Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part Two

In part one of this series I wrote about the effect slavery had on the Civil War and compared our current issue of illegal immigration and some of the effect it is having on society today. We also looked at the division of the country and how the issue of slavery and states’ rights caused the first Civil War. Now, let’s define states’ rights and their origin and how it applies today.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution collectively are what is known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. There were many disagreements among the early leaders of this nation after the original drafting of the Constitution. Many were dissatisfied with the limited guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution. That led the founding fathers to further expand and highlight personal rights as well as define boundaries and limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments.

For over 200 years the interpretation of the Constitution has been debated. One of the first major debates was between cabinet members under George Washington’s Presidency. Andrew Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, disagreed on the clause giving Congress all powers "necessary and proper" for carrying the specified powers into effect. Hamilton used his interpretation to establish a national bank and his desired financial program. However, in the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson discovered a bar to congressional legislation of that kind: no power to establish a bank having been delegated to Congress, that power must have been reserved to the states. President Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bills that Congress passed to enact Hamilton's plan. Eventually Jefferson withdrew from the Washington administration.

Jefferson and James Madison organized opposition to it and thus created two political parties with differing views on the subject, The Federalist Party and the Republican Party. The Federalist Party was willing to exploit the "implied powers" of the Constitution, while the Republican Party demanded a "strict construction" of the document. This continues today in the Democratic Party’s continued philosophy of the expansion of the federal government and the Republican Party’s philosophy of less federal government and more state’s rights to govern themselves. That is still the core battleground of political debate in Washington today on most issues and legislation.

The Republicans, still convinced that much of the Federalist legislation was unconstitutional, were further outraged when, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided for the fining and imprisoning of those who uttered anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government, the Congress, or the president. The Republicans felt that was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, which stated that Congress “should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.”

There was also disagreement concerning what agency should have the power to decide the question of constitutionality? The Constitution vaguely gives the Supreme Court the power to decide, and the Republicans denied that the Court could rightfully assume that power. They argued that the state legislatures should decide and ably expounded their views in two sets of resolutions, one written (anonymously) by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature (1798--1799) and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature (1798). These resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government had been formed by a contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in demanding their repeal at the next session of Congress, but none of the other states went along with Virginia and Kentucky.

State rights and strict construction were usually the arguments of the party out of power (and have been throughout American history). As long as the Republicans were outsiders, they remained strict constructionists, but once Jefferson became President, they used the full powers of the Federal government to further the agrarian interests they represented. Indeed, they used much more than the rightful and constitutional powers, according to the Federalists, who now adopted the state rights point of view. So, political debate over the power of government is as old as government itself. When you have two opposing schools of thought with legitimate points of view you can have effective and productive government as long as the balance of power and checks and balances are in place. Anytime one party gains too much control and power we lose that balance. That is happening today with strong opposition from the majority of Americans right now that believe the federal government is over-reaching its power.

The first threat of state secession from the union came during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalist Party disagreed with the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. The leader of that opposition, Daniel Webster, tried unsuccessfully to get New England to secede. Jefferson, after his retirement from the presidency, joined in opposing the Federalist-minded judges as "sappers and miners" who were undermining the Constitution. Now doesn’t that sound familiar? That is a major part of the argument today between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Former vice-president John Calhoun was another early leader in the philosophical battles over governmental control. While a Congressman from South Carolina he favored the War of 1812 and advocated protective tariffs, internal improvements at Federal expense, and a national bank. Calhoun was the early architect of a system for state resistance to unconstitutional laws. He refined and elaborated the doctrine of sentinelship that Jefferson and Madison had begun. His theory focused on the assumption that the people (not the government) in each state were sovereign and, in their sovereign capacity, had ratified and thus given validity to both the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. They had done so, he argued, through their delegates in specially elected conventions. In this ratification process he discovered the procedure for dealing with questions of constitutionality. A state convention--not the state legislature as in Madison's and Jefferson's proposal-- could nullify a Federal law. That law would remain null and void within the state until three-fourths of all the states had ratified a constitutional amendment specifically giving Congress the power in question. If they should ever do so, the nullifying state would still have a recourse--secession. Just as a state could "accede" to the Union by ratifying the Constitution, it could "secede" by repealing its ordinance of ratification.

In 1832, South Carolina put nullification to the test when a state convention declared all protective tariffs, particularly those of 1828 and 1832, to be null and void within the state. Calhoun having resigned the vice presidency, presented the case for the nullifiers before the Senate, Daniel Webster, now a senator from Massachusetts, debated the opposing view. Webster contended, "The truth is, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtlety of distinction, can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, the people of the United States are one people." According to the new Webster, a state might secede from the Union, but only on the basis of the right of revolution, not on the basis of any constitutional right. While remaining in the Union, however, a state could not nullify congressional acts, for nullification was no right at all, he maintained.

President Andrew Jackson, agreeing with Webster, denounced nullification as treason and asked Congress for authority to use the army and the navy to enforce the laws. Though the nullificationists had sympathizers in other Southern states, not one of those states officially endorsed the South Carolina stand. Calhoun claimed a victory for nullification when Congress passed and Jackson signed a compromise bill for gradually lowering the tariff. Calhoun came to realize that a single state, unaided, was powerless to interpose against Federal authority. So he set about cultivating a spirit of unity among all the slave states. According to Calhoun, slavery occupied a special place in the Constitution, and in his theory of state rights. He insisted that it was the only kind of property that the Constitution specifically recognized (though, in fact, the document did not mention slavery by name; instead referring to "free Persons" and "all other Persons" and to a "Person held to Service or Labor"). Therefore, nullification could be used to defend or strengthen slavery but not to attack or weaken it. We will pick up here in part 3 of this series next week.

Not enough time to think

People have recently accused me of being a conspiracy nut, primarily because I haven’t completely accepted the provided documentation of citizenship by our President. Why can’t we see the original birth certificate? What about his college transcripts and some of his thesis? I’m not even convinced that he wrote his books. I’m an author, and I’ve never had to use a teleprompter. I am capable of writing and speaking my own independent thoughts from my heart. Of course, I’m not so naïve to not know that all Presidents have used speech writers and some are better at delivering other people’s thoughts than others.

As far as being a conspiratist, let me go on the record to deny it and also say that I resent being accused as such. Those who think that are probably a bunch of left-wing progressives with ulterior motives. They say I am a narrow-minded bigot, too set in my ways to change. Well, I'm not narrow-minded, I respect even the wrong opinion of others. I don't claim to always be in my right mind, but I'm always right in my mind. They misunderstand the meaning of change. As Rudy Giuliani said during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “Not all change is good.” Some things don’t need to change. What they call progress is really much of what they accuse me of, narrow minded conspiracy theories developed around flawed scientific evidence with enough intellectual dialect to make it sound plausible to the easily deceived non-thinkers in this society. Man that sounded pretty deep, even for this old redneck to come up with.

What’s a real scary thought is there are almost as many of them as there are of us. They are everywhere, having infiltrated all levels of society. They have taken over our education system and have rewritten our history to their liking. With the mainstream media on their side they have unbridled influence across not only this country but across the world. Is anyone allowed to even develop there own thoughts anymore? Most just swallow the propaganda pills and drink the kool-aid.

Like most men I spend some time each day in the thinking room. Some choose to read, while most of us use our “alone” time to think. Maybe that’s why they call it “Stinkin’ Thinkin.” They built a monument to all us thinkers you know. I saw it in a magazine once, a naked man sitting in that same position, head in his hand, looking like he was thinking up a storm. It’s hard to just sit and think without their perversive presence having an effect on you.

I remember a couple years ago, I took my family out to one of those fancy restaurants in the city. You know the kind, they had real silverware wrapped in a hanky big enough to use as a bib. No mason jars for glasses tonight for us. I wasn’t even sure what some of the dishes were on the menu. I saw one waiter delivering a steak to a man and his steak was still on fire. I asked my waiter what it was, it had some French name. Looked like a steak to me. Anyway, after stumbling through the menu and ordering something with an American name I had to , you know, go. Bad. So off I go to the thinkin’ room.

This country boy had never seen such a fancy bathroom. They had an attendant hand you a towel and if you wanted one a newspaper or magazine of your choice. I don’t read much of the mainstream scoop so I passed, found an empty seat and sat down to take care of business. They had music playing, so it was kinda hard to sit there and pontificate on the current events of this world. You know all those conspiracy theories about the New World Order, the Bilderberg Group and the Federal Reserve.

Then I started to get up a little, reaching forward to get some toilet paper. (Some liberal elites would call it "tissue") Now this is the part that startled me. As I lifted up just a tad, I heard the toilet behind me flush. I looked down to see if I had accidentally pushed the lever. But, there was no lever! I looked all round and couldn’t find a flusher. As I was moving around, it flushed again. Every time I started to get up, it flushed.

Well, I’m no dummy, I’ve been to the big city. I realized that there must be a hidden window somewhere, or one of those two-way mirrors like the government always uses. What really gets me is this: Who would be so desperate for a job, that they would be willing to sit all day in some closet with some sort of push button remote control, flushing commodes? I then realized that there are a lot of immigrants around here, probably most of them illegal. Now, I don’t go along with the crowd that complains that the illegals are stealing all of our jobs, at least not this one. I mean, what real American would be willing to sit in a bathroom all day just to flush a commode?

Let them do it. They’re willing to get dirty and do the jobs that we real Americans won’t stoop to.
Another thing I wonder about: Do they only hire men to flush the men’s commodes and visa versa? That seems like a big waste of money. How do they make sure that the homos and perverts don’t sneak in? They’d like it. Besides, what is it about the people of America? Are they getting so uppity (I’d say lazy) that they can’t even flush their own commodes?

Anyway, I have had trouble thinking in public restrooms ever since that night. The poor attendant could probably tell I was shaken. He asked me if I needed to splash water on my face or even better, my choice of men’s fragrances lined up on the sink. I said no thank you; I just shook his extended hand and went back to my fancy meal.

My wife was upset when the bill came, she is pretty frugal you know. I explained to her later why it was so high, that this restaurant hired extra staff to attend to the restrooms. She was disappointed that she didn’t get the opportunity to check out the powder room. I’ll bet it was a sight to see. Of course, women don’t spend as much of their time thinking. They always take a friend to talk to.

I don’t know if I have discovered one of the reasons why so many of our young people don’t think for themselves or not. I know one thing for sure. I have taught my boys to be independent like their old man. They can handle flushing for themselves. I think too many people today need to flush some of the junk they allow to enter their minds by a world full of liars and deceivers. I’ll just keep doing my part to call it like a see it, hope some of you see it that way too.

Civil War II, Will history repeat itself? (Part 1)

We have all heard the phrase that “history repeats itself.” The growing disgruntlement in America begs to ask that question, are we destined to repeat history? Is America divided enough to make another Civil War possible? We all hope not, but the climate in society gives little certainty to appease the question. In the five decades I have lived in this great country, I have never seen such widespread dissension among the people. What concerns me right now is, unlike the Civil War of the 1860’s; there are multiple issues that are causing the people to rise up in anger toward Government.

In the Civil War, the primary issue was the abolishment of slavery and the control of land in territories. That split the country geographically down the middle between the North (Union) and the South (Confederacy). The original seven states that seceded the Union and formed the Confederacy were South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. They were later joined by North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas.

The victory of the North in the Civil War effectively ended the slavery of Africans in the United States. At the time the war ended, ninety-five percent of the African population in this country lived in the South. After the war many began migrating to the North to establish their newly established freedom. The issue of slavery as a whole has been around since Biblical times. Even the Jews and Israelites have been slaves multiple times in history to Egypt, Rome and other nations and kingdoms. Today, open slavery continues in African nations like the Sudan and others.

Why was slavery so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight for it? The simple answer is: profitability and prosperity. The majority of slaves worked on farms and plantations in the South. This supplied cheap labor and increased productivity. The demand for labor during the expansion of this country and the shortage of available workers created a market for workers in the south. Most immigrants coming from Europe settled in the North. Thus, slave traders began shipping slaves from Africa to fulfill the labor need. The moral problem slavery creates is that no person has the right to “own” another person as property or a possession. This created not only racial segregation but class separation.

Many have argued over the years that even in slavery most of the Africans were in a better situation than if they had stayed in Africa and that many of them would not have survived in their home country. While that may be true, limiting their freedom and opportunity and their treatment as a “lesser class” of humanity is wrong. That racial tension still exists in this country almost 150 years later as a result. That issue alone is what makes the recent election of Barrack Obama as President of the United States of America a historic moment. It is also causing friction along racial lines as the disgruntled citizens who disagree with the recent and current direction of this country are being labeled as racists. That is totally unfair and unwarranted if you take a look at the issues from a logical and realistic perspective.

The election of Barrack Obama as the first African-American President was a historic event and should have been an opportunity to improve race relations in this country. Although I personally don’t care for hyphenated nationality classifications, Obama has as much right as anyone to wear that label since his father was Kenyan and his mother a white American. The media latched on to the fact that with Obama being bi-racial his Presidency could be a positive move in righting the wrongs of the previous generations and a form of reparation to the injustices of slavery. That divide has not been bridged as many expected, but it has nothing to do with race. It has more to do with policy, ideology, and fiscal philosophy.

The first major issue that stirred up opposition to the current Administration was the Health Care Debate. That has been a volatile issue of debate for decades in Washington that has always failed because of the wide gap between the parties ideals of the role and scope of Government. I am not going to get back into that debate in this series, feel free to read my previous series “Government should take a chill pill,” for my take on that issue.

https://feed.examiner.com/examiner/admin/EntryController.cfm?data=R0I5QmtTc0VIeTRxZ2dzbW82Ry9DQkQzOThsNUdwdUpxdWVGNEppMHRXZz0%3D

More recently, the passage of the recent Immigration Law in Arizona that will basically give local and state authorities in that state the right to enforce Federal law that is already on the books has stirred up more racial tension toward illegal immigrants. This is a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with because it has as much impact on this country as slavery did during the Civil War era. The issue in this case again is not about race or being against immigration. To many, it is about national security and to others it is about the enslavement of a workforce of non-citizens who are providing “cheap labor” to employers in this country.

Although many might say comparing undocumented workers to slaves is farfetched, it is really not. Why would a company rather hire “immigrant labor?” The answer is cost. If I own a business and hire a citizen not only do I have to pay them at least “minimum wage” but I also have to pay matching social security and Medicaid, unemployment and worker’s compensation insurance, and offer benefits ranging from sick days, vacation days, and in many cases offer health insurance and other fringe benefits. It is simply more profitable and cost efficient to use cheap labor. So do I hire citizens, immigrants, or outsource labor to workers in foreign countries?

When the economy was robust, society overlooked these labor issues and accepted them as a necessity to fill job vacancies. With approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and nearly 30 million unemployed or under-employed citizens, that justification is no longer valid. So the debate over amnesty is no longer warranted from the viewpoint of a shortage of available workforce.

Of course, many will tell you it never was. For Democrats it is about increasing their voter pool, ensuring their grip on power. On the other hand, if you view this issue from a logical, realistic point of view there are identifiable pros and cons. Is it realistic to actually believe that rounding up all those “illegals” and deporting them as possible? Well, it might be if we hired as many INS agents to enforce the law as we are hiring IRS agents to enforce the Health-care reform bill. If it is not possible to round them up and ship them back across the border, why not identify them and document them so we can tax them and have them contribute toward the burden they are creating to our nation? They would no longer just be consumers of resources.

Of course, the first thing that needs to be done is plugging the hole in the border and stopping the continuance of illegal immigration into this country. That issue has been dealt with in the past about as effectively as BP has dealt with the oil spill. It is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal Government and is a matter of National Security. Maybe turning that issue over to the states is the best way to deal with it since it has direct impact on their society and they are more intimately involved in the situation. Giving them the tools and support to deal with the problem should be the first step. Seal the border first, and then we will discuss what to do with those already here.

If we turn that responsibility over to the states do we give them the ability to form their own “border patrol” or “State police?” According to the Constitution, the states already have the right to form their own “militia.” That is where we will pick up in part two of this series, States Rights.