**** the Founding Fathers

[Rich2018]

This is why bother...

"Within the United States, there was public support for the boycott. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution approving the decision to stay away from Moscow with a vote of 386 in favor and 12 opposed; the U.S. Senate passed a similar measure with a vote of 88 to 4. Technically, the decision of whether or not to send athletes to the Olympic Games does not actually rest with either the President or the Congress, however; it is the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) that makes the final determination in such a situation. In the face of such broad support, however, the USOC expressed its willingness to respect the decision of the U.S. Government with regard to the games."

The Olympic Boycott, 1980

In the USA the Olympic Committee sided with the government although they could have refused and gone while in the UK their Olympic Committee did not side with the government. That also really has nothing to do with the topic of what we were talking about...

The systems of government are essentially the same and literally nothing you said counters that fact.

There was a lot of public support on the right for a boycott of the Olympics too.

British athletes refused to take orders though.


In the USA there would have been legal consequences for any athlete that refused a US government order not to go.

Are you unaware what the USA did to Bobby Fischer ?


"...in 1992, he reemerged to win an unofficial rematch against Spassky. It was held in Yugoslavia, which was under a United Nations embargo at the time. His participation led to a conflict with the US government, which warned Fischer that his participation in the match would violate an executive order imposing US sanctions on Yugoslavia. The US government ultimately issued a warrant for his arrest. After that, Fischer lived his life as an émigré. In 2004, he was arrested in Japan and held for several months..."


The US government, has the power to order its citizens not to go to a country. Not so in the UK, where people are free.

I hope you're not planning to visit Cuba any time soon, a US citizen must no go there (except with special permission) but a British subject can go (because he/she is free to do so)

So much for "freedom" huh ?

 

[Night_Ranger]

???

WTF

Socialism ***IS*** an economic system.

My bad, sorry, I intended to say you believe that socialism as an economic doesn't dictate or influence or mandate the politics of government...

 

[danielpalos]

The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution | Marmalade


https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=utk_chanhonoproj



Quote the references to money please.

Under capitalism? Those with more Gold simply make more rules favorable to themselves.

 

[Rich2018]

My bad, sorry, I intended to say you believe that socialism as an economic doesn't dictate or influence or mandate the politics of government...

Socialism is a great idea that we just haven't been able to make work yet.


In post revolutionary Russia and China, politicians there basically rammed socialism down people's throats.
And neither country having any kind of democratic tradition saw it adopted in a crude and coercive manner.

Socialism failed in both countries but perhaps more so in the USSR where quickly a totalitarian regime was established based on a paranoia that it faced huge and real threats to its existence.

As the economy failed through incompetence and the crude manner change was implemented, adherence to the economics could only be maintained through fear and force - and it is this failure that many on the right point to as a unpalatable characteristic of socialism.


Communism, like capitalism, needs to grow from the ground up to work, not a command economy from the top down.

It works well on a small scale and might well work well as the scales increased but not as a national command.

 

[Rich2018]

Under capitalism? Those with more Gold simply make more rules favorable to themselves.

Hence the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

 

[Bodi]

There was a lot of public support on the right for a boycott of the Olympics too.

British athletes refused to take orders though.


In the USA there would have been legal consequences for any athlete that refused a US government order not to go.

Are you unaware what the USA did to Bobby Fischer ?


"...in 1992, he reemerged to win an unofficial rematch against Spassky. It was held in Yugoslavia, which was under a United Nations embargo at the time. His participation led to a conflict with the US government, which warned Fischer that his participation in the match would violate an executive order imposing US sanctions on Yugoslavia. The US government ultimately issued a warrant for his arrest. After that, Fischer lived his life as an émigré. In 2004, he was arrested in Japan and held for several months..."


The US government, has the power to order its citizens not to go to a country. Not so in the UK, where people are free.

I hope you're not planning to visit Cuba any time soon, a US citizen must no go there (except with special permission) but a British subject can go (because he/she is free to do so)

So much for "freedom" huh ?

I had a nice big response that timed out... Just a summation:

US Citizens can travel to Cuba.

The British Athletes did not rise up in mass protest to tyranny and attend the 1980 Olympics... the British O.C. decided.

You have a few examples of past travel restrictions... this is a Straw Man. Completely irrelevant to how the two systems are alike.

You're problem is that you really don't know enough to be talking about constitutional politics at all.


As witnessed by you recent surrender rather than offering anything that can called a "debate".

:lol: Dude, I have actually talked about how the systems are similar... how they work. You have huffed and puffed about fears, a few travel restrictions and have shown that you have very little grasp about how the Judiciary functions in either system.

"It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual. "

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-...nstitution/jud-acc-ind/judges-and-parliament/

Just more evidence and facts that I am sure you will simply ignore like you did the last time. :shrug:

 

[Rich2018]

I had a nice big response that timed out... Just a summation:

Take my advice and copy your whole post before posting on any forum

I think we've all lost long posts over the years

US Citizens can travel to Cuba.

Technically yes, the law says they can't contribute to the Cuban economy, and that could be simply staying at a hotel

And as I said it is with permission and for certain reasons - that does not include tourism

The Cubans will let you in a take your $$$ but boy will you have a problem when you come back

The "sore loser" syndrome with Cuba is a blight on US foreign policy

You can vacation in Moscow but not Havana. Why ever not do you think ?

The British Athletes did not rise up in mass protest to tyranny and attend the 1980 Olympics...

Hmmm...US athlete were ready to go were it not for the invasion of Afghanistan (was the USSR not just as totalitarian before the tanks started rolling?)

British athletes were ordered by the British government not to go, they went anyway almost to a man

The tyranny was the US government, it's not athletes job to conduct government policy


Did US athletes also not go to Beijing in 2008 (despite China's human rights record) and Berlin in 1936? So don't talk crap about "standing up to tyranny"

... this is a Straw Man. Completely irrelevant to how the two systems are alike.

The US and UK systems of government are indeed more alike than they're different

The point I'm making is that every Western democratic system of government follows the British, not the American model

Third World dictatorships follow the American model

....you have very little grasp about how the Judiciary functions in either system....

You have shown you have no understanding of the world's political systems of government at all

Just more evidence and facts that I am sure you will simply ignore like you did the last time.

Your quote is a fair one and proof that the judiciary should NOT be regarded as a branch of government

Without checking, I'm willing to state that the USA is the ONLY Western democracy that does.

 

[Casca XV]

If they were so smart, how come they didn’t foresee where the US finds itself today?


Tired of hearing about the FF and what they meant........

They created a Constitution and Bill of Rights that has kept the Left from gaining all the power they want and destroying this nation. They were not perfect but they were very smart.

 

[Bodi]

Hmmm...US athlete were ready to go were it not for the invasion of Afghanistan (was the USSR not just as totalitarian before the tanks started rolling?)

British athletes were ordered by the British government not to go, they went anyway almost to a man

The tyranny was the US government, it's not athletes job to conduct government policy


Did US athletes also not go to Beijing in 2008 (despite China's human rights record) and Berlin in 1936? So don't talk crap about "standing up to tyranny"

You completely misunderstood my point about what British athletes did and why...

The US and UK systems of government are indeed more alike than they're different

This should be the end of the debate... yet you persist. :shrug:

Third World dictatorships follow the American model

Then you contradict yourself... if the systems are more alike then the Third World Dictatorships are also following the UK and NZ model.

The point I'm making is that every Western democratic system of government follows the British, not the American model

No they don't. They are almost completely identical. I have lived in both systems. You obviously have not, at least demonstrated by your comments. Additionally, the UK and NZ and other Western Democracies also have Constitutions...

New Zealand’s Constitution

Britain's unwritten constitution - The British Library

Your quote is a fair one and proof that the judiciary should NOT be regarded as a branch of government

Without checking, I'm willing to state that the USA is the ONLY Western democracy that does.

"Branch of Government" doesn't mean anything... why can't you grasp that? It is what the Judiciary can do that matters and I CLEARLY showed that it is the same in the UK as it is in the USA. That alone negates this stupid statement:

You have shown you have no understanding of the world's political systems of government at all

...as I have shown far more understanding than you, you should be really worried if you think that I don't understand.

 

[Rich2018]

You completely misunderstood my point about what British athletes did and why...

They went to the games because they wanted to compete
There is no other what and why

US athletes, to a man, obeyed the orders of their president


British athletes are not as subservient

This should be the end of the debate... yet you persist.

The point was made that the US system of government is widely copied - it is not
Not by Western democracies because it is seen as a poor system of government, despite your chest thumping claim that the US Constitution is a "f*****g masterpiece" - it is not. The US Constitution is a poorly written, vague and ambiguous document, and a very poor basis to base a system of government on.

Then you contradict yourself... if the systems are more alike then the Third World Dictatorships are also following the UK and NZ model.

Which third world dictatorships?

I said they follow the US model - remember the one based on the so called "f*****g masterpiece"

Reading comprehension failure

You don't need any help at all in tripping up do you ?

No they don't. They are almost completely identical. I have lived in both systems. You obviously have not, at least demonstrated by your comments. Additionally, the UK and NZ and other Western Democracies also have Constitutions...

Of course the UK has a constitution, but not a written one, rather one that has evolved over centuries
There is no British constitution document

The Parliamentary and the Presidential systems of government aren't identical, they're not even "almost" identical
Are you really not aware how they differ?

eg: The British system of government has the government (PM + cabinet) wholly within the legislature. The great majority of which are elected to parliamentary seats
The head of state and the head of the government are separated
The head of government is not elected as such, consequently, it can and does change
Elections do not have to be after a set period
The head of a parliamentary government is accountable on a daily basis to the legislature

"Branch of Government" doesn't mean anything... why can't you grasp that?

Really then why say the Judiciary and Legislature are branches of government?
They shouldn't be regarded as such and it is a mistake to do so

The government is the executive.

...as I have shown far more understanding than you, you should be really worried if you think that I don't understand.

You said you taught government, I'm glad that I never attended any of your classes

You've consistently shown, you are quite ignorant about basic concepts of government and know little about government outside the USA which for reasons best known to yourself, you publicly eulogize about

"F*****g masterpiece" Don't make me laugh.

:lamo

 

[Bodi]

They went to the games because they wanted to compete
There is no other what and why

US athletes, to a man, obeyed the orders of their president


British athletes are not as subservient




The point was made that the US system of government is widely copied - it is not
Not by Western democracies because it is seen as a poor system of government, despite your chest thumping claim that the US Constitution is a "f*****g masterpiece" - it is not. The US Constitution is a poorly written, vague and ambiguous document, and a very poor basis to base a system of government on.




Which third world dictatorships?

I said they follow the US model - remember the one based on the so called "f*****g masterpiece"

Reading comprehension failure

You don't need any help at all in tripping up do you ?




Of course the UK has a constitution, but not a written one, rather one that has evolved over centuries
There is no British constitution document

The Parliamentary and the Presidential systems of government aren't identical, they're not even "almost" identical
Are you really not aware how they differ?

eg: The British system of government has the government (PM + cabinet) wholly within the legislature. The great majority of which are elected to parliamentary seats
The head of state and the head of the government are separated
The head of government is not elected as such, consequently, it can and does change
Elections do not have to be after a set period
The head of a parliamentary government is accountable on a daily basis to the legislature




Really then why say the Judiciary and Legislature are branches of government?
They shouldn't be regarded as such and it is a mistake to do so

The government is the executive.



You said you taught government, I'm glad that I never attended any of your classes

You've consistently shown, you are quite ignorant about basic concepts of government and know little about government outside the USA which for reasons best known to yourself, you publicly eulogize about

"F*****g masterpiece" Don't make me laugh.

:lamo

I tried but yet again... as with other topics, you meander about showing almost no facts, ignoring facts that are shown to you, offer little more than opinion and seem to know less than Jack **** about the actual issues. So like before... I will stop debating and leave you to your own fancies...

I would lastly add that if you took a class on government you, as I can see here, were one of those kids that don't learn, for whatever reason it is in your case... there are good teachers and bad ones but no teacher can teach a bad student. The most frustrating students are the ones that arrogantly think that they already know the answers and are thinking about their come back response instead of thinking about what they were supposed to be listening to and thinking about.

Instead of thinking that you know what you know you seriously need to understand that your political lean is hindering your ability to be objective and remain impartial.

And I said it was the Bill of Rights that made it a masterpiece. But there is no need to bother trying to explain to you as to why.

 

[Rich2018]

I tried but yet again... as with other topics, you meander about showing almost no facts, ignoring facts....

You know the problem I find in following your posts is that, as with other topics, you meander about ignoring facts, and just offering unsubstantiated personal opinion and no facts

I would lastly add that if you took a class on government...

If you really were a teacher on government, it beggars belief how you got such a position when you clearly know nothing and virtually everything you say is wrong

Your mind seems stuck in some "patriotic" mode

If you are typical of the teacher American kids have to rely on, it's no surprise most can't find the USA on a world map, let alone a country like North Korea

Instead of thinking that you know what you know you seriously need to understand that your political lean is hindering your ability to be objective and remain impartial.

I think your trouble is that you're a patriot.


(that's a bad thing Btw)

And I said it was the Bill of Rights that made it a masterpiece...

We can't forget that


The US Constitution (when added to the Bill of Rights) is a "f*****g masterpiece"

And you talk of "political lean"


:lamo


Your one eyed view on government is so warped it twists your view on government. Doubtless you think the USA is the best and the rest of the world is the worst (especially them "commies")
Let me tell you a secret, the USA is NOT the best, and every MacDonald's burger made in the USA is not better than one made in Berlin.

The USA leads the world in military spending, proportion of its people incarcerated and number of people believing in alien abduction.

Start looking for another country to eulogize over...


You "USA uber alles" posts are just pathetic.

 

[Bodi]

You know the problem I find in following your posts is that, as with other topics, you meander about ignoring facts, and just offering unsubstantiated personal opinion and no facts... ...

Stopped reading yet another stupid and childish post by you at about that point...

 

[Rich2018]

Stopped reading yet another stupid and childish post by you at about that point...

Stopped reading but sadly not stopped posting


"The US Constitution, when combined with the Bill of Rights, is a "F*****g Masterpiece"


Comic line of the year, from someone who has no business talking to kids about politics & government.


You're just a patriot.

 

[Marcus1124]

If they were so smart, how come they didn’t foresee where the US finds itself today?


Tired of hearing about the FF and what they meant........

Go read the Federalist Papers...it is chilling how prescient they truly were.

And it is less what they MEANT, so much as what the PEOPLE (the Constitution begins We the People of the United States) thought what they were enacting meant.

With the exception of some areas of technological advancement and change, the system of government they put in place (as they intended it) would have most tools it needs to deal with modern society, and where it may arguably be insufficient, I have little doubt that we would have been able to amend it to account for such aspects.

We are either a nation of laws (the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land) or not. Rule of law means the text of a law must be interpreted as it would be reasonably understood by those whose authority it is ultimately enacted under (again, the PEOPLE). Anything else is not rule of law, but rule of man/men.

So, if the text of laws should not be interpreted based on what those whose authority it is given effect reasonably understood it to mean, then how precisely SHOULD it be, and by who?

 

[Rich2018]

Go read the Federalist Papers...it is chilling how prescient they truly were.

And it is less what they MEANT, so much as what the PEOPLE (the Constitution begins We the People of the United States) thought what they were enacting meant.

Which people?

In an age where there was no reliable way of communicating with them

When on 6% were voters anyway

With the exception of some areas of technological advancement and change, the system of government they put in place (as they intended it) would have most tools it needs to deal with modern society, and where it may arguably be insufficient, I have little doubt that we would have been able to amend it to account for such aspects.

It was a poor system of government that didn't take account of party politics and leads to political inertia

...the text of a law must be interpreted as it would be reasonably understood by those whose authority it is ultimately enacted under (again, the PEOPLE). Anything else is not rule of law, but rule of man/men.

So, if the text of laws should not be interpreted based on what those whose authority it is given effect reasonably understood it to mean, then how precisely SHOULD it be, and by who?

If the SC justices can't agree on what the Constitution means, how would you expect legally ignorant and untrained colonists to be able to do so ?

Take note of posters on here who just cannot understand what the Constitution means


Is there a worse constitution document in the world of any truly democratic country ?

 

[Terryj]

Which people?

In an age where there was no reliable way of communicating with them

When on 6% were voters anyway



It was a poor system of government that didn't take account of party politics and leads to political inertia






If the SC justices can't agree on what the Constitution means, how would you expect legally ignorant and untrained colonists to be able to do so ?

Take note of posters on here who just cannot understand what the Constitution means


Is there a worse constitution document in the world of any truly democratic country ?

Which People? The which people were the 3 million people that inhabited the U.s. during the time of ratification of the Constitution, they did this through selecting delegates to represent them at the ratification conventions. The people during this time were much more enlightened as to the nature and application of the Constitution than 70% of the people today.

Yes, party politics was discussed, George Washington in his farewell address commented on this and just how destructive party factions would be.

The SCOTUS function was "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The Supreme Court is not there to make laws or change laws.

When you say "legally ignorant and untrained colonists" you really don't know what your talking about, most colonist were much more aware of the potential impact of the central government than most people of today. 70% of the people in this country most likely couldn't tell you the 3 branches of government or their function.

Rich, we are not a "truly democratic country" we are a Republic. Rich, "Take note of posters on here who just cannot understand what the Constitution means", I would have to throw you into the same boat, judging from most of your post about the Constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

...the which people were the 3 million people that inhabited the U.s. during the time of ratification of the Constitution...

Of which, how many could votes
6% ?

...they did this through selecting delegates to represent them at the ratification conventions....

Those 6% actually voted on which people to send as delegates and with what messages they were to take ?
I somehow doubt that
It was probably the men in power or their friends

The people during this time were much more enlightened as to the nature and application of the Constitution than 70% of the people today.

Where is your evidence of that ?
What is your figure for 1776 adult literacy?
70% huh ? another figure you pulled out of your @ss

...George Washington in his farewell address commented on this and just how destructive party factions would be....

Yet thy chose to go ahead with the Constitution anyway
As we saw in the recent impeachment trial, party politics completely undermine the Constitution

...the Supreme Court is not there to make laws or change laws.

But in deciding on their interpretation of the Constitution
It kind of does - no better example than it's interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean that all people legally able to own guns, may bear them and that they are deemed as part of the militia
They in effect put words into the founders, long dead, mouths

When you say "legally ignorant and untrained colonists" you really don't know what your talking about, most colonist were much more aware of the potential impact of the central government than most people of today. 70% of the people in this country most likely couldn't tell you the 3 branches of government or their function.

I don't huh ?

The substantiate your claim

What evidence do you have for that ?

Do you even know the adult literacy level in 1776 ?

Come on, prove you "know what you're talking about" and post some evidence.

....we are not a "truly democratic country" we are a Republic....

By "truly democratic" I assume you're talking about "direct democracy" which has never been exercised on anything but a small scale
Indeed the USA conducts more example of direct democracy, in the form of plebiscites, than any country on Earth

Western democracies are "Representative Democracies" - it's no coincidence that the lower house of Congress is called the House of Representatives. They are exactly that, they are representatives and NOT delegates
(do you know the difference)

The USA is also a Constitutional Republic, whereas Canada and the UK for example are Constitutional Monarchies
The only difference really is that the head on state is decided by election in a Republic, by birthright in a Monarchy

...I would have to throw you into the same boat, judging from most of your post about the Constitution.

You've never studied politics or economics beyond high school social studies have you ?

You're prone to make school boy statements that are factually incorrect and pull statements out of your @ss like: "The people during this time were much more enlightened as to the nature and application of the Constitution than 70% of the people today."


I await with interest for your evidence to substantiate that figure of 70%.

 

[Terryj]

Of which, how many could votes
6% ?





Those 6% actually voted on which people to send as delegates and with what messages they were to take ?
I somehow doubt that
It was probably the men in power or their friends



Where is your evidence of that ?
What is your figure for 1776 adult literacy?
70% huh ? another figure you pulled out of your @ss




Yet thy chose to go ahead with the Constitution anyway
As we saw in the recent impeachment trial, party politics completely undermine the Constitution



But in deciding on their interpretation of the Constitution
It kind of does - no better example than it's interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean that all people legally able to own guns, may bear them and that they are deemed as part of the militia
They in effect put words into the founders, long dead, mouths




I don't huh ?

The substantiate your claim

What evidence do you have for that ?

Do you even know the adult literacy level in 1776 ?

Come on, prove you "know what you're talking about" and post some evidence.




By "truly democratic" I assume you're talking about "direct democracy" which has never been exercised on anything but a small scale
Indeed the USA conducts more example of direct democracy, in the form of plebiscites, than any country on Earth

Western democracies are "Representative Democracies" - it's no coincidence that the lower house of Congress is called the House of Representatives. They are exactly that, they are representatives and NOT delegates
(do you know the difference)

The USA is also a Constitutional Republic, whereas Canada and the UK for example are Constitutional Monarchies
The only difference really is that the head on state is decided by election in a Republic, by birthright in a Monarchy





You've never studied politics or economics beyond high school social studies have you ?

You're prone to make school boy statements that are factually incorrect and pull statements out of your @ss like: "The people during this time were much more enlightened as to the nature and application of the Constitution than 70% of the people today."


I await with interest for your evidence to substantiate that figure of 70%.

Rich, sorry I was in error of the literacy rate in 1776 America, it was more like 90%, with Massachusetts being right at 100%. You can look this up if you chose to.

Rich, I understand that you have been in this country for 20 years and came from the UK, so I can understand your propensity for having a "parliamentary" form of government, however, if you read about the construction of our government and the debates involved in putting this government together you will find out the reason for rejecting a parliamentary form of government. Understand the the colonies were under a parliamentary system of government since 1607 to 1776, during this time the parliament imposed taxes and regulations on the colonist without any representation on the colonist part. Do you think that the framers of this government would chose that type of government after what they had been through with the government of Great Britain?

Rich, you really need to dig into just why this country was founded with a Republican form of government, why we are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. Read about the history of the people in these colonies, they are as different as any other nation when it comes to their politics, religion and aspirations, the "common ground" they shared was their desire for Liberty and Freedom. This is what the Constitution gave them, a central government that would not interfere with their life, liberty and property, a central government who duty was to the well being of the Union as a whole and dealt with the external issues of the country and left the internal issues to be dealt with by the States.

 

[Rich2018]

Rich, sorry I was in error of the literacy rate in 1776 America, it was more like 90%, with Massachusetts being right at 100%. You can look this up if you chose to.

That's 100% of the 6% were allowed to vote ?

What is your source ?

...if you read about the construction of our government and the debates involved in putting this government together you will find out the reason for rejecting a parliamentary form of government. Understand the the colonies were under a parliamentary system of government since 1607 to 1776, during this time the parliament imposed taxes and regulations on the colonist without any representation on the colonist part. Do you think that the framers of this government would chose that type of government after what they had been through with the government of Great Britain?

Why not ?

There is nothing wrong with a parliamentary system of government. Indeed every democracy in the world employs it except the USA.
Why would a presidential form of government levy less taxes ?
I know the Revolution was motivated by the middle class to escape taxes and make more money but what was the thinking here? Did not Congress get to set the budget and levy taxes based of a parliamentary style vote anyway?

So the colonists didn't like subservience to a king, why is subservience to a president any better ?
Whoever heard of a tyranny based on a parliamentary system, lots of third world dictatorships have presidents in charge.


The USA favors a presidential form of government much loved by third world countries and dictators.

...you really need to dig into just why this country was founded with a Republican form of government, why we are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. Read about the history of the people in these colonies, they are as different as any other nation when it comes to their politics, religion and aspirations....

All that a republic means is that the head of state is chosen by election not birthright.
Example is Canada. The head of state is The Queen ruling over a parliamentary form of government. If Canada replaced The Queen with an elected president it would fo from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Republic with no other constitutional changes at all.

...the "common ground" they shared was their desire for Liberty and Freedom....

No it wasn't

That's like saying that the dirt farmers who fought for the Confederacy, fought for "liberty" or even to keep the institution of slavery"

The 1776 colonists and the 1861 southern dirt farmers fought for nationalism, spurred on by their middle classes who stirred up a rebellion for $$$. Respectively to escape British taxes and to keep slavery

This is what the Constitution gave them, a central government that would not interfere with their life, liberty and property....

Like the British government (unless you're the small group at the top who paid taxes to the crown)

...a central government who duty was to the well being of the Union as a whole and dealt with the external issues of the country and left the internal issues to be dealt with by the States.

As opposed to a British government whose duty was to look after the well being of the country/empire and left the internal issues to be dealt with by the colonies.

 

[Terryj]

Rich, most of the men that fought for the South never owned slaves, they were fighting because of the oppression of the Northern States on the South.
No, the colonist did not fight for "nationalism" for each State at that time was a sovereign nation, each State fought to preserve itself. They band together because fighting as a collective is much better than fighting by ones self.

Like I said before, you would benefit greatly by reading the book, Compact of the Republic by David Benner. This is not a political book, it doesn't lean left or right, it is however a very good read on how and why we have a Republican form of government.

 

[Tigerace117]

Rich, most of the men that fought for the South never owned slaves, they were fighting because of the oppression of the Northern States on the South.
No, the colonist did not fight for "nationalism" for each State at that time was a sovereign nation, each State fought to preserve itself. They band together because fighting as a collective is much better than fighting by ones self.

Like I said before, you would benefit greatly by reading the book, Compact of the Republic by David Benner. This is not a political book, it doesn't lean left or right, it is however a very good read on how and why we have a Republican form of government.

“Oppression of the northern states on the south”

Yeah, that’s a delusion load of crap.

Up until the election of Abraham Lincoln, it was the South which controlled the federal government. Southern projects were emphasized, such as preserving slavery and protecting slave hunters; northern interests, like a transcontinental railroad, ignored. Trying to pretend the South was “oppressed” is simply ignorant. The only oppressed people in the south were the slaves who they went to war to try and keep.

 

[Terryj]

“Oppression of the northern states on the south”

Yeah, that’s a delusion load of crap.

Up until the election of Abraham Lincoln, it was the South which controlled the federal government. Southern projects were emphasized, such as preserving slavery and protecting slave hunters; northern interests, like a transcontinental railroad, ignored. Trying to pretend the South was “oppressed” is simply ignorant. The only oppressed people in the south were the slaves who they went to war to try and keep.

Tigerace, I don't know what history books you have read, but most likely it's the propaganda found in most public schools.

The South controlled the government, so your telling me that it was the South that had the federal government impose protectionist tariffs on Southern goods so they could sale them to the Northern States at a reduced cost? I'm not going to go through this all again because it has been debated ad nauseum in another thread.

 

[Ben_Casey]

If they were so smart, how come they didn’t foresee where the US finds itself today?


Tired of hearing about the FF and what they meant........

I don't think we are giving the Founding Fathers enough credit here.I mean come on, they built the oldest and greatest country in the world!

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace, I don't know what history books you have read, but most likely it's the propaganda found in most public schools.

The South controlled the government, so your telling me that it was the South that had the federal government impose protectionist tariffs on Southern goods so they could sale them to the Northern States at a reduced cost? I'm not going to go through this all again because it has been debated ad nauseum in another thread.

The South was the one which desperately wanted war with Mexico in order to spread slavery. The north saw it as an unjustified land grab. Guess what we did?

The South was allowed to send squads of guerrillas to attack those who opposed slavery in places like Kansas and Missouri. Outlaws like the James brothers got their start in those roving bands of thugs, who were some of the most sadistic out there.

Time and time again legislation was pushed through to support or protect slavery and slavers. The Compromise of 1850, which was supposed to have settled the issue, was violated over and over in order to expand slavery as much as possible.

In the run up to the war southern sympathizers were allowed to loot federal armories to equip their slaver forces.

Southerners literally physically attacked those who opposed slavery on multiple occasions with impunity.

Southerners nearly got us into a shooting match with Spain over Cuba decades before the Spanish American War.

Pretending the South was oppressed is simply ignorant.