Large Scale Central

The United States Constitution

General Discussion
#61

Seem to me that guys who run model trains tend to be extremely conservative. I’m on the other side of the divide. But if you’re going to post this stuff, you must be looking for a reponse!

    We used to have a strong dollar ... politicians changed that.

When? Before the Civil War, there were 8000 different kinds of paper money in circulation. In the era of the “strong dollar” we had the great depression, the panics of 1893 and 1874…

    Life used to be sacred ... politicians changed that.

Or maybe women who wanted the right to control their own bodies changed it? Abortion still polls as something most Americans want to keep as an option.

    Marriage used to be sacred ... politicians are changing that.

Religious marriage was and is sacred. Civil marriage–say, by a justice of the peace or in Las Vegas—was and is a civil ceremony with no touch of the sacred. As a married non-believer, I’m happy that marriage is not entirely sacred. Otherwise I could not be married. Marriage has to be a civil institution–otherwise a baptist could not recognize a jewish wedding or a Catholic recognize a presbyterian. That’s why you need to apply for a marriage license. It’s a sacred institution within the church and a civil institution elsewhere

    We used to be respected around the world ... politicians changed

that.

Hey, I agree with you! The guy in office has done a bang-up job in that dept.

    We used to have a strong manufacturing economy ... politicians

changed that.

See below. We still do have a very strong manufacturing economy, but we manufacture different stuff. Back in the years before the Civil War, we had a very weak manufacturing economy and politicians like Henry Clay worked to change it through charging import tarriffs. As a historian, I want to know what time period you mean

    We used to have lower tax structures ... politicians changed that.

We have the lowest taxes of any industrialized nation, by a long shot. Americans paid extremely low taxes through the 1870s, because the fed govt. financed it operations through sales of federal land. But even after our tax burden is way way lower than other countries

    We used to enjoy more freedoms ... politicians changed that.

depends on who “we” is. Black people had the “freedom” to sit in the back of the bus or go to inferior schools until the 1960s. They had the freedom not to vote in the South, even if they wanted to. Thanks, politicians, for changing that!

    We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ...

politicians changed that.

See above–we still export lots of things. I went to China–nothing but Coca cola, Pepsi, and American movies music and TV.

    We used to be an openly Christian nation ... politicians changed

that.

See above–as a religious non-believer, I don’t care how openly christian you are as long as you don’t compel me to join you. I want freedom FROM religion.

    We used to teach patriotism in schools ... politicians changed

that.

How? I still teach patriotism, and politicians are constantly insisting that I teach more. Can you find me an example of a politician who is against teaching patriotism?

     We used to educate children in schools ... politicians changed

that.

My classes are full every semester, and with people who have come from all over the world to take advantage of the educational opportunities and consistent excellence of the US education system. Where’s the failure?

We used to enjoy freedom of speech … politicians changed that.

Not sure what you mean here

We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship … politicians changed that.

Hmm. My Irish Immigrant ancestors were happy to come to a country which was, to put it mildly, “relaxed” about citizenship standards

We used to have affordable food & gas prices … politicians
changed that, too.

This one I’d be inclined to agree with!

#62

Mike…

Do you know why the Senate was created?

Do you know why the Electoral College was created?

Knowing that might help ease your discomfort with those institutions.

#63

Steve, I do know these things. I’m a professor of US history–it’s what I do for a living. I’ve actually read the records of the Constitutional debate, and The Federalist Papers. I’m not uncomfortable with the the Senate or the Electoral College, I’m just pointing out that they are not democratic. And in fact, that’s not my idea–both were expressly and openly and explicitly dreamed up by the founders as a check and a limit on popular democracy. I’m just repeating what they thought the two institutions were for.

Also I’m not uncomfortable with the US–you’re the one who posted a long list of all the things that you think are wrong! I’m a patriotic American who thinks we’re doing pretty well!

#64

“every vote counts”
Makes me want to puke when they run these ads during Presidential elections. My vote hasn’t counted for a Presidential election in decades.
Ralph

#65

Canceled out by your wife’s vote?

#66
Tom Ruby said:
Canceled out by your wife's vote?
No, Canceled by my state's vote. Ralph
#67

Mike, I’m NOT a professor of US History. I’m just a humble student of US History. It fascinates me. Since you’ve read how they went through the Constitutional process, and most of the thought that went behind it, you obviously know just how far away from what those men intended and what we have today. Our system of gov’t wasn’t created to tell us what kind of light bulbs to buy, whether or not we can carry shampoo on an airplane, or to drag weak-kneed oil company CEO’s in front of a senate dog and pony show.

I’m not unhappy with the US, just the direction politicians are taking it.

#68
Ken Brunt said:
Mike, I'm NOT a professor of US History. I'm just a humble student of US History. It fascinates me. Since you've read how they went through the Constitutional process, and most of the thought that went behind it, you obviously know just how far away from what those men intended and what we have today. Our system of gov't wasn't created to tell us what kind of light bulbs to buy, whether or not we can carry shampoo on an airplane, or to drag weak-kneed oil company CEO's in front of a senate dog and pony show.

I’m not unhappy with the US, just the direction politicians are taking it.


Sure Ken, but as lots of people point out, those men intended to protect slavery and had no intention of allowing women to vote. Some things politicians do are good.

#69

Mike, you better go back and read again. Slavery was allowed to continue only in order to “form a more perfect union…” not a perfect union. Had the anti-slavery lobby stood firm, the union, more perfect or not, would not have been formed.

When it was time for women to vote, they got the vote.

#70

Any term limits are in themselves undemocratic
if the PEOPLE vote someone into office for 1 to 30 terms then it’s the PEOPLES decision we don’t need another damn constitutional change to take away the best candidate that the people are willing to vote for

just my 2 SENSE!

#71

Hit the wrong damn button

#72
Steve Featherkile said:
Mike, you better go back and read again. Slavery was allowed to continue only in order to "form a more perfect union..." not a perfect union. Had the anti-slavery lobby stood firm, the union, more perfect or not, would not have been formed.

When it was time for women to vote, they got the vote.


Steve my friend I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here. The people who drafted the Constitution–the overwhelming majority–wanted slavery kept in place. There was no “anti-slavery lobby” in 1789–only two people said anything against slavery at the Constitutional Convention, Franklin and George Mason. Franklin was very mild, though he personally had come to oppose slavery by then, and George Mason blamed it on the British. That was it. The ratification debate almost never involved the slavery question, in any state. The first President to openly call for the abolition of slavery would not appear till 1860.

It’s true the Constitution is very squeemish about calling slavery by name–it only ever refers to “persons held in servitude.” But it also specifies that those persons only count as 3/5ths of a person. The consensus on slavery was quite strong. Slaves were property, and the State had no right to meddle with property

So when it’s time for gay people to have the right to marry, they’ll have the right to marry? You think these things just happen on their own when “it’s time”? That’s an odd position to take. Politicians are only responsible for bad things, but good things happen “when it’s time?”

#73

So, tell me why was a slave only counted for 3/5 of a person?

Come now, if it had been left to politicians, women would still be kept barefoot and pregnant, you know that!

#74

Lincoln did NOT want to abolish slavery. He wanted it contained to the states that already had it. And the only slaves he freed during the war were the ones that were in territory controlled by Union forces.

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

(note the date…Lincoln was dead)

#75

Lincoln was an abolitionist throughout his political career, there is zero doubt about that. He was what they called a “free soil” Whig (free soil, free labor, free men," was their slogan) until the Whig party collapsed because of the slavery issue and a new party, the Republicans, emerged which was more strongly committed to abolition. Lincoln was a career opponent of slavery but he favored gradual abolition or compensated emancipation–he offered a plan whereby slaveowners would free their slaves and be paid for the loss of property by the sale of Federal land in the west. He was a consistent and solid enemy of slavery, but a moderate compared to many in his party. Here is a collection of his statements on the subject:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al01.htm

And here’s a typical statement:

“I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.”

The South voted to leave as soon as Lincoln was elected–because he was the first president to openly favor abolition.

It’s true about the Emancipation Proclamation. Though he was an abolitionist he was also a politician, and he hoped to avoid antagonizing the South as much as possible so that he could bring an end to the war. Despite the legal quibble in the Proclamation, it was widely seen then, buy slaves and whites, as a document freeing all the slaves.

Lincoln hated slavery but repeatedly insisted he did not favor racial equality–at least at first. He said many times that he thought black people could not live with whites on a “footing of perfect equality.”

#76

I guess we could quibble over the semantics, but my point was he didn’t run for President AS an abolitionist. He had no intentions nor did the Republican Party of 'abolishing" slavery out right when he ran under the Republican banner. I’m well aware of how he felt about slavery.There were quite a few men that ran for president and that were elected President that felt the same way he did before 1860. But because of his stand against the spread of slavery which the south regarded as a “State’s Right”, and could be spread to any territory in the west, no compromise was acceptable to them thus secession to them was the only solution.

Like I said, I find this discussion fascinating…;

This may be a model train forum, but I find this a whole lot more interesting than the demise of a certain german toy company…:wink:

#77

Ken

In my view he ran as an abolitionist, but he ran as what was called a gradual abolitionist. It’s not a quibble–abolition of slavery was a crucial part of his political identity, and his personal beliefs. By the time he was entering national politics in the late 1850s the slavery debate had come to dominate American political life. Compared to men like Chas. Sumner or Thad. Stevens or Wendell Phillips, all republicans, he was a moderate, but he was a life long opponent of slavery who wanted to see it end. That’s why they seceeded when he was elected. But you are right that he only advocated containing slavery, not directly abolishing it. I’ve spent some time reading his letters, and he was a remarkable man–a very very canny politician and very smart.

John Quincy Adams personally opposed slavery but did not run as an abolitionist–Lincoln ran as a guy who thought slavery should end and said so publicly.

One of the great questions of pre-civil war history is how abolition went from a fringe movement for “long haired men and short haired women” in the 1830s to the central debate of American politics by the 1850s. It’s pretty amazing.

I’ve never bought the “state’s rights” argument, which southerners advanced after the war. If you look at the Dred Scott case, it’s the North that has the States’s rights claim–Dred Scott effectively said “no state can ban slavery.” States that had acted to ban slavery now found that slaveowners could move their slaves into free territory with impunity. And the fugitive slave act compelled northerners to assist in the recapture of slaves, even if they lived in “free” states.

I like John Singleton Mosby’s comments on it:
“South Carolina went to war – as she said in her Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding.”

#78

oops–double post!

#79
Quote:
"South Carolina went to war – as she said in her Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."
And Mr Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union and protect Federal Property that the south had seized. Ft Sumpter being the one that stands out, but they also seized other Federal forts, Federal Armories, Arsenals, Post Offices and Customs Houses. Those points seemed to be overlooked. He had the authority to protect US property. He would be greatly remiss if he didn't.
Quote:
I've never bought the "state's rights" argument, which southerners advanced after the war. If you look at the Dred Scott case, it's the North that has the States's rights claim--Dred Scott effectively said "no state can ban slavery." States that had acted to ban slavery now found that slaveowners could move their slaves into free territory with impunity. And the fugitive slave act compelled northerners to assist in the recapture of slaves, even if they lived in "free" states.
Nor did it make any distinction between A free black man and a runaway slave. Many free black men were abducted and forced into slavery with no recourse whatsoever.

The northern states had been putting up with the south’s “Blackmail” over slavery for quite a few years. Some say it would eventually die out on it’s own, but the question was “When”? How long would that take? Secession was the last straw. From what I’ve read it almost tore apart the Republican Party before Lincoln was even sworn into office. Only his moderation and steady hand kept it together.

And he did get the Transcontinental railroad started so I guess this all ties into trains…somehow…:wink:

#80
Richard Smith said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
And here my two cents:

I believe a good start with the “think global” slogan would be to follow the first part. Global as such is just as restrictive as “thinking inside the box”, just a different spatial configuration that leads you around in a circle from any given starting point.

:wink: :slight_smile: :wink:

Which leads directly to the following: Constructing a sentence is much like following a line, jigging and jagging makes it more interesting, but harder to read.


Hehe! HJ,

You’re a genius!!! :slight_smile:


Hey Richard,
It is just normal that folks which have no real arguments, pick on others, pointing out incorrect sentence structure or grammar. like mentioned before, the best way to solve such trouble is to ignore such folks.
think global Pius