Good Morning...The Man Who Saved the United States is Born [Archive]

View Full Version : Good Morning...The Man Who Saved the United States is Born

Okla-homey

2/12/2007, 06:59 AM

Feb 12, 1809: Abraham Lincoln is born

http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/9390/2005019266577000341_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005019266577000341)

198 years ago, on this day in 1809, Abraham Lincoln is born on the frontier of the young republic in Hodgenville, Kentucky. George Washington is universally and fondly remembered as the "Father of His Country." Second only to Washington in the regard of his people, Abraham Lincoln is widely considered by historians to be the man most responsible for the continued existence of the young nation when it was nearly fatally torn in half by internal strife over the issue of slavery.

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/9936/2005097603474417417_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005097603474417417)

Lincoln, one of America’s most admired presidents, grew up a member of a poor family in Kentucky and Indiana. He attended school for only one year, but thereafter read on his own in a continual effort to improve his mind.

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/8365/2005028239282150751_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005028239282150751)

As an adult, he lived in Illinois and performed a variety of jobs including stints as a postmaster, surveyor and shopkeeper, before entering politics. He served in the Illinois legislature from 1834 to 1836, and then became an lawyer having read law as a clerk in an Illinois law firm. In 1842, Lincoln married Mary Todd; together, the pair raised four sons.

http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/9893/2005002340242860019_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005002340242860019)
Mary Todd Lincoln

Lincoln returned to politics during the 1850s, a time when the nation’s long-standing division over slavery was flaring up, particularly in new territories being added to the Union. As leader of the new Republican Party, Lincoln was considered politically moderate, even on the issue of slavery. He advocated the restriction of slavery to the states in which it already existed and described the practice in a letter as a “minor issue” as late as 1854.

In an 1858 senatorial race, as secessionist sentiment brewed among the southern states, he warned, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. He did not win the Senate seat but earned national recognition as a strong political force. Lincoln’s inspiring oratory soothed a populace anxious about southern states’ secessionist threats and boosted his popularity.

As a presidential candidate in the election of 1860, Lincoln tried to reassure slaveholding interests that although he favored abolition, he had no intention of ending the practice in states where it already existed and prioritized saving the Union over freeing slaves.

http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/8964/2006388432817314668_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006388432817314668)

When he won the presidency by approximately 400,000 popular votes and carried the Electoral College, he was in effect handed a ticking time bomb. His concessions to slaveholders failed to prevent South Carolina from leading other states in an exodus from the Union that began shortly after his election. Leaders in those states were intent on preserving slavery at all costs because their agrarian economies and personal wealth depended on it.

By February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had also seceded. Soon after, the Civil War began. As the war progressed, Lincoln moved closer to committing himself and the nation to the abolitionist movement and, in 1863, finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation which converted the war from one to save the Union to a crusade to end the horrid and repugnant institution.

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/10085/2005031677323901495_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005031677323901495)
Lincoln in the field as commander-in-chief with his army

The document freed slaves only in the Confederate states, but did not address the legality of slavery in Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware or Maryland. The proclamation was legal because it tied the existence of slavery in the states in open rebellion to their continued ability to wage that rebellion. Outlawing slavery elsewhere would require a Constitutional amendment because slavery was provided for in the Constitution, thus it could not be outlawed in the US by executive order or even a federal statute. That amendment came in 1865 after the Confederacy was defeated, but sadly Lincoln did not live to see it

http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/8635/2005019527422954595_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005019527422954595)

Lincoln was the tallest president at 6’ 4.” As a young man, he impressed others with his sheer physical strength--he was a legendary wrestler in Illinois--and entertained friends and strangers alike with his dry, folksy wit, which was still in evidence years later.

Exasperated by one Civil War military defeat after another, Lincoln wrote to a lethargic general “if you are not using the army I should like to borrow it for awhile.” An animal lover, Lincoln once declared, "I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." Fittingly, a variety of pets took up residence at the Lincoln White House, including a pet turkey named Jack and a goat called Nanko. Lincoln’s son Tad frequently hitched Nanko to a small wagon and drove around the White House grounds.

Lincoln’s sense of humor may have helped him to hide recurring bouts of depression. He admitted to friends and colleagues that he suffered from “intense melancholia” and hypochondria most of his adult life. Perhaps in order to cope with it, Lincoln engaged in self-effacing humor, even chiding himself about his famously homely looks. When an opponent in an 1858 Senate race debate called him “two-faced,” he replied, “If I had another face do you think I would wear this one?”

Lincoln is remembered as “The Great Emancipator.” Although he waffled on the subject of slavery in the early years of his presidency, his greatest legacy was his work to preserve the Union and his signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/9222/2005030374722852548_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005030374722852548)

To Confederate sympathizers, however, Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation reinforced his image as a hated despot and ultimately led John Wilkes Booth, an alcoholic actor who refused service in the Confederate Army, to assassinate him on April 14, 1865 when he sneaked up and shot Lincoln in the back of the head. Lincoln's favorite horse, Old Bob, pulled his funeral hearse.

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/11959/2005089467668828548_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005089467668828548)
Tomb in Springfield, IL.

Ironically, most historians agree that had Lincoln lived, Federal "reconstruction" policies would almost certainly have been less severe. The best evidence of this fact are his documented statements of intent to "let the South up easy" and the impeachment of his successor Andrew Johnson who angered those in the Congress who wished to punish the South when he refused to support extremist and punitive "Reconstruction" policies.

Today, there are committed "states rights-ers" who continue to pillory Lincoln's memory, citing his prosecution of the Civil War and the rise of federalism in which federal law always trumps state law as if Lincoln invented it. To them, it is respectfully suggested that they read again Article VI of the Constitution, an important term of a binding contract freely entered into by each state.

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/11472/2006372013699270534_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006372013699270534)

jk the sooner fan

2/12/2007, 07:08 AM

why do you hate sic'em and faninama?

tbl

2/12/2007, 09:54 AM

So why is Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore??? Wasn't he more of a pop culture president than anything?

C&CDean

2/12/2007, 10:05 AM

This won't end up good.

Gandalf_The_Grey

2/12/2007, 10:12 AM

Every time you eat a steak and don't die..thank Teddy..he was the one who started the meat government regulation ;)

tbl

2/12/2007, 10:17 AM

Well that deserves a spot of immortality with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.

Okla-homey

2/12/2007, 10:44 AM

Well that deserves a spot of immortality with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.

He also started the National Park System. That and the fact he put his butt on the line in Cuba instead of just harumphing about the need to fight Spain. I think politicians who argue for war but won't, or haven't been in one, are kinda...well, you know. BTW, Teddy's son went in on the first wave on D-day too as assistant division commander of the 1ID. He could have stayed on the ship.

Bottomline though, you're observation is correct. TR prolly didn't do enough to rate immortality up there on Mt Rushmore. I'd probably have recommended James Madison.

OklahomaTuba

2/12/2007, 02:15 PM

Well that deserves a spot of immortality with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.

Well, he did make Oklahoma a state in the greatest nation to ever exist on the face of the planet.
http://www.state.ok.us/~arts/p/permart/paintings/wimmer/rooseveltproc.jpg
Something has to be said for that. :D

BeetDigger

2/12/2007, 02:19 PM

Gee, that makes TWO great people born this day. :D

Frozen Sooner

2/12/2007, 02:36 PM

I think politicians who argue for war but won't, or haven't been in one, are kinda...well, you know.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but find it interesting coming from you.

Are you saying that a President who has never fought in a war should never argue for war? I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

TUSooner

2/12/2007, 02:39 PM

Gee, that makes TWO great people born this day. :D
Yeah you're right! Charles Darwin was born the 'zact same day & year as Abe.

;)

If Lincoln causes heated disagreements on the SO, just think what a Darwin thread would stir up. :pop:

tbl

2/12/2007, 02:44 PM

Who would argue against the greatness of Lincoln?

Pricetag

2/12/2007, 02:56 PM

"So, Mr. Lincoln, what do you think of this campaign portrait I've drawn for you?"

"Well, do you think you could make my ear and forehead bigger, and maybe exaggerate how messed up my hair is?"

Honest Abe should have kicked that dude's ***.

Ike

2/12/2007, 03:03 PM

OK, this has been up for 8 hours now and still no sign of SicEm and his "Lincoln Destroyed Amurca" rants.

Anybody checked on him?

KaiserSooner

2/12/2007, 03:53 PM

Who would argue against the greatness of Lincoln?

SicEm would. And I understand where he's coming from, I just vehemently disagree with it.

BeetDigger

2/12/2007, 03:55 PM

Yeah you're right! Charles Darwin was born the 'zact same day & year as Abe.

;)

If Lincoln causes heated disagreements on the SO, just think what a Darwin thread would stir up. :pop:

Day, not year. I was thinking about a hundred and sixty or so years later. :texan:

SicEmBaylor

2/12/2007, 04:00 PM

OK, this has been up for 8 hours now and still no sign of SicEm and his "Lincoln Destroyed Amurca" rants.

Anybody checked on him?

I'm sorry, I've been busy mourning the end of dual sovereignty and (small r) republican government.

jk the sooner fan

2/12/2007, 04:26 PM

and faninama has been seeing patients! :)

Okla-homey

2/12/2007, 04:30 PM

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but find it interesting coming from you.

Are you saying that a President who has never fought in a war should never argue for war? I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

I think that its better for the country if the commander-in-chief has military experience, because I think national security must always be job one for the president. Given he's the guy with his finger on the trigger, I think he needs to have experienced military life in order fully understand what he's asking our kids to do.

I also think sabre-rattling is more effective when rattled by someone who understands there is precious little glory in war, and that the glory is outweighed by the suffering, pain, filth, waste, stench, death and abject horror of it all. I contend it is impossible to fully contemplate the implications until you've seen it. That said, war should only be resorted to when all the other options are exhausted and the stakes are sufficiently high.

And yes, in the present instance, the jihaadis have made the stakes sufficiently high.

Frozen Sooner

2/12/2007, 04:39 PM

I think that its better for the country if the commander-in-chief has military experience, because I think national security must always be job one for the president. Given he's the guy with his finger on the trigger, I think he needs to have experienced military life in order fully understand what he's asking our kids to do.

I also think sabre-rattling is more effective when rattled by someone who understands there is precious little glory in war, and that the glory is outweighed by the suffering, pain, filth, waste, stench, death and abject horror of it all. I contend it is impossible to fully contemplate the implications until you've seen it. That said, war should only be resorted to when all the other options are exhausted and the stakes are sufficiently high.

And yes, in the present instance, the jihaadis have made the stakes sufficiently high.

I think this is a specious argument. Your argument would tend to disqualify our current President from ever arguing for war, as it would have FDR.

Okla-homey

2/12/2007, 04:47 PM

I think this is a specious argument. Your argument would tend to disqualify our current President from ever arguing for war, as it would have FDR.

GWB was an Air Force fighter pilot. That counts for something in my book, but had he gone to VN with his generation, he might have viewed things a bit differently. FDR? Not so much. Fortunately for him, he had a guy like George C. Marshall to run things.

sooneron

2/12/2007, 05:20 PM

GWB was an Air Force fighter pilot. That counts for something in my book, but had he gone to VN with his generation, he might have viewed things a bit differently.
Uh, no. He was a pilot in the Texas Air Guard. Being a soldier, I would hope that you would find a HUGE disparity there.

FaninAma

2/12/2007, 05:20 PM

I think I threw up a little bit in my mouth when I saw all of those pictures of that skinny goofy-looking fascist. The only good thing that came from his Presidency is that I get a day off.

C&CDean

2/12/2007, 05:26 PM

Uh, no. He was a pilot in the Texas Air Guard. Being a soldier, I would hope that you would find a HUGE disparity there.

Give it up ron. I was a soldier. Homey was a pilot. And anybody who signs up to serve and fulfills their commitment is a vet.

C&CDean

2/12/2007, 05:27 PM

I think I threw up a little bit in my mouth when I saw all of those pictures of that skinny goofy-looking fascist. The only good thing that came from his Presidency is that I get a day off.

Nuh uh. They gave Lincoln's birthday to MLK. Now, we get "President's Day" which combines the old Lincoln and Washington birthdays into a single day. Which means that MLK > Washington & Lincoln together.

FaninAma

2/12/2007, 05:31 PM

Lincoln opened Pandora's Box that allowed later President's(and other branches of the Federal government) to trample civil liberties and States' Rights.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory1.html

All of you who are bitiching and moaning about the Patriot Act's effects on civil liberties should realize that nothing in the Patriot Act comes close to the disregard for civil liberties under Lincoln's regime.

SicEmBaylor

2/12/2007, 05:34 PM

I think I threw up a little bit in my mouth when I saw all of those pictures of that skinny goofy-looking fascist. The only good thing that came from his Presidency is that I get a day off.

Getting off of work/school is great but you've got it all wrong. Going to work like every other day and disregarding the SOB's birthday all together is best.

jk the sooner fan

2/12/2007, 05:34 PM

annnnnnnnnd we're offfffff

FaninAma

2/12/2007, 05:34 PM

Nuh uh. They gave Lincoln's birthday to MLK. Now, we get "President's Day" which combines the old Lincoln and Washington birthdays into a single day. Which means that MLK > Washington & Lincoln together.

And that is a shame that Washington has to share a day with Lincoln. I don't think there could be any two President's who were so diametrically opposed in their visions of the roles of the federal government and personal freedom.

GW>>>>>>>MLK is >>>>than Lincoln.

Octavian

2/12/2007, 05:38 PM

once again....Lincoln was the POTUS during a time that the differences in political philosophies between the two regions came to a boil.

Confederalism vs. Federalism was going to end in war at some point....it was the great unresolved issue from the Founding.

He did not cause the civil war. He did not shun the vanquished South after the war....he tried to make ammends.

short of surrendering after he'd won or completing rejecting the notion that winners of wars should dictate the rules, I don't know what some you would've wanted him to do.

Losers of wars generally receive much worse treatment than that which was delivered by Lincoln.

...aaaaand Im out ;)

Hamhock

2/12/2007, 05:45 PM

somebody tell me why i'm not supposed to like lincoln?

I mean, didn't he invent the log cabin? Who doesn't like log cabins?

damn public school education...

FaninAma

2/12/2007, 05:46 PM

Getting off of work/school is great but you've got it all wrong. Going to work like every other day and disregarding the SOB's birthday all together is best.

Good point but then I'd be disrespecting ol' George plus I'd be sitting around in an empty clinic. .

BlondeSoonerGirl

2/12/2007, 05:46 PM

somebody tell me why i'm not supposed to like lincoln?

I mean, didn't he invent the log cabin? Who doesn't like log cabins?

And don't forget sweet, deelishus syrup...

Hamhock

2/12/2007, 05:53 PM

And don't forget sweet, deelishus syrup...

i did not know that.

that's two marks in the plus column for old abe.

BlondeSoonerGirl

2/12/2007, 05:54 PM

No, it just reminded me of Log Cabin syrup.

I don't know if he liked it or not.

:mack:

Viking Kitten

2/12/2007, 05:55 PM

Everyone likes syrup. People who don't like syrup are, just... well you know... crazy.

Mjcpr

2/12/2007, 06:00 PM

And don't forget sweet, deelishus syrup...

You're thinking of his aunt, Aunt Jemima.

BlondeSoonerGirl

2/12/2007, 06:02 PM

My Dad used to put a blob of peanut butter in a bowl and put syrup on top of it and eat it.

My teeth hurt.

Viking Kitten

2/12/2007, 06:04 PM

Hillbilly haute cuisine!

P.S. My dad put peanut butter on his mashed taters. YEE HAW!

jk the sooner fan

2/12/2007, 06:05 PM

And don't forget sweet, deelishus syrup...

dont forget the town car!

what old man can be without a lincoln town car

JohnnyMack

2/12/2007, 06:10 PM

annnnnnnnnd we're offfffff

Took much longer than I anticipated.

:slapfight:

tbl

2/12/2007, 06:24 PM

So..... freeing slaves was wrong?

SicEmBaylor

2/12/2007, 06:26 PM

So..... freeing slaves was wrong?
Oh good God.

"So we don't get french benefits??"

JohnnyMack

2/12/2007, 06:49 PM

So..... freeing slaves was wrong?

Right. They were going to do it themselves.

C&CDean

2/13/2007, 10:08 AM

So..... freeing slaves was wrong?

You know, I'm a simple-minded mother****er, but sometimes I'm amazed how much more simple-minded people can be. Geez.

JohnnyMack

2/13/2007, 10:14 AM

You know, I'm a simple-minded mother****er,

That's like saying the Titanic is kinda on the bottom of the ocean.

frankensooner

2/13/2007, 10:16 AM

Well if freeing slaves is wrong, I don't wanna be a-right. ;)

FaninAma

2/13/2007, 11:25 AM

The Greatest American President is, without question, George Washington.
The next greatest President is Martin Van Buren.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_04_2_hummel.pdf

And of course the worst President:
http://libertyrebel.blogspot.com/2005/02/absolute-worst-president-of-united.html

I'm having fun, how about you? (http://And The Worst President)

OklahomaTuba

2/13/2007, 11:51 AM

We ought to debate where FDR should be ranked. That could be interesting.

JohnnyMack

2/13/2007, 11:56 AM

I get the feeling that Fan has one of those penny flattening machines and he sits around flattening out Honest Abe's face and giggling while he knocks back sick packs of Dixie Beer.

TUSooner

2/13/2007, 12:00 PM

And that is a shame that Washington has to share a day with Lincoln. I don't think there could be any two President's who were so diametrically opposed in their visions of the roles of the federal government and personal freedom.

GW>>>>>>>MLK is >>>>than Lincoln.

"President's Day" is a MYTH; it does NOT exist legally. There was some talk about confabulating a new-fangled liberal-smellin' holiday to honor several presidents, including FDR, but it never got enacted.
OFFICIALLY, the 3rd Monday in February is < drum rolllllll.....>

GEORGE WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY

That's it, plain and simple.
I looked it up once, and if I can find the info, I'll share it. But for now, take my word for it: It's NOT President's Day, it's GEORGE WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY

TUSooner

2/13/2007, 12:07 PM

With apoloogies to Abe for jacking his thread:

"President's Day" is a MYTH; it does NOT exist legally....

Despite popular belief, there is no such federal holiday as Presidents' Day. The third Monday in Feb. is the official observance of George Washington's Birthday. See 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a). Washington's birthday was first celebrated nationally in Feb. 1796, while GW was still the Pres. In 1885, Pres. Chester Arthur added Washington's birthday to the list of federal bank holidays. In 1866, some of the country (not in the former Confederacy) started to observe Abraham Lincoln's birthday on Feb. 12, but Lincoln's birthday never became a federal holiday.

The Presidents' Day thing got started in 1971 when the Uniform Holidays Bill of 1968 took effect. The law moved Washington's B-day from February 22 to the third Monday in Feb. and made no mention of Lincoln. Folks accustomed to recognizing 2 presidents in February just assumed that Lincoln's day got rolled into Washington's. Officially, it didn't. And there is no documentary evidence to support the legend that Pres. Nixon issued an order in 1971 designating a "Presidents' Day" holiday to honor all US Presidents.

The date on the Julian calendar in effect when Washington was born was February 11, 1731. Pursuant to the British Calendar Act of 1751, which adopted the Gregorian calendar, 11 days were skipped in 1752 and January 1 was made New Year's Day, so that Washington's birthday became February 22, 1732 (ask Homey to explain). Moving Washington's birthday observance to the third Monday assured that his birthday will never be observed on February 22 because the latest date for a third Monday is the 21st.

FaninAma

2/13/2007, 12:14 PM

I get the feeling that Fan has one of those penny flattening machines and he sits around flattening out Honest Abe's face and giggling while he knocks back sick packs of Dixie Beer.

Yep, that's me. You forgot to mention the Rebel Battle Flag and the autographed picture of Richard Petty hanging on the wall.

KaiserSooner

2/13/2007, 12:47 PM

Lincoln made mistakes a plenty...hell, he disregarded the Supreme Court and the rule of law. But I give him plenty of credit for pushing human and civil rights ahead of the rights of individual states, even if it wasn't his initial intent.

BigRedJed

2/13/2007, 03:06 PM

I just came from a meeting at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, where I also got a chance to stroll through the Lincoln exhibit (http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/secondary.php?section=5&catid=55&id=69) they have up right now. It's a really well-done exhibit, featuring several original documents, plus video and interpretive material. Really well done. Oh, and it deals quite a bit with both sides of the pro/con debate over his presidency and the war.

They also presently have an actor there who looks AMAZINGLY like photographs of Abe. I mean stunningly like him. He's even tall.

One of the guys who was at my meeting told the actor not to go to the theater later.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 03:24 PM

One of the guys who was at my meeting told the actor not to go to the theater later.

He'll be fine. I'm not going.

Hamhock

2/13/2007, 03:46 PM

is someone going to tell me why i'm supposed to hate honest abe?

i've got children to teach!!!

Gandalf_The_Grey

2/13/2007, 05:03 PM

I hate to be the materialistic one out of the group but it would be pretty sweet to be sitting around the plantation drinking some lemonade while everyone else did the work ;)

Viking Kitten

2/13/2007, 05:18 PM

This thread reminds me of this really wierd dream I had the other night. It was the present day, however, the South had won the Civil War and slavery was still legal. So I was driving around in my car, (it was a Buick or something,) but all cars came standard equipped with a computer-generated "negro" who was the one actually operating the car. The image of my "negro" was located in the driver's side mirror so, using voice-recognition software, I could tell him exactly where I wanted to go, and presto, that's where the car went.

And just so everyone knows, I'm against slavery. It was just a very bizarre dream, and this seemed the appropriate place to share.

IB4OU2

2/13/2007, 05:20 PM

jk the sooner fan

2/13/2007, 05:20 PM

that so reminds me of an Eddie Murphy routine

cars with voices that talk to you..........and you'd have a ghetto model

"yo, somebody stole ya battrie, i say we go get the mutha *****"

BigRedJed

2/13/2007, 05:20 PM

I had a dream the other night about Abraham Lincoln and a talking beaver.

And just so everyone knows, I'm for talking beavers.

Scott D

2/13/2007, 05:22 PM

Was the astronaut in full gear getting a cup of coffee?

BigRedJed

2/13/2007, 05:25 PM

I don't know. I was so amazed to be having a conversation with a beaver that I forgot to look around the kitchen.

Scott D

2/13/2007, 05:26 PM

He was probably standing at the counter behind Abe..or looking in the fridge for some cream.

Viking Kitten

2/13/2007, 05:27 PM

I had a dream the other night about Abraham Lincoln and a talking beaver.

And just so everyone knows, I'm for talking beavers.

You prolly want to lay off the vodka.

Frozen Sooner

2/13/2007, 07:25 PM

I had a dream the other night about Abraham Lincoln and a talking beaver.

And just so everyone knows, I'm for talking beavers.

So you were dreaming a drug ad?

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 07:36 PM

Dreaming about Lincoln is not a dream. It's a nightmare.

Okla-homey

2/13/2007, 10:26 PM

You know, the thing that kills me about rabid anti-Lincoln loonies? Here it is, and it helps a lot if you know something about the Civil War. See, one of things that doomed the slave states is the fact that under their notion of states rights, the Confederate government was powerless to pass and enforce laws which infinged on their fundamental notions about the sovereignty of individual states. IOW, the Cornfederate constitution ended up being a suicide pact.

Here's a great example. By the winter of 1865, the Cornfed forces holding the line around Richmond in the Petersburg trenches were badly in need of serviceable clothing. Tens of thousands of boys from Alabama, SC, Texas, etc. were shivering in rags. Now, here's the interesting part. The sovereign state of North Carolina, being a big textile producing state even in those days, had bales and bales of warm, seviceable uniforms sitting in warehouses that the governor of NC (Zebulon Vance) refused to release for issue to Confederate troops who were NOT North Carolinians. That's right, only Tarheels could be issued this state property. Never mind the fact thse suffering kids from other locales were defending NC's interests by keeping Richmond up and operating.

In fact, at war's end, those thousands of uniform sets were still collecting dust in Raleigh warehouses.

Now, I ask you, isn't that ludicrous? That is just one example of how "states rights" and a "limited" federal government proved disastrously impractical. In fact, If I thought it would make any difference, I could go on about how the South ensured its defeat because of such absurd adherence to state sovereignty.

Oh, and what of those uniforms? Well, NC issued those uniforms to its penitentiary inmates at least until 1910 or so.

The whole notion of Calhounian "states rights" is really pretty silly. You simply can't run a country as large and complex as ours that way anymore, especially in wartime. The folks up North understood that, and they used it to crush the slaveocracy into the dust.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 10:29 PM

*cough*cough*Articles of Confederation*cough*cough*triedandfailed*cough*cou gh*Federalism*cough*response*cough*to*cough*BROKEN TRYATSTATESOVEREIGNTY*cough*cough*

Okla-homey

2/13/2007, 10:33 PM

*cough*cough*Articles of Confederation*cough*cough*triedandfailed*cough*cou gh*Federalism*cough*response*cough*to*cough*BROKEN TRYATSTATESOVEREIGNTY*cough*cough*

No kidding. I look on these rabid states-rightsers in the same light as people who insist Marxist-Leninism is still good policy. Both have been tried and both have proven to be miserable failures.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 10:37 PM

*cough*cough*Articles of Confederation*cough*cough*triedandfailed*cough*cou gh*Federalism*cough*response*cough*to*cough*BROKEN TRYATSTATESOVEREIGNTY*cough*cough*

Okay, let me make this ABUNDANTLY clear. I am not in favor of a return to the Articles of Confederation. The southern states were not in favor of a return to the Articles of Confederation which is why the hell they adopted a constitution almost exactly like the US one.

What I am in favor of is a strict interpretation of the US constitution that draws a strict line between the duties and responsibilities of the Federal government and the duties and responsibilities of the state government which is precisely what Federalism is all about. The destruction of Federalism has occured as a result of a disproportionate amount of political power in these United States being concentrated and centralized within the national government at the expense of the state and local governments. The centralization of power is NOT federalism.

Dual sovereignty did not end with the Articles of Confederation. In fact, it didn't even exist under the articles of confederation since the only sovereignty that existed were the states. The concept and belief that dual sovereignty prevented either level of government from assuming too much power by splitting the allegiance of the citizen between their state and a national government was articulated MANY MANY times between ratification and the war. Prior to the war it was accepted as a constitutional fact by both SOUTHERN and NORTHERN states. In fact, there were several leaders in the north that while remaining loyal to the union, feared the resulting centralization of power that occured as a result of the war.

I have no problem with those states that remained loyal to the Union. I have no problem with anyone who thinks it was a bad decision for the south to leave the union. My problem is with the centralization of power that occured as a result of the war.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 10:39 PM

No kidding. I look on these rabid states-rightsers in the same light as people who insist Marxist-Leninism is still good policy. Both have been tried and both have proven to be miserable failures.

What part of it failed exactly? Where was the failing in the system prior to the war? You can argue about the rights of slaves and nobody is going to argue that it was completely immoral, but the political system didn't collapse from within as Marxism did. It failed at the point of bayonet.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 10:41 PM

I figure you can have the states rights if you're willing to do away with the pretense of "United" states. Just have a bunch of little nations like Europe, it'd work the same way.

You'd have all the benefits of a bunch of sovereign states, all doing their own little thing, sure. Of course, you'd have all of the drawbacks, too.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 10:48 PM

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 10:49 PM

I figure you can have the states rights if you're willing to do away with the pretense of "United" states. Just have a bunch of little nations like Europe, it'd work the same way.

Now you're smart enough to know damned well that this has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm advocating. Is it your contention then that we weren't REALLY a nation until 1865 because prior to that there were clearly drawn lines between Federal and state power?

You'd have all the benefits of a bunch of sovereign states, all doing their own little thing, sure. Of course, you'd have all of the drawbacks, too.

I'm not talking about total sovereignty of the states. The division of power doesn't work unless there is an equal division of power between the state and Federal government. But there is clearly a constitutional role for the states to play; powers not granted the Federal government were clearly reserved to the individual states and a result of the war was an erosion of those reserved state powers and the centralization of national power.

It amazes me that regardless of how you feel about the war, conservatives (especially) are unable to come right out and admit that a possible negative consequence of the war was a centralization of power by the Federal government which has led to BIGGER government and the nanny state we all decry today.

Okla-homey

2/13/2007, 10:51 PM

Okay, let me make this ABUNDANTLY clear. I am not in favor of a return to the Articles of Confederation. The southern states were not in favor of a return to the Articles of Confederation which is why the hell they adopted a constitution almost exactly like the US one.

What I am in favor of is a strict interpretation of the US constitution that draws a strict line between the duties and responsibilities of the Federal government and the duties and responsibilities of the state government which is precisely what Federalism is all about. The destruction of Federalism has occured as a result of a disproportionate amount of political power in these United States being concentrated and centralized within the national government at the expense of the state and local governments. The centralization of power is NOT federalism. If those peckerheads had not been so determined to keep a significant segment of the population under their heel, their would have been no need to upset the previously inviolate perogative of states.

Dual sovereignty did not end with the Articles of Confederation. In fact, it didn't even exist under the articles of confederation since the only sovereignty that existed were the states. The concept and belief that dual sovereignty prevented either level of government from assuming too much power by splitting the allegiance of the citizen between their state and a national government was articulated MANY MANY times between ratification and the war. Prior to the war it was accepted as a constitutional fact by both SOUTHERN and NORTHERN states. In fact, there were several leaders in the north that while remaining loyal to the union, feared the resulting centralization of power that occured as a result of the war.

I have no problem with those states that remained loyal to the Union. I have no problem with anyone who thinks it was a bad decision for the south to leave the union. My problem is with the centralization of power that occured as a result of the war.

Like I've said before, Lincoln had precious little to do with creating the modern status quo. After the war ended, things pretty much snapped back into the same shape they were in in 1861. Things remained pretty static until the Depression and the New Deal. After 1937, things changed for good. For that, you need to be hating on FDR. (You would better understand that if you ever took a Constitutional law course and read the cases -- which I would encourage.)

You also need to be hatin' on the ardent segregationists in the South (Oklahoma included) who refused to acknowledge that black folks were human beings, which compelled the power and majesty of the Federal government to become involved in what had previously been local matters (like schools, zoning, taxation, voting, employment practices, jails and prisons, public policy, municipal ordinances and state laws) to put things right.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 10:52 PM

SicEm, I'll just put it simply: IMO, the concept of dual sovereignty is just straight up doomed to eventual failure, and sooner rather than later.

I'll draw an analogy from monarchy: Can you have two kings in charge of a country for very long? No, eventually it comes to a head and one does away with the other. How about a king with his nobility? Sooner or later, either the king brings his noblemen to heel, or the other way around.

Either the states are supreme, OR the federal government is. I just don't see how you can have co-equal sovereigns in the long term.

Look, you could ask the same question about divided powers. How can the government function when powers are split between three different branches?

It works because there is a framework for what powers belong to which branch just as there is a framework for what powers belong to what level of government. NEITHER is supreme over the other. BOTH are supreme within their sphere of responsibility. Tyranny is the result of any one branch becoming too power and is also the result of either level of government becoming too powerful. All power in the national is clearly divided and any increase in power by one branch or level comes at the expense of another and is what I consider to be the markings of a tyrannical government.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 10:55 PM

For that, you need to be hating on FDR. (You would better understand that if you ever took a Constitutional law course and read the cases -- which I would encourage.)

Homey, I have had a Constitutional Law class and DO understand what you're saying. I've said here, there, and everywhere exactly what you are saying right now. After the war, the Federal government (for the most part) remained within its proper constitutional role. The war laid the groundwork for FDR. I've said MANY MANY times that FDR would have been unable to sell the New Deal if it hadn't been for the foundation that Lincoln laid.

You also need to be hatin' on the ardent segregationists in the South (Oklahoma included) who refused to acknowledge that black folks were human beings, which compelled the power and majesty of the Federal government to become involved in what had previously been local matters (like schools, zoning, taxation, voting, employment practices, jails and prisons, public policy, municipal ordinances and state laws) to put things right.

Now that part I do somewhat agree with you on. Slavery was a lousy *** issue (although as you know I consider it to be the catalyst but hardly the single cause for the war) to throw away proper constitutional government. At last we agree on something.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 10:57 PM

SicEm, with that first post, I was responding to Homey's comment that the notion of states rights is a miserable failure and his comparison to Marx-Leninism.

I feel that his statement over simplifies the situation; I believe both of them can work, you just have to be willing to accept and provide certain constraints.

In the case of states rights, for example, the constraint I believe is necessary is the necessary extinction of the federal government and the eventual devolution into separate sovereign states as is the case in Europe.

In the case of Marxism, I suspect that it works if you accept the constraint that it does not scale. It might work if you have a small tight-knit, like-minded community, but if you have even a few people who don't wholly buy into the system, it will collapse.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 11:01 PM

Look, you could ask the same question about divided powers. How can the government function when powers are split between three different branches?
(...)

Don't kid yourself. The system will collapse eventually.

I'm not saying that the dual sovereignty system cannot function, I'm saying that it cannot survive. There's a difference. I also feel that it is a particularly unstable relationship for the same reasons a dual monarch or weak monarch/strong nobility relationship is unstable.

The separate branches system will eventually fail -- you can clearly see at least one branch chipping away at it steadily right now -- I just think it's more stable than the co-sovereign system.

EDIT: And I think it's more stable at a minimum because in the multiple branches system as constituted, no one branch can co-opt the military and send it against the other; the military is first and foremost loyal to the Constitution, which includes all of the branches. In the dual sovereignty system, the federal system has its own military as do all of the states, so if things get heated, it's easy for each to muster its forces and set them marching.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:06 PM

I feel that his statement over simplifies the situation; I believe both of them can work, you just have to be willing to accept and provide certain constraints.

The constraints are there. The constitution did not take into account a power bloc of states that would use their dominance of the federal government to coerce other states and act in a manner contrary to the best interest of those states (especially where tariffs and economic matters are concerned), but I do believe the constraints are clearly there.

In the case of states rights, for example, the constraint I believe is necessary is the necessary extinction of the federal government and the eventual devolution into separate sovereign states as is the case in Europe.

I absolutely do not believe the dissolution of the Federal government (nor would I ever support such a prospect) is necessary to retain the sovereign state. What is necessary is a well informed electorate that holds elected officials accountable when they start moving outside of their constitutional bounds. I truly feel like my political power as an American citizen has been taken away because I can't call up my local state representative with my concerns or talk to him at the grocery store or church on Sunday and voice my concerns to him as the PRIMARY conduit to government in my life....instead policy that affects my community and myself are made by the officials in a far away capital full of people from WIDELY differing communities.

I EXPECT the primary force of government in my life to be my state. They sure as hell don't always get it right and they can screw up as badly as the federal government can, but it is easier for me as a citizen to redress those problems with a representative that is from my actual community than I do a Congress half a continent away.

Okla-homey

2/13/2007, 11:07 PM

Look, you could ask the same question about divided powers. How can the government function when powers are split between three different branches?

It works because there is a framework for what powers belong to which branch just as there is a framework for what powers belong to what level of government. NEITHER is supreme over the other. BOTH are supreme within their sphere of responsibility. Tyranny is the result of any one branch becoming too power and is also the result of either level of government becoming too powerful. All power in the national is clearly divided and any increase in power by one branch or level comes at the expense of another and is what I consider to be the markings of a tyrannical government.

Framework? heh. You're really pretty naive my young friend. Here's something to cogitate on. Take a Federal agency. Any one you choose. Now, that agency, say for example the Department of Energy, has elements of all three branches of government vested in it. DOE makes federal regulations which have the force of law (that sounds legislative doesn't it?) It also decides who gets licensed to operate a nuclear reactor or if they get to keep their license to operate if they mess up (that sounds judicial doesn't it?) and they enforce their own regulations by charging violators with breaking the rules/law (that sounds like enforcement doesn't it?) See, within a single agency, created by federal statute by the Congress, we have an entity that is part of the executive branch, which makes its own laws and which also adjudicates issues relevant to its area of responsibility.

Now, I ask you, HTF could that work if we didn't have a federal executive agency which had the power vested in it by Congress to waltz into a state and tell them what to do irrespective of state law to the contrary?

I'll tell you. It couldn't. That's why your concept is a non-starter. Unless you really think it would be better if each state had its own miniature DOE to manage all the stuff DOE regulates -- which would be pretty scary, particularly Arkansas.;)

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:15 PM

for example the Department of Energy, has elements of all three branches of government vested in it. DOE makes rules which have the force of law (that sounds legislative doesn't it?)....

It also decides who gets licensed to operate a nuclear reactor or if they get to keep their license to operate if they mess up (that sounds judicial doesn't it?) and they enforce their own regulations by charging violators with breaking the rules/law (that sounds like enforcement doesn't it?) See, within a single agency, created by federal statute by the Congress, we have an entity that is part of the executive branch, which also adjudicates issues relevant to its area of responsibility.

The regulatory powers of a Federal agency do not supersede Congressional legislation. The Congress can vest a Federal agency (by virtue of creating it) with certain responsibilities and with those responsibilities comes the power to regulate as a legitimate agency formed by the Congress. As you well know, Congress can strip a federal agency of that regulatory power at any time or over rule it via legislation.

In either case, the division of power is still clearly there. Congress has passed a law which it is constitutionally entitled to do. In turn, the Executive oversees that agency as it executes/enforces the law and will of Congress. Furthermore, if that particular agency were to create a regulation that goes above and beyond its legislative mandate then it can be sued and the power of that Federal agency to regulate in that particular way can be judicially reviewed.

The point of all that being is that you still have a defined separation of powers even with a federal agency with regulatory power.

sooneron

2/13/2007, 11:16 PM

Give it up ron. I was a soldier. Homey was a pilot. And anybody who signs up to serve and fulfills their commitment is a vet.
Of course, that whole fullfilling the commitment part is vague.:D

Okla-homey

2/13/2007, 11:23 PM

The regulatory powers of a Federal agency does not supersede Congressional legislation. The Congress can vest a Federal agency (by virtue of creating it) with certain responsibilities and with those responsibilities comes the power to regulate as a legitimate agency formed by the Congress. As you well know, Congress can strip a federal agency of that regulatory power at any time or over rule it via legislation. And when is the last time that happened? Yes, you are correct in theory, but practically speaking, it hardly ever occurs

In either case, the division of power is still clearly there. Congress has passed a law which it is constitutional entitled to do. In turn, the Executive oversees that agency as it executes/enforces the law and will of Congress. Furthermore, if that particular agency were to create a regulation that goes above and beyond its legislative mandate then it can be sued and the power of that Federal agency to regulate in that particular way can be judicially reviewed. Again, correct, but the courts are remarkably deferential to agency positions and interpretations. Practically speaking, an aggrieved party is virtually powerless to fight an entrenched agency position. Particularly in areas of technical compliance with federal regulations

The point of all that being is that you still have a defined separation of powers even with a federal agency with regulatory power. Only on paper.

Anyway, perhaps I'm not being clear. My point is, were it not for the modern power of the Federal government, the fourth branch of government, called the Administrative branch, couldn't function and the country would be in a bigger mess than it is.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 11:25 PM

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:31 PM

Anyway, perhaps I'm not being clear. My point is, were it not for the modern power of the Federal government, the fourth branch of government, called the Administrative branch, couldn't function and the country would be in a bigger mess than it is.
:shrug: Who knows?

I think we'd still have a hell of a mess except the mess would be in a different place. Sort of like instead of the upstairs being a pigsty and unmanageable the downstairs would be.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:33 PM

The problem is that providing for the "well informed" electorate at all times is tricky if not impossible. Relying on something that mercurial does not result in a steady state.

Well, that's why I don't like universal suffrage or people in general. ;)

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:34 PM

My God people....

All I want is to sit on my expansive porch in the balmy evening and have my house servants bring me mint juleps and cigars on a silver tray while talking politics with the county judge. Is that so wrong!?

KIDDING

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 11:34 PM

Well, that's why I don't like universal suffrage or people in general. ;)

shrug, I'm just pointing out here that your premise is probably unworkable in practice -- you just can't rely on people to do what you want them to.

Communism suffers from the same problem.

Frozen Sooner

2/13/2007, 11:35 PM

SicEm, do you own any property?

The reason I ask is because that's usually one of the tests that's applied when franchise is limited.

Well, that on top of sex and race.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 11:35 PM

All I want is to sit on my expansive porch in the balmy evening and have my house servants bring me mint juleps and cigars on a silver tray while talking politics with the county judge. Is that so wrong!?

People like that still exist. They're called "CEO".

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:39 PM

SicEm, do you own any property?

The reason I ask is because that's usually one of the tests that's applied when franchise is limited.

Well, that on top of sex and race.

Nope, don't own any property. If that were as a legitimate litmus test as it used to be then I'd gladly give up my right to vote until such time as I had "earned" the right.

But anywhoo, no property ownership is no longer a valid test. I'm in favor of a basic citizenship test similar to the one given to immigrants now.

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:40 PM

People like that still exist. They're called "CEO".
I'd want the Berry family plantation back. We lost it as a result of "the wah."
The money that was left was used to start up a liberal arts college in Georgia. :-(

Frozen Sooner

2/13/2007, 11:42 PM

I'm curious. Why isn't a valid test any longer?

Would someone who owns a condo be barred from voting?

They used to give "citizenship" tests back in the Jim Crow era. Look 'em up.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 11:43 PM

Become the CEO of a big enough company, you'll probably have enough money to get that plantation back.

Okla-homey

2/13/2007, 11:45 PM

One more little Civil War era "states rights is a suicide pact" tidbit. In the Confederate States, there was no standard railroad gauge. This was due to the fact the various states couldn't agree on one and the Cornfed gubmint in Richmond was powerless to set and enforce one. That sort of thing was considered the exclusive purview of the individual "sovereign states." BTW, early on, the evile and omnipresent Federal gubmint under Marse Lincoln said to heck with that and declared a standard guage in the Nawth.

Therefore, in order to travel from Virginia to North Georgia, Cornfed shipments had to switch trains at least five times. East-west movements from Georgia to Mississippi meant four different switches. That's right, unload all the crap, and load it onto a different train at the state border. That meant it was impossible to quickly and efficiently move troops and supplies on the railroads the South had in existence during the war.

Ergo, very difficult to concentrate military power at the decisive time and place outside the cockpit of the Civil War in Virginia. That's a big reason the western Cornfed armies got their gray-clad arses handed to them by guys like Grant even during the early war period when the Cornfed boys were mostly winning in Virginia.

Yepper, that there states rights was a wonderful concept! At least it helped ensure Cornfed defeat.

Frozen Sooner

2/13/2007, 11:47 PM

One more little Civil War era "states rights is a suicide pact" tidbit. In the Confederate States, there was no standard railroad gauge. This was due to the fact the various states couldn't agree on one and the Cornfed gubmint in Richmond was powerless to set and enforce one. That sort of thing was considered the exclusive purview of the individual "sovereign states."

Therefore, in order to travel from Virginia to North Georgia, Cornfed shipments had to switch trains at least five times. East-west movements from Georgia to Mississippi meant four different switches. That's right, unload all the crap, and load it onto a different train at the state border. That meant it was impossible to quickly and efficiently move troops and supplies on the railroads the South had in existence during the war.

Ergo, very difficult to concentrate military power at the decisive time and place outside the cockpit of the Civil War in Virginia. That's a big reason the western Cornfed armies got their gray-clad arses handed to them by guys like Grant even during the early war period when the Cornfed boys were mostly winning in Virginia.

Yepper, that there states rights was a wonderful concept! At least it helped ensure Cornfed defeat.

Pfft. Yet another example of the Commerce Clause being stretched all out of shape from the Framers' intent. They would have WANTED non-standard gauge rail lines.

You know who else made the trains run on time? Hitler, that's who! You a Nazi, son?

(I'm being intentionally silly here...)

SicEmBaylor

2/13/2007, 11:47 PM

I'm curious. Why isn't a valid test any longer?
Because land property is no longer an indicator of social status and social status is no longer an indicator of a man's ability to conduct himself within the political arena.

They used to give "citizenship" tests back in the Jim Crow era. Look 'em up.
I'm going to go out right now and grab a book on this "citizenship test" during the "jim crow era" having never heard of either one! It sounds exciting though! ;)

I absolutely reject basing voting rights based on some physical characteristic that a person has absolutely no control over and is in no shape, form, or fashion an indicator of their ability to involve themselves in the political process. This includes, race, sex, hair color, height, etc.

Vaevictis

2/13/2007, 11:53 PM

Because land property is no longer an indicator of social status and social status is no longer an indicator of a man's ability to conduct himself within the political arena.

Heh, and when it was an indicator, it was a poor one.

Frozen Sooner

2/13/2007, 11:53 PM

sooneron

2/13/2007, 11:55 PM

Become the CEO of a big enough company, you'll probably have enough money to get that plantation back.
Yeah, no ****, quit being a lazy gd lib and get off your *** and start some trickle down.

Ike

2/13/2007, 11:58 PM

Personally, I think the average person is an idiot, so should the franchise only be extended to people with IQs over 110?

well, I'd go to 120...or even higher! But thats just because it would mean I get a bigger slice of the pie.

and then, after that change, I'd lobby to a) make the IQ test more conform to my way of thinking, and b) continue to up the range, having rigged the system to make myself the model of perfection IQ wise.

Ike

2/14/2007, 12:00 AM

Yeah, no ****, quit being a lazy gd lib and get off your *** and start some trickle down.

heh....trickle down economics. Why don't they just be truthful and call it "we're ****ing on you" economics.

;)

sooneron

2/14/2007, 12:02 AM

well, I'd go to 120...or even higher! But thats just because it would mean I get a bigger slice of the pie.

and then, after that change, I'd lobby to a) make the IQ test more conform to my way of thinking, and b) continue to up the range, having rigged the system to make myself the model of perfection IQ wise.
Sweet! I'm holding strong at 131. What do I win?

Ike

2/14/2007, 12:03 AM

Sweet! I'm holding strong at 131. What do I win?
you get to vote....until I up the range some more.

sooneron

2/14/2007, 12:06 AM

heh....trickle down economics. Why don't they just be truthful and call it "we're ****ing on you" economics.

;)
Uh oh, get ready for another sic'em sobfest, this time.... Reaganomics.

SicEmBaylor

2/14/2007, 12:09 AM

How is land property no longer an indicator of social status? Owning land shows that you've either saved some money in your life or you were born fortunately-both which are indicators of social status. Why is social status not an indicator of a man's (used as the gender-neutral pronoun I assume) ability to conduct himself in the political arena?

Property ownership now is far far easier than it used to be. Especially large property ownership. The ********* down the street who sits on the couch in his lawn drinking beer and shooting squirrels presumably owns the property he's sitting on.

From there it's a very short distance to figuring out some way of making it so that people who don't think like you do are considered irresponsible.

Now you're getting it! ;) (kidding)

If you absolutely reject voting rights based on some physical characteristic that a person has absolutely no control over and is in no shape, form, or fashion an indicator of their ability to involve themselves in the political process, then where do you draw that line?

The line is drawn at a basic standardized test. If you can't read you can't take the test. This test wouldn't exactly require you to write a doctoral thesis in American government. If you know 8th grade Civics then you should pass the test. It isn't that hard a line to cross.

Do you extend the franchise to the mentally handicapped?
If this particular mentally handicapped individual could pass the test than sure. And I'm not so sure some of them couldn't. Do you really want the mentally handicapped voting now?? How does it improve the political process to have someone voting who has no clue what in the hell it is that they're even doing?

How about to someone of just subnormal IQ?
If their IQ is sufficient to pass the test then it's sufficient enough to vote.

[quotePersonally, I think the average person is an idiot, so should the franchise only be extended to people with IQs over 110?[/QUOTE]

I also believe the average person is an idiot.

Ike

2/14/2007, 12:15 AM

If their IQ is sufficient to pass the test then it's sufficient enough to vote.

The problem is, as I alluded to earlier, any and every test can be rigged. The standard citizenship test might be fine now, but what happens when some overzealous politician slips in a few changes to the test under the radar that reject people that say, don't believe that the the earth is only 250 years old, or some other such nonsense. In other words, doing so can essentially give those in power even more power to ensure that they remain in power. And that runs completely counter to the principles this country was founded on.

Frozen Sooner

2/14/2007, 12:19 AM

olevetonahill

2/14/2007, 01:03 AM

WOW
I love me some Good ole USA , dont like somethings , hate others , But mostly I Luvit . Thanks Abe for keepin us together .
Now you dayum Yankees STFU .

SicEmBaylor

2/14/2007, 01:04 AM

So, Sic 'Em, I should be required to pass a test about American government and history before I'm allowed to vote on a school bond measure? Because I don't know who the 5th president of the United States was I'm incompetent to know whether it's a decent tradeoff for the mill rate to go up a tad to improve schools?

Well, I wouldn't put who the 5th President was on the test. That'd be history not civics, but that's kind of beside the point...

This a good question because it brings up another issue of mine and even brings us back to the states' rights debate. I believe that a state should be able to set its own criteria for voting in elections within that state. So when I say I favor a citizenship test then of course that would have to be on the Federal level although each state, for all I care, could administer its own state tests.

Now, if you're voting in a municipal election then you'd be constrained by whatever voting criteria the state has imposed which probably wouldn't include who the 5th President was.

All of this is theoretical of course because I honestly can't begin to imagine how difficult it would be to deal with two separate voter registration lists.

Don't bag on the d'bag down the street, by the way. At least he's not a transient.

We have plenty of transients around here as well...

Well, this has all been fun tonight but I've gotta hit the sack and repeat all of these arguments tomorrow in class for 100000000th time. :D

Gandalf_The_Grey

2/14/2007, 05:24 AM

2/14/2007, 05:50 AM

I always thought Martin Van Buren should have been on Mt. Rushmore. He dressed fastidiously and was trim and erect.:eek:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/mb8.html

FaninAma

2/14/2007, 11:47 AM

The constraints are there. The constitution did not take into account a power bloc of states that would use their dominance of the federal government to coerce other states and act in a manner contrary to the best interest of those states (especially where tariffs and economic matters are concerned), but I do believe the constraints are clearly there.

I absolutely do not believe the dissolution of the Federal government (nor would I ever support such a prospect) is necessary to retain the sovereign state. What is necessary is a well informed electorate that holds elected officials accountable when they start moving outside of their constitutional bounds. I truly feel like my political power as an American citizen has been taken away because I can't call up my local state representative with my concerns or talk to him at the grocery store or church on Sunday and voice my concerns to him as the PRIMARY conduit to government in my life....instead policy that affects my community and myself are made by the officials in a far away capital full of people from WIDELY differing communities.

I EXPECT the primary force of government in my life to be my state. They sure as hell don't always get it right and they can screw up as badly as the federal government can, but it is easier for me as a citizen to redress those problems with a representative that is from my actual community than I do a Congress half a continent away.

The main problem with a strong centralized government, aside from the dilution of voter control and authority, is that it is easier for special interests to influence a single governing body that has all of the control with fewer members(as opposed to 50 state legislatures and executives).

TUSooner

2/14/2007, 11:51 AM

I always thought Martin Van Buren should have been on Mt. Rushmore. He dressed fastidiously and was trim and erect.:eek:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/mb8.html
And he spoke Dutch fluently!

SicEmBaylor

2/14/2007, 01:34 PM

The main problem with a strong centralized government, aside from the dilution of voter control and authority, is that it is easier for special interests to influence a single governing body that has all of the control with fewer members(as opposed to 50 state legislatures and executives).

Absolutely true. I'm as big a capitalist as anyone, but big business is especially responsible for a lot of this. They favor Federal regulation in place of state regulations in order to more cheaply comply.

Then of course you have the 10,000 other special interest groups who more or less think the exact same way...it's either to lobby a single governing body then 50 separate ones.

That's a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up because it's another great example of the problem.

SicEmBaylor

2/14/2007, 01:38 PM

The biggest problem with saying "oh we will sit up a test to make sure people are worthy to vote" is that when you start limiting certain people...then another logical progression occurs such as unwed mothers haven't the time properly follow the political arena so we will have to revoke her vote as well. Then we have to eliminate children of one parent homes because they don't have the "proper" raising to determine these important issues. You can't start limiting voting because history has shown that if you take an inch eventually it will turn into a mile.

Well, the problem with your analogy is that an individual wouldn't have to keep up with current events in order to pass the test. How on Earth could you even create a test that required someone to know the goings ons in American politics? I'm talking about a test requiring you to know the basic process of government. So a house wife with 6 kids wouldn't need to keep up with current events (although of course it would be nice if everyone did).

But in the end you can create a "slippery slope" situation for everything under the sun. I think the single criteria should be very simple....pass the test. Just like getting your driver's license at the DMV, you'd go to the county elections board to take your test and get your registration card.

At the very absolute least, I wish polling places complied with the law (in most states) of requiring a valid ID before voting.

Scott D

2/14/2007, 01:45 PM