Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Brion McClanahan
MemberGood question. During the Phil. Convention of 1787 this issue was framed in regard to executive power. Make war implied that the president alone could send troops into conflict without congressional approval, something the King of Great Britain, for example, could legally do. Declare was a much more restrictive term and pulled the power away from the executive office. Hamilton argued as much in Federalist No. 69. Congress has punted on the issue since World War II, and it could be argued that their “authorization” agreements are little more than rubber stamps for executive usurpation of constitutional war powers. The founding generation wanted the president to be able to repel sudden attacks, for example an invasion of the American mainland, but actually deploying troops and bringing America to a war footing required a formal declaration. Congress cannot constitutionally give the president power it alone has, nor can the president constitutionally take delegated powers from congress without an amendment. There were fears the president would eventually assume this power, but proponents of the Constitution in 1787 and 1788 assured Americans in all the States that the power of the sword would be safeguarded by the congress. We can now see that the opponents of the Constitution were correct.
MemberThe Declaration is not a vision statement and was never intended to be so. That is a Straussian position and one that will lead to great errors in the understanding of American history.
MemberDan is looking at the War for Independence in the wrong way. It was not a revolution because the political order did not radically change though there were certainly those who advanced this position, but my view here is not the mainstream. Jefferson certainly called it a revolution, as did others, but he later called it an act of secession akin to the splitting of a church congregation. Which Jefferson is correct?
The war broke the “political bands which connected them” but did not transform society. The Declaration was an indictment of King George because they argued the colonies were his dominion, similar to the medieval lord’s domain and only he had jurisdiction because the colonies were not represented in Parliament. The center could regulate trade and defend the colonies but they had jurisdiction over local matters. This was a constitutional crisis.
The Straussians generally view the Declaration as a founding document because of the first lines of the second paragraph and for no other reason. In other words, the Declaration codified a certain “Americanism.” They ignore the last paragraph entirely.
MemberNot all Southerners were supported by or supported the Klan. For example, Oscar Underwood of Alabama, a powerful congressman during the Wilson administration, opposed the Klan and actively campaigned against them in Alabama.
Dan Carter made a lucrative career with his stupid book “The Politics of Rage,” the thesis of which has been perpetuated by the academic community for over 30 years now. Carter landed a six figure job at U. of South Carolina just before his retirement. He did not teach. He sat in his office for about 1 hour a week if that and lent his name to the institution.
The Klan did carry political clout. Their endorsement in Alabama did often mean electoral success, which is why Wallace went so heavy into segregation politics following loses early in his political career. The Klan, however, was considered to be a “progressive” organization, not conservative. They were the moral police, the men and women who advanced a white American Utopia free from vice and sin.
MemberI do not have any direct sources that could pinpoint their opposition to the FED, but this is a grand conspiracy theory that does not have much (if any) weight.
MemberUsurper is a great term. Liar is another. That is what Yates called Hamilton at the New York Ratifying Convention. Elliot mentions this in his famous Debates series, but you can find a full description of the big fracas between Yates and Hamilton in the Documentary History of the Ratification volumes concentrating on New York.
MemberI think you can have a discussion of contemporary slavery without bringing the clause in question into the picture.
Member“If you read VAR carefully….” You are asking much, at least from the academic establishment. Your last name is not Foner.
MemberJust piggybacking on Dr. Gutzman, George Mason at the Phil. Convention in 1787 advocated a 2/3 majority for any potential “navigation” legislation because he understood that these laws would mainly hurt the South while benefiting the North. Everyone knew that the two sections were different even at the time of the War for Independence. That is why the Union was constructed for “general purposes” only. Under this idea, the South and the North would be free from the meddling of the other section.
MemberProponents of the Constitution swore that they were not crafting a “national government.” The best term to use, and the one they preferred, was the “general” government. The current construction of the Constitution does not resemble a federal system at all, but it is not a national government either. We have through precedence morphed into a unitary system with the central authority directing the State and local governments in many cases.
MemberWashington was referring to agricultural skills and land something Tuskegee promoted at the time. He did not mean buying and selling land, though that could always have been an ancillary effect. He did want black Americans to be self sufficient, and then as now, that meant holding property. Look up Webster’s Dictionary in Google Books, but select “Free Google e-books” so it pulls up older editions.
MemberAbel P. Upshur’s A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government is excellent and can be found for free online.
MemberAll that hast to be remembered about the NP System is that it is, in part, an outgrowth of progressivism. Nothing the progressives did or advocated was constitutional. It didn’t matter.
MemberYou’re welcome.
MemberFirst, secede, not succeed.
Second, this is a difficult question to answer. Slavery was virtually non-existent in the western territories even before Lincoln took office. It was flourishing in the Deep South and probably would have continued to do so for several years had the War not happened. The story would probably have been different in the the Upper South. Remember, that region may not have seceded had Lincoln not called for an invading army to put down the “rebellion,” and had rejected it outright before April 1861. Thus, slavery would probably have died out in VA, NC, MD, DE, KY, AR, and TN. It would have taken some time, but I don’t think it would have survived past the 1880s.
-
AuthorPosts