Jeffersonian vs Lincolnian America

[Separatist]

The problem today is not with the Constitution but with the people.

Well, the Consitution's notorious vague phrases are a problem, "general welfare" etc.

[Ezra]

The problem today is not with the Constitution but with the people.

Well, the Consitution's notorious vague phrases are a problem, "general welfare" etc.

Only for ignorant people.

[Separatist]

Well, words are words. The "anti-federalists" were right about this.

[ChristopherABrown]

Agree on artical 5.

Still does not change what Lincoln did. Action speak louder then words.

What Lincoln did was aginst God. There is no exception for going aginst the constitution.

It's just lip service he gave to the constitution since he didn't walk the talk.

When God clearly says in D&c 98 4-7

Anything more or less then following the constitution as God created it. Will cometh evil.

And evil is what we got in the deaths of so many for nothing.

I say nothing because Joseph smith revealed gods plan for ending slavery. Which would have been completly peacefull. And gotten rid of the federally own land at the same time that is causing so many problems today. Which again that government land ownership is not constitutional.

I think Lincoln had CONDITIONAL commitment to the letter of law from the constitution. Conditions changed, he changed to support the English power taking over the government through infiltration.

Agreed, actions speak louder than words.

Agreed, federal ownership of land is not constitutional.

Article 5 is the key to our futures. But "we the people" must unify to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

[Separatist]

The problem today is not with the Constitution but with the people.

Well, the Consitution's notorious vague phrases are a problem, "general welfare" etc.

Only for ignorant people.

Well, words are words. The "anti-federalists" were right about this.

And I wouldn't call the anti-federalists ignorant. Prescient is perhaps better. For instance, from BRUTUS #6:

But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, &c. to provide for the common defence, &c. will be unconstitutional. Besides, in the very clause which gives the power of levying duties and taxes, the purposes to which the money shall be appropriated, are specified, viz. to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare." I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by every one? No one will pretend they will. It will then be matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.

It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.

[ChristopherABrown]

A modern constitutional convention is a dangerous thing. It would only further destroy America.

No, a modern Con Con would be the end of America, as envisioned by the delegates to the 1789 Convention.

You're not wrong.

Wouldn't it be nice though if we could do one an go back to the basics. And then put a heavy heavy very short leash on the government.
Currently impossible I know.

Yep, impossible currently. The problem today is not with the Constitution but with the people. What good is a Constitution if those in power (and those who vote them into it) don't care what is written in it.

Yes, the problem is with the people.

But which problem is the one that will cost them their rights and freedoms? Which problem will lead to the loss of the republic and constitution defining it?

I maintain that the inability for authority to recognize the peoples need to share information vital to the act of unification for the purpose of altering or abolishing government destructive to their rights, is the fatal dysfunction.

That is the PURPOSE of free speech. With it, all problems can be addressed.

Priority of speech is vital, and our current first amendment has none. Our right is not enumerated properly,

Yes, a modern constitutional convention could further destroy America IF the people allow one without proper preparation.

Therein we have another vital right, one not enumerated at all. The right to prepare for Article 5.

We only need to agree upon this to enforce the right and have it properly enumerated. That is our right under the 9th amendment.

Accordingly, we need to agree upon that before all other things, or else they to will be destroyed. Destroyed eventually, convention or not.

[ChristopherABrown]

Participating in this thread has caused recall from someplace in memory that indeed, Lincoln had made a deal with government and those that assisted with his election.

That deal was that IF he could rally the American people to participate in compelling their states to properly conduct Article V, that he would be allowed to oversee that from the office of president without reprisal.

Because the press was controlled by the a English interests that also wanted the war to divide the nation, put it in debt while usurping the constitutional constraints over the government, Lincoln failed. Lincoln did not know the extent of control by those foreign elements over the press.

When he failed, his part of the bargain was engaged if he were to be president. That was to conduct the war as the financiers of it wanted it done.

Therefore, all of the accusation are true, but there is a reason for them. The American people FAILED to overcome the pervasive influence of the press and support their constitution.

This, undoubtably was done by vesting in the false promise of greatness and power promised by the many industrialists that wished to gain the control needed to exploit labor and resource for the enrichment of themselves and perpetuation of their power.

[ajax]

A Simple Explanation
By Valerie Protopapas on Oct 14, 2020
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog ... planation/

What separated the Jeffersonian understanding of government embraced by the South from the philosophy of Lincoln and the people of the North? For if Lincoln had believed as Jefferson, the war would not have happened. Indeed, it is probable that the circumstances leading up to the war would not have happened. So, what in fact, did happen?! Truth to tell, there were two philosophies of government or rather of the nature of man that undergirded North and South. The South held to the Aristotlean philosophy, later articulated by Locke, that Man was a communal being who naturally created groups in which to live. Within those groups government was necessary, but only to provide protection for the citizenry. The creed of this philosophy was voiced by Jefferson: “Government governs best that governs least.”

The other philosophy of government arose from the teachings of British philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes opined that man was not a communal being but rather, like the tiger, man was a solitary, making his way as best he could as a practitioner of the Law of the Jungle; that is, the survival of the fittest. Therefore, in order for man to be “civilized,” he had to be forced into a relationship with his fellows and that relationship could only be sustained through coercion. Naturally, the only means by which such coercion could be applied was government. Thus government was the means by which civilization and society were maintained. If there were no central government or if that government was weak and thus such coercion not efficacious, the result would be social and political chaos!

This was the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln and his political allies! Secession of the Southern states meant to Lincoln—besides the loss of revenue—the beginning of the breakup of what had been to that time an ever expanding Union. This, in turn, would lead to a weakening of central authority and, hence, anarchy, something which simply could not be permitted! Anything and everything needful to prevent that breakup was acceptable in light of the unmitigated disaster that would follow a weakening of the central authority and its ability to force a naturally unruly populace into submission! No act was too barbarous, no crime too egregious to be shunned if by its commission the Union was preserved. This mindset answers many questions about the Union strategy of total war and why the people of the North did not cavil or later repent of the commission of such atrocities because they were seen as “necessary.”

Of course, Lincoln as a Hobbesian was not talking about “union” as most men understood it then—or now for that matter. A true “union” is by its very nature voluntary. Union at the point of a gun is conquest, occupation and subjugation. Lincoln’s definition of “union” was the submission of the American people—North and South—to the will of the central government. And under that arrangement, the states became nothing more than “counties” within a national government. And as counties have no separate powers within their states, so states then have no separate powers within the central government but become bureaucratic entities used for the collection of revenues and the imposition of federal laws, mandates and regulations.

This is, in effect, what happened as a result of the war of 1861. Lincoln and Hobbes won. Aristotle, Locke—and Jefferson—lost and so did the vision of the Founders and We the People. Besides explaining how and why a ruinous war came about when sovereign states exercised their constitutional right to depart from a union that was no longer to their collective benefits, it also explains what is going on 150 years later as the same questions arise again as Jefferson Davis prophesied. Indeed, the major question remains: who rules—We the People or the Government?