CarolSeer2016

Perhaps we OPP posters haven't been on the same page vis-a-vis standing armies, state militias and the 2nd amendment.

I'll introduce the thread by explaining that a very real fear, in fact the major motivation for the Constitutional Convention, is that the Confederacy of States would devolve into the same kind of factious warring states so typical of European history. They were already beginning to show signs of that tendency.

The Federalist 28 was Hamilton's argument for ratification in the face of the healthy doubts and concerns, at that time, of a standing army.

Here are the major points of his argument:

"It may safely by received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."

"They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty."

"When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation through the medium of their governments to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations."

Publius (the author of the Federalist Papers) was more concerned with the disintegration and anarchy resulting from a weak central government, as history had taught them. Central government had to exercise some control over State forces to prevent State's warring against each other or against the "head". One firewall preventing the despotism contingent on a standing army was that Congress could only appropriate funds for 2 years; another was the assumption that the member States would more likely encroach on the "head" than the opposite. This, I think, has been proven not to be true, thanks in part to the 16th amendment--the federal income tax.

So the Constitution provides for the Central Government to raise and support land and naval armies, but at the same time, left grounds for States to keep a Militia, (now known as the National Guard, a French term, in honor of LaFayette); the States could appoint the Officers, and undertake their training.

Thus my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State--I wonder if the Constitution would have been ratified without that stipulation.

I have more to share, but we can all mull this info over.

Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)

I enjoyed that, always liked history...

You made some very interesting observation...

Slavery of course is what rallied Lincoln's Armies to INVADE The Confederate States of America...

I don't think in todays modern times when warfare can be so totally definsating will there be another civil war, once the fraud is gone "We the people" will settle down I hope...

By having a State Guard we give additional strength to our Standing Military...

I look forward to any new post... Don D.

P.S. There seems to be three ways to reply to post, which is the one that is just between the writer & me... :-)

MrEd Loc: Georgia

The Constitution was rejected at first because it did not have a Bill of Rights in it. Jefferson said none was needed, since if it was not spelled out in the Constitution then the federal government did not have that authority. He also stressed that if a Bill of Rights were attached, then they could use that as an excuse to trample over our other rights because they were not spelled out. A good many of the delegates said they would refuse to sign if a Bill of Rights were not attached. To end the argument, it was promised that a Bill of Rights would be attached as soon as they settled the Constitution issue.

Originally 12 amendments were submitted as amendments to form the Bill of Rights. Arguments were ongoing and hot and heavy until they finally worked out the 10 amendments that we have today.

The fact that the amendments were not really needed turned out to be just what they said they were. An argument that if it is not listed in the Bill of Rights, then we don't have that freedom, but in truth, we do and the government knows it. It's just that the people don't know it.

Our government is made up of a group of offices that have limited powers and they are all listed in the Constitution, but the fact remains that if the people do not know what the Constitution means, then the government can simply tell the people what it means.

Today we have a Supreme Court that says it is the final armature of the Constitution and what it not only says, but what it means. That is not true and never has been, but if the people don't know that, then the government can get away with things they do not have the authority to do.

Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights come from God, not 12 people sitting on a bench in DC. The Constitution states exactly what the authority is for each branch of government and what they are limited to. At no time is the Supreme Court told that they have absolute power over the people in anything, only what is listed in the Constitution. IF the Supreme Court comes up with a ruling that goes against the Constitution, then the people and the States have a right to nullify that ruling. They were never given the power to make law.

If the federal government had a standing Army, then they could force the states to do anything the government told them to do and to control the power of the states. Lincoln did exactly that during the Civil war and was what started it to begin with. The federal government was stepping all over state rights and the states were not happy about it.

CarolSeer2016

Don, I think Lincoln realized, when the South tried to secede, that a slave-owning country on our southern border would never have cause to free the slaves, nor could the North ever be at ease with a nation of that sort.

bahmer

I also hope and pray that you are right in your assessment but the frauds party is still about and their only interpretation of compromise is the republicans and any other opposing party give in and do it their way. If that continues to be the case then things could get sticky. The other thing is if by removing all of the free gifts to the people would that cause an uprising that would have to be squelched.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

You need to use the quote reply so the person you are responding to is in your post.

As for the Civil War being over slavery, you have the same problem most people do about that. You are only going by your government school education. The Civil War was started over state rights, not slavery. That was an excuse the government used to trample all over them again. The Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln AFTER the war was over, so it was to late to do anything about it. In short, Lincoln had no authority to force the Southern States to stay in the Union.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

I disagree. The Southern States we already getting rid of slavery simply because it was not profitable and slaves were costing to much money. Add to that the upkeep and everything else, slavery was already starting to go from the south. If they had been left to their own, slavery would have gone away in the South shortly after the states tried to leave the Union. A good many slaves had been set free and more were being set free to farm their own land in conjunction with the whites.

If it was about slavery, then why did the Southern States have blacks fighting for them right along side them? Do you really think that armed slaves would have not turned on the masters if given half a chance?

Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)

I agree, I thought that's what I said, but I'm not very good at explaining my ideas...

Lincoln used Slavery as his excuse to invade the South, and it was illegal...

There's an old John Wayne moving "The Undefeated" with Rock Hudson...

The best part of the movie for me is at the very start, Wayne and his Federal Troops are in a sermess with some Confederate troops, when Wayne is informed the war is over Lee surrendered...

So under a white flag he goes up to Confederates and tells them the war is over, the one armed Souther Commander says he knew that, they had been informed two days back...

Wayne say, well why did you stand an fight us, the Southern said this is our land and you're on it...

The war has never been completely over for some...

I' from CA and have no cause to be for one side or the other and I am not in favor of slavery, having said that; The South had every right to cessed, and Lincoln had NO right to invade...

But it's our past and will be a sore spot for generation... Don D.

CarolSeer2016

This "fraud's party" is another attempt at concentrating power.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

It depends on how you remove them. If you just take them away all at once, then yes, you would have riots in the streets, but if you take them away a little at a time and give the people a chance to find employment, then they would mostly go to work. I say mostly because there are always those that think they are owed that support.

CarolSeer2016

If there were jobs, (instead of administration lies about them).

Navy Rob Loc: Hampton Roads Va

Mr ed you are dead on and im glad you brought it up

CarolSeer2016

Mr Ed, I think it's your education that is lacking. Granted, the initial rationale for secession was not the abolishment of slavery, as such. But the South could see the writing on the wall, as new states were to be admitted if they were free. The reason for this was that with a majority of new free states, slavery could at last be done away with. The only way the South could continue as slave-owning states was if they seceeded. For Lincoln, his one overwhelming desire was to keep the Union intact--later, during the war, he set forth his Emancipation Proclamation, but not until there was no other choice for the South. I still think Lincoln knew that if the South were allowed to secede, there would be a slave-owning country on our Southern border for generations.

CarolSeer2016

You're wrong that the Southern economy was about to collapse. The South felt their economy would collapse if it were not slave-based.

Our founders stipulated in the Constitution that importation of slaves was to end after 20 years. They were hoping that if the new Union could be established and show evidence that it could last, then the issue of slavery could be addressed. However, and here's where they committed what I call the "fallacy of assuming the consequence". The invention of the cotton gin around 1820 or before produced a need for even more slaves. So instead of the aforementioned hope that slavery could be abolished, there was even more need for slaves--as far as the South was concerned.
Another factor, was the English market for the cotton produced by the South. If they had not had that market, then there could have been a slim hope of abolishing slavery.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

The European market for cotton was tapering off, so a change in product was going to occur. The South was fed up with exclusionary Federal rules, which favored Northern businesses, as well as Northern caucuses which over ruled Southern concerns in the Congress.

There were many reasons for the South wishing to succeed from the Union, slavery being only of minor concern. Slavery was, however, the reason that Lincoln used to pry money from the Northern business moguls - to make it seem palatable to the masses. The fact is, Northern rich people financed the war - to ensure that their monopolies remained intact. Very little has changed in the last 150 or so years.