to assert dominance over the states or has been required to do so, often with the full backing of states that have been powerless to cope with events.

Federalism was the dream that this would make the country more equitable and so far after all these years it has failed.

If it cannot be perfected then maybe it is time to move to something else….but some think the federalism will save this country…..https://www.city-journal.org/how-federalism-can-end-partisan-gridlock

I disagree….it looks to me that all these problems and antics and corruption were created by the federalism system….I do not think that it can be repaired….it is too late for that.

Any additions or thoughts?

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Idea Of Self-Determination

College of Political Knowledge

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order.  Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties.  For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.” 

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century.  In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination.  This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s. 

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that “self-determination” exists on a spectrum.  Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given ‘people’ from the larger politico-legal state.

Now that the much used term has been defined….let’s look at what the UN has to say on this front…..

Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people’s choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of UNPO. For some of our members, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people’s traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination. Other members, such as Taiwan and Somaliland, have already achieved a high-level or full self-determination, but are yet to be recognized as independent states by the international community.

https://unpo.org/article/4957

I thought is that if a people in a majority vote want to determine their own future than they should be given the right….but sadly in this world the power does no longer belong to the people but rather to money and those that control it.

An interested look at Self-determination from a post-graduate student…..https://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/17/what-is-self-determination-using-history-to-understand-international-relations/

Now that we have looked at ‘the right of self-determination’ I would appreciate your thoughts on this….

amicus populi

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“Lego ergo scribo”

Those States Rights

College of Political Knowledge

Civics Series

I would like to take a closer look at the whole states rights thing and what it means to the country today.

  • States’ rights refer to the political rights and powers granted to the states of the United States by the U.S. Constitution.
  • Under the doctrine of states’ rights, the federal government is not allowed to interfere with the powers of the states reserved or implied to them by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • In issues such as enslavement, civil rights, gun control, and marijuana legalization, conflicts between states’ rights and the powers of the federal government have been a part of civic debate for over two centuries.

The debate over states’ rights started with the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. During the Constitutional Convention, the Federalists, led by John Adams, argued for a powerful federal government, while the Anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry, opposed the Constitution unless it contained a set of amendments specifically listing and ensuring certain rights of the people and the states. Fearing that the states would fail to ratify the Constitution without it, the Federalists agreed to include the Bill of Rights.

In establishing American government’s power-sharing system of federalism, the Bill of Rights’ 10th Amendment holds that all rights and powers not specifically reserved to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution or to be shared concurrently by the federal and state governments are reserved by either the states or by the people.

In order to prevent the states from claiming too much power, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) holds that all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied.

Here is a sticking point for me.

Federalism…..in the beginning of this country it was a brilliant idea that helped bring the country together as a single unit…..it was the only way to get all 13 colonies to sign on to a national government…..however today the concept is driving the political divisions that are running rampant….each state has become its own tiny ‘duchy’ within the bigger empire.

I gave my thoughts on federalism recently on my op-ed blog, Gulf South Free Press……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/does-federalism-remain-a-good-idea/

The biggest obstacle to any substantial progress in our country is the bicameralism that we live under….I feel we would be better served today with a unicameral system of government…..again my thoughts on this topic……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/08/thoughts-on-unicameralism/

Sorry about that but I got a bit off topic….my bad!

The biggest drag on our country is the whole concept of states rights which was outlined in the 10th amendment……for those ignorant on the US Constitution…..In American government, states’ rights are the rights and powers reserved by the state governments rather than the national government according to the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment 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.

That is a very simplistic look and leaves open a whole array of opportunities for abuse…..like voter suppression, cultural BS, and labor oppression.

The authors of the Constitution were experts in the use of language, and in the construction of legal documents. Under any form of statutory construction, the use of the comma followed by the word “or” presents an alternative to the previous phrase. And the Constitution also clearly differentiates between the states and the people. The use of the word “people” in that last phase presents an alternative to the powers of the states – the power of the people, not of individual states.

The use of the word “people” in the Constitution, from the “We the People” of the Preamble on, means all the citizens of the United States separate from whatever identity they may have with individual states. There was a draft of the Preamble that used the words, “We the States,” but it was changed to emphasize the nature of he Constitution and its effects. The Constitution was intended by the founders to be a compact among the people of the United States, not between the federal government and the state governments, or among the state governments. The people are citizens of the United States, not of individual states.

(Dan Riker)

The Constitution provides for the states to maintain some rights and responsibilities, but none that can trump those of the federal government. The Constitution clearly states that it, and federal laws adopted under it, are the supreme law of the nation. The Constitution provides for no means of changing it except by amendment; no means of dissolution of the union; no right for any state to withdraw from the union; no right for any state to wage war against any other state; no right for any state to engage in foreign affairs; no right to determine, or grant, citizenship; no separate citizenship of states; no right to restrict the rights of citizens to vote.

10th Amendment means that the reserved power is shared between the states and the people. It does not create a body of absolute “states’ rights.” It means that states have the power to act where the federal government has not, and when such acts will not conflict with federal laws or responsibilities.

Destruction from within.

Then there is everybody’s hero Bubba Clinton as president he screwed things up royally with his lame ass vision of redefining Federalism….his program only added to the climate of division…..Clinton did nothing positive for the Party or the country…the only people that benefited from his presidency were his corporate masters….and his legacy is still screwing the country.

His new ideas on Federalism went something like this….

1–establish national goals and allowing states flexibility in choosing means to achieve..

2–waiving national guidelines to enable states to design approaches to problem solving rather than following national guidelines.

3–helping states learn from other’s successes

I would say the GOP has learned Clinton’s ideas all too well.

Right now there is only one way to change this slide into the past…..and that is through a change in the amendment and that would take a Constitutional convention and that will never happen in today’s political climate.

For now we will remain a plot of land with several duchy that have NO interests in a strong nation….only on petty issues that does not strengthen this nation in any way.

It will remain a country of individual good as opposed to the common good….on which this country was originally founded.

We are today betraying the original intent by the Founders and that betrayal is destroying this country from within.

I do not see this division ending in my lifetime…..a sad demise of the original intent.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Which Are You?

We have another Constitutional crisis…..233 year in the making.

These days there is lots of debate on the Constitution…..and in the beginning there were two sides…the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists…….

But what does that mean?

Federalism was born in 1787, when Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote 85 essays collectively known as the Federalist papers. These eloquent political documents encouraged Americans to adopt the newly-written Constitution and its stronger central government.

Largely influenced by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists succeeded in convincing the Washington administration to assume national and state debts, pass tax laws, and create a central bank. These moves undoubtedly saved the fledgling democracy from poverty and even destruction. In foreign policy, Federalists generally favored England over France.

And their opponents in the Constitution fight…..the Anti-Federalists……but who were these men?

Not all Americans liked the new U.S. Constitution offered to them in 1787. Some, particularly the Anti-Federalists, downright hated it.

The Anti-Federalists were a group of Americans who objected to the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and opposed final ratification of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Anti-Federalists generally preferred a government as formed in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation, which had granted the predominance of power to the state governments.

Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia – an influential colonial advocate for American independence from England – the Anti-Federalists feared, among other things, that the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution could enable the President of the United States to function as a king, turning the government into a monarchy. This fear can to some degree be explained by the fact that in 1789, most of the world’s governments were still monarchies and the function of a “president” was largely an unknown quantity.

https://www.thoughtco.com/anti-federalists-4129289

A closer look at these men’s political beliefs in the early days of the Republic….

  • The Anti-Federalists were opposed to the Constitution. They feared the power of a national government, the loss of control of local issues, and insufficient separation of powers.
  • They believed that the national and centralized government might threaten the sovereignty of the states and of individuals, hence they believed this might lead to the formation of a despotic monarchy.
  • Furthermore, the Anti-Federalists believed in the insufficiency, or weakness, of the Articles of Confederation.
  • The Anti-Federalists used pseudonyms and published local speeches and news articles opposing the government.
  • One of the Anti-Federalists was Patrick Henry from the state of Virginia. Henry and the coalition argued that the government might be a threat to individuals and that the president might declare himself a king.
  • The group produced a series of writings declaring their opposition to the government. Historians compiled them together and they are now known as Anti-Federalist Papers.
  • Several states opposed the Constitution. On July 4, 1788, a civil war almost broke out in Rhode Island, where Judge William West and over a thousand protesters marched into Providence.
  • Five states ratified the constitution. However, in Massachusetts a compromise was agreed upon after a series of debates were held in order for the Constitution to be ratified.
  • Several states shared the same prerequisites in ratifying the constitution during the Massachusetts Compromise. Thus, when the Constitution was approved in 1789, twelve amendments were included, and from these the Bill of Rights was produced.
  • Even though the Anti-Federalists were not successful, they were an important group amongst the founding fathers of the United States, as they influenced those who sought to ratify the Constitution.
  • Some Anti-Federalists joined the Anti-Administration Party of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, opposed to following the policies of Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary. The party eventually became the Democratic-Republican Party.

Now that the two sides of the Constitutional debate have been set and explained…..

I would like to know which side you, my reader, would have been on during the debate……the question has been asked before…..

One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments.

The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation’s liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens’ rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.

Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?

A good time to put all your civics knowledge to work…….

After 233 years we are having the same basic fight about the governing for this country.

I believe it is time to end the silliness of multiple legislative bodies….all seem to be working against the best interests of the country and instead are playing party politics and not governing in a responsible way for ALL the people of this country.

Time for a redo!

I look forward to your comments.

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Remember That War On Christmas Meme?

Have you noticed that when Dems are in charge every year about Christmas we hear some psycho babble about the War on Christmas?

It is truly just Right wing bullshit!

But in reality there was a war on Christmas but it was not here in the US but rather in England many generations ago.

And yes this is a sneaky way to introduce some history to my readers.

The war occurred during the days of Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century……it seems that some wanted Christmas carols and such banned for the public……

When it comes to revolutionary protest songs, what springs to mind? Billie Holliday’s Strange Fruit? Bob Dylan’s Blowin’ In The Wind? Sam Cooke’s A Change is Gonna Come? I’m guessing the humble Christmas carol is probably low on your list of contenders, but in mid-17thCentury England, during the English Civil War, the singing of such things as The Holly and the Ivy would have landed you in serious trouble. Oliver Cromwell, the statesman responsible for leading the parliamentary army (and later Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland), was on a mission to cleanse the nation of its most decadent excesses. On the top of the list was Christmas and all its festive trappings.

Since the Middle Ages, Christmas had been celebrated in much the same way as today: 25 December was the high holy day on which the birth of Christ was commemorated, and it kicked off an extended period of merriment, lasting until Twelfth Night on 5 January. Churches held special services; businesses kept shorter hours; people decorated their homes with holly, ivy and mistletoe; acting troupes put on comedic stage plays (prefiguring the modern pantomime); taverns and taphouses were brimming with merrymakers; and families and friends came together to gorge themselves on special food and drink including turkey, mince pies, plum porridge and specially-brewed Christmas ale. And communal singing about the season was all the rage.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141219-when-christmas-carols-were-banned

A closer look at Cromwell’s government……

It is a common myth that Cromwell personally ‘banned’ Christmas during the mid seventeenth century. Instead, it was the broader Godly or parliamentary party, working through and within the elected parliament, which in the 1640s clamped down on the celebration of Christmas and other saints’ and holy days, a prohibition which remained in force on paper and more fitfully in practice until the Restoration of 1660. There is no sign that Cromwell personally played a particularly large or prominent role in formulating or advancing the various pieces of legislation and other documents which restricted the celebration of Christmas, though from what we know of his faith and beliefs it is likely that he was sympathetic towards and supported such measures, and as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658 he supported the enforcement of the existing measures.

https://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm

So you see the only war on Christmas has been many years ago and it was in the UK not Main Street USA

So can we please stop spreading bullshit in the name of Christmas….there is already more and enough in the media.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed!

“lego ergo scribo”

That 1619 Project

Here on Gulf South Free Press we are trying to get the American people to have a “real” conversation about race and the institution of slavery instead of the disingenuous BS from the past.

What significance is the year 1619?

Answer to follow.

In these trying days of protests and the issue of slavery has risen yet again…..there is an attempt to educate the people on the barbaric institution of slavery……that education is being called the “1619 Project”…….

New York Times Magazine launched The 1619 Project on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans to Jamestown. Its stated goal was “to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” Rather than standing with the American Revolution’s radical promise that we are all created equal and possess the same “unalienable rights,” or Abraham Lincoln’s description of America’s as mankind’s “last best hope,” the revisionist view of The 1619 project argues that America was founded upon slavery and that the effects of white supremacy distort every aspect of American public life today.

Prominent historians, educators, and writers have challenged these claims. Noted scholars such as Gordon WoodWilfred M. McClaySean WilentzJames McPherson, and James Oakes have publicly questioned its main contentions. And the 1776 Project, a group of black scholars and writers led by entrepreneur and civil rights leader Bob Woodson, has produced essays, and eventually a curriculum, that will “challenge those who assert America is forever defined by its past failures, such as slavery.”

https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/public_affairs/american_civics/1619_project/

Is this a look at history or not?

When The New York Times Magazine published the 1619 Project last year, supporters hailed this retelling of America’s founding as a “woke” counternarrative meant to correct the historical record.

Yet in recent weeks, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead editor, has stressed that her project to reframe history is not the same as “a history.” Clear enough?

Even Americans who haven’t read the 1619 Project, a series of written work on the legacy of slavery, know the project was launched with fanfare. And the rollout continues: A series of books are to follow, a podcast is available, and public schools are using the material. Lionsgate and Oprah Winfrey intend to adapt the project for film and TV.

For the 1619 editors to now say, “presume not that I am the thing I was” should make us suspicious of the project’s future. Shakespeare’s Hal said as much to his former drinking companion, Falstaff, in “Henry IV, Part 2,” and the audience can afford the presumption because we know his victory at Agincourt is coming in “Henry V.”

The next act, however, for the 1619 Project may be less promising. As the project’s creators spread it across more media and entertainment platforms, the Times, its partners at the Pulitzer Center, and Hannah-Jones have already said 1619 should be considered history.

Creator of New York Times’ 1619 Project Changes Tune to Insist It’s Not History

Thee are those that are afraid of this if it is handled properly because it will crap on the dialog that they have been preaching for decades.

Slavery should be viewed from ALL angles…..but emphasize that it was a horrible barbaric institution.

I stated that we were “trying” to help the American people have that REAL conversation about race…..and so far we have sadly failed….

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

American Mind–Civics Class–Part Two

This is my little classroom to try and help or maybe even explain what the American Mind is all about…..

To help Part One can be accessed here…..https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2020/07/13/american-mind-civics-class-part-one/

Part Two is about a Moral Society and the thoughts of Pres. Lincoln…..during his tenure as president he had to face something that would have destroyed lesser men….the American Civil War…..

Abraham Lincoln was the most thoughtful and eloquent of American presidents, in some ways the philosopher-poet of the American political order. His prudent and principled leadership allowed for both the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery. As Lucas Morel capably shows, Lincoln drew on the wisdom of the American Founding in opposing slavery and working for its gradual abolition. He stated his political Golden Rule in a note he wrote to himself in 1858: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” This remarkable affirmation transforms the equality clause of the Declaration of Independence into a positive moral obligation. In doing so, as Morel writes, Lincoln “avoided not only the moral neutrality (and white supremacy) of [Stephen] Douglas’s popular sovereignty,” which proclaimed that each new state and territory was free to vote slavery up or down, “but also the moral absolutism of abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison” who would tear down the Constitution itself in a fevered effort to abolish slavery overnight. Lincoln, in contrast, was a constitutionalist who knew that the Constitution’s valuable “frame of silver” must ultimately be informed by the “apple of gold” which is the Declaration of Independence’s recognition that “all men are created equal.” Without this affirmation of a common humanity bequeathed to us by God and nature, the moral foundations of a free society are sure to wither.

https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2020/02/14/lincoln_the_american_founding_and_the_moral_foundations_of_a_free_society_484127.html

A Moral Society…..include truthfulness, patience, obedience, honesty, integrity, hard work, responsibility, respect, tolerance, loyalty, public spiritedness, freedom, respect for human life and dignity of persons. Others include justice, fairness and equality.

Now look at the list of moral values and tell me that this country has not fallen from the ideals of the Founders.

Learn Stuff!

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

American Mind–Civics Class–Part One

In these trying times I thought that a good hard look at what can be termed as the American Mind or the American Identity or the American Experience……..you choose what you think this series is about.

This series originally posted in Real Clear Public Affairs…..a good chance to renew the Civics lessons for most people especially now with an important election looming.

The 1776 Series is a collection of original essays that explain the foundational themes of the American experience. Commissioned from distinguished historians and scholars, these essays contribute to the broader goal of the American Civics project: providing an education in the principles and practices that every patriotic citizen should know.

We start with the Constitution of the United States of America….”How Democratic Is The Constitution?

It’s hard not to notice that in the United States, political arguments frequently turn on questions that, in other democracies, nobody talks about. What are the powers of the legislature? What may the executive do? What can the states do without begging permission from the national government? Why can’t an idea popular with the public become a law?

For these and other questions, the answer will always involve the American Constitution, a document more than two centuries old that has been amended (not counting the Bill of Rights) only 17 times. In the wake of the 2016 election—in which, not for the first time, a candidate who lost the popular election entered the White House anyway—talk about the Constitution’s “defects” has become more insistent. Why can’t America be more like other countries? Do you worry about fracking? Boris Johnson was worried, so he banned it, because he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and his party controls the House of Commons. He can do pretty much whatever he wants when he has a sufficient majority.

https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2020/02/14/why_is_the_constitution_not_democratic_484132.html Some say the Constitution is an economic document more than anything……https://www.fte.org/teachers/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/efiahlessons/constitution-econ-doc/

In fact, the inquiry which follows is based upon the political science of James Madison, the father of the Constitution and later President of the Union he had done so much to create. This political science runs through all of his really serious writings and is formulated in its most precise fashion in The Federalist as follows: “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties in the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of society into different interests and parties… The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination, A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit and party of faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/an-economic-interpretation-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/ Any thoughts or comments? Learn Stuff! I Read, I Write, You Know “lego ergo scribo”