[gutzmank]

In response to Shays’ Rebellion (1786), which had left many federal officials feeling impotent over their inability to assist Massachusetts, the Framers included this provision. Its point is to empower the Federal Government to help states put down rebellions.

[gutzmank]

Not only are you correct in regard to conditions of employment, but — as explained in the lectures — the BoR isn’t supposed to be a limitation on the state governments anyway.

[gutzmank]

Genovese Bradford McDonald Bailyn Onuf Greene Colburn Appleby Banning McCoy Maier Wood Wilson Freeman Adams Malone

[gutzmank]

The idea that “the Founders” were all exponents of laissez-faire is mistaken. Several of them were mercantilists. The most obvious example is Alexander Hamilton, who favored various types of federal economic intervention.

[gutzmank]

This is too broad a question for me to answer in detail. I would say that the Virginia Charters, Mayflower Compact, Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity,” Locke’s “Fundamental Orders…,” and others along that line should be included. It’s really not difficult to come up with such a list. It would take a while, however.

[gutzmank]

That’s essentially what Salinas says.

Since the Incorporation Doctrine is bogus, any loosening of requirements imposed upon the states by federal courts under its cover is a victory for constitutionalism. Besides that, it seems to me difficult to argue that anyone is being forced to do what he does voluntarily — in this case, speak.

[gutzmank]

The VRA required that specified jurisdictions — most of the South, plus a few other jurisdictions — obtain pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before making any changes to their voting laws. That requirement is no more.

[gutzmank]

Patricia, you say, “I have a difficult time being as sympathetic to the South as the professors.” Will you please show me what I said that was sympathetic to the South? I think analogizing Deep South secession to O.J. Simpson demanding a jury trial, as I’ve often done, is pretty unsympathetic, don’t you?

They had a right to secede, but their reasons for exercising it were pretty loathsome. Lincoln had no right to put down secession, even if the post hoc rationalizations seem appealing.

[gutzmank]

Do you have a question?

[gutzmank]

How many do you want? What is his intended audience?

[gutzmank]

I notice that the comments on my AmCon review are a bit … heated. Of particular note are the ones that say that Hall didn’t prove his thesis, solely on the basis of my entirely laudatory review asserting that he did. People see what they want to see much of the time.

[gutzmank]

Three main points:

1) Who cares what their motivation was? O.J. Simpson demanded trial by jury because he wanted to get away with murder; does that mean he should have been denied that right? A right is a right, and rarely is a right invoked by someone in the majority.

2) Yes, the seven Deep South states seceded over slavery. The other four seceding states, however, seceded only after seeing Lincoln’s initial unconstitutional acts — not only attacking the Deep South states (which other southerners agreed had a right to secede), but also raising an army without convening Congress, suspending habeas corpus in Maryland, and otherwise launching his career of unconstitutional acts in opposition to secession. Virginia’s secession convention voted before Lincoln’s inauguration NOT to secede merely in defense of slavery, but reconvened after he’d been in office for a while and seceded because of what he had done. I’m guessing Austin doesn’t know this.

3) Does Austin support the American Revolution? As Holton showed in FORCED FOUNDERS, many people in Virginia supported secession from the British Empire in order to protect slavery. If Austin is consistent, he must decry the American Revolution, at least in Virginia — home of Washington, Jefferson, et al.

[gutzmank]

How about a Left-like project: let’s rebrand the northern opponents of Lincoln’s war policy. “Copperheads” is obviously a McCain-iac sobriquet.

[gutzmank]

This one’s painful, huh?

Of course, all of these forecasts proved inaccurate. I think it’s too harsh, however, to treat Federalist 45 as a description of the Federal Government written by Madison last week. It was accurate for well over a century, which is pretty good, as far as political forecasts go. I also don’t think Madison envisioned, or imagined, anything like today’s DC.

[gutzmank]

You’re welcome. We aim to please!

[Author]

Posts