Ironically, the Federalist Party didn't last very long or maybe it
just became a party with a different name. The anti-federalist seem
to have been right.
Why the C.S.A. was just in going to war during the War of Yankee
Agression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs3VlnOLJEU
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "goldrecordings" <stark9@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm looking for some people to participate in the blog comments
at
> >
> > http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/06/28/henry-takes-on-chertoff
> >
> > It may be a little hard to tell who said what in this email (it
> just
> > quotes the text, not the blockquotes) or yahoogroups post
> (depending
> > on your preferred mode of delivery) so please if you answer do so
> > +++in the comments at LFV+++ not on yahoo groups/email!
> >
> >
> >
> > The Anti-Federalist Epiphany
> >
> >
> > Posted June 28th, 2007 by TitaniumGirl
> >
> > Here's an actual conversation/epiphany I had with my husband not
> very
> > long ago while driving in the car.
> >
> > Titaniumgirl: I've always heard that the Federalist Society was
> good,
> > but wouldn't the Anti-Federalists be the true good guys?
> >
> > Titaniumboy: Federalists are the good ones, the anti-Federalists
> are not.
> >
> > Titaniumgirl: That's what we are told, but the War of Northern
> > Agression was most certainly supported by the federalists.
> >
> > Titaniumboy: But, we are told that the Federalists are good.
> >
> > Titaniumgirl: We are also told that Abe Lincoln was among the
best
> > presidents ever, and he was actually an authoritarian dictator
who
> > suspended habeaus corpus and killed approximately two hundred
> thousand
> > people. Every other country on earth ended slavery peacefully,
but
> he
> > was hell bent on wielding power and destruction to anyone who
did
> not
> > support "federalism".
> >
> > Titaniumboy: Hmmm
> >
> > Titaniumgirl: Maybe the problem is that all of these law schools
> have
> > elite "Federalist Societies" and they act like it's just and
> > honorable. The Anti-Federalist's are overlooked, not even
spoken
> of.
> > The Articles of Confederation were a great thing yet we are
> told/were
> > told in history class that they needed to be discarded because
the
> > government needed MORE POWER. You can call me an Anti-Federalist
> > because I would like a very limited government. I'm an
> > Anti-Federalist because I don't like death, destruction and
> dictators.
> >
> > Titaniumboy: (looking very confused) Okay, whatever.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Old Guard Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 6:31 am e
> >
> > Yeah, we are told how great FDR was too. The winners get to
> > write the (main stream) history. The losers are sometimes
> permitted,
> > as in the case of the Lost Causers, to obfuscate the truth about
> their
> > activities - e.g. pirates are glamorous, Confederate soldiers
were
> > fighting for an honorable cause.
> >
> > 2. Chuck Moulton Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 8:27 am e
> >
> > The Anti-Federalists had a lot of good ideas.
> >
> > Interestingly, politicians have been naming things the
> opposite
> > of what they are for marketing purposes since the country was
> founded
> > this is the earliest case in American history that I am aware
of.
> The
> > Federalists claimed the name "Federalists" to preempt their
> > opposition. In reality it was the Anti-Federalists that
advocated
> for
> > federalism and the Federalists that advocated for a strong
central
> > government.
> >
> > So George W. Bush is in good company with his USA PATRIOT
> Act,
> > No Child Left Behind, etc.
> >
> > 3. pauliecannoli Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am e
> >
> > The Whiskey Rebellion.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion
> >
> > Shay's rebellion
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
> >
> > Fascinating stuff!
> >
> > 4. G.E. Smith Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm e
> >
> > The Articles of Confedration were sufficient if think the
> > central government is the only entity capable of violating
> individual
> > rights. They were not sufficient for African slaves, women,
etc.,
> to
> > be free from the initiation state-sanctioned force. The Articles
> had
> > no Bill of Rights. I'll take the Constitution, and I think Kunta
> Kinte
> > would agree with me.
> >
> > 5. pauliecannoli Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm e
> >
> > The central government was certainly NOT the only entity
> capable
> > of violating individual rights.
> >
> > However, on balance, the federal government - particularly
> the
> > much later implemented incorporation doctrine you imply by
> mentioning
> > the BoR, otherwise with the BoR only applied to the feds
> themselves -
> > is more destructive than protective of rights.
> >
> > Likewise, a strong UN might indeed play some positive role
in
> > liberating some countries from dictators or genocide or
preventing
> > conflicts, but it isn't worth the risk of a totalitarian world
> government.
> >
> > Decentralization is not perfect by any means, but it's
> generally
> > a step in the right direction, with individual sovereignty being
> the
> > end goal.
> >
> > 6. G.E. Smith Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm e
> >
> > Governments exist to defend individual rights. If the Bill
of
> > Rights applied only to the federal government, and the federal
> > government had no real power, then the Bill of Rights would be
> useless
> > which it essentially was prior to the 14th amendment.
> >
> > When you advocate the type of "anti-federalism" you are
> > advocating, you are essentially granting each of the fifty
states
> the
> > authority to be a little tyranny all to itself. Governments
exist
> to
> > defend individual rights, and if they do not do this, they are
> > illegitimate. There is no purpose for a national government if
it
> does
> > not exist to defend our rights, including against the "state's
> right"
> > (sic) of racist, sexist, and otherwise collectivist tyrants.
> >
> > I know, I know
You can cite me a huge long list of
> government
> > abuses. Well, I have one that the national government helped end:
> > Slavery. You can't top that. Another female
disenfranchisement,
> and
> > later, minority disenfranchisement. All of the abuses by the feds
> > against the states cannot begin to remotely compare.
> >
> > 7. pauliecannoli Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm e
> >
> > Governments exist to defend individual rights.
> >
> > Nice theory. I contend that it is merely the latest window
> > dressing used to justify their existence, though.
> >
> > If the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal
> > government, and the federal government had no real power, then
the
> > Bill of Rights would be useless which it essentially was prior
to
> > the 14th amendment.
> >
> > The price is having a federal government big enough to
> enforce
> > it against local tyrants. I say it isn't worth it, although it
may
> not
> > be readily apparent.
> >
> > When you advocate the type of "anti-federalism" you are
> > advocating, you are essentially granting each of the fifty
states
> the
> > authority to be a little tyranny all to itself. Governments
exist
> to
> > defend individual rights, and if they do not do this, they are
> > illegitimate. There is no purpose for a national government if
it
> does
> > not exist to defend our rights, including against the "state's
> right"
> > (sic) of racist, sexist, and otherwise collectivist tyrants.
> >
> > But what happens when the federal government becomes
> tyrannical?
> > Unlike the local tyranny, which a smaller number of people may
be
> more
> > readily able to defeat, or - failing that - to emigrate from, a
> > federal tyranny is harder to mobilize against, and takes more
> effort
> > to move out of. It also adds layers of extra bureaucracy and
> > unaccountability; hardly a good thing.
> >
> > I know, I know
You can cite me a huge long list of
> > government abuses. Well, I have one that the national government
> > helped end: Slavery. You can't top that. Another female
> > disenfranchisement, and later, minority disenfranchisement. All
of
> the
> > abuses by the feds against the states cannot begin to remotely
> compare.
> >
> > I wouldn't say the feds' imperialism, the domestic tyranny
> > imposed in the name of foreign wars, the federal war against the
> > American indigenous peoples, the trillions of dollars of stolen
tax
> > money, the many trillions more kept from being created by
> regulations,
> > the injustices perpetrated by corporations protected by limited
> > liability and corporate personhood, the corporate welfare and
wars
> on
> > behalf of corporate interests, the war on drugs, etc, etc, are so
> > readily dismissed.
> >
> > It's true that the feds ended chattel slavery and Jim Crow
in
> > the South. Could it have been done otherwise? Had the south been
> > allowed to secede and the north stopped enforcing its fugitive
> slave
> > laws, slavery could not have lasted long. More importantly, the
US
> > imperialist state of the late 19th century on may well have never
> > emerged, WWI could have ended in the negotiated neutral end it
was
> > headed toward without US involvement before 1917, and fascism,
> nazism
> > and Marxism may very well have never come to power.
> >
> > Every nation in the Americas except Haiti and the US ended
> > slavery without a war around that time, Brazil being the last in
> 1888
> > or so, if I recall my reading correctly.
> >
> > Or, let's take a more contemporary example:
> >
> > Black and Latino communities suffer disproportionately from
> > police brutality. It's local cops, but the weapons and
paramilitary
> > tactics come from the feds. The "wars" leading to the
> militarization
> > of local police departments - against drugs and terrorism - come
> from
> > the top. The equipment is the leftovers of the military-
industrial
> > complex sold at military fire sales or given away in fire sales
by
> the
> > feds to police gangs. The members of those gangs in many cases
got
> > their training brutalizing people in the federal regime's
foreign
> wars.
> >
> > So, is it worth it to have a strong federal government? It
> may
> > seem that way at first, but I think that is a case of what
Bastiat
> > called "that which is seen and that which is not seen".
> >
> > 8. G.E. Smith Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm e
> >
> > It's not my "theory" it's from the Declaration of
> Independence.
> >
> > The absence of government is tribalism. I'll take our
current
> > state of affairs over pre-historic barbarism, and I'll work to
make
> > the government conform to the unknown ideal of a truly limited
> > government that exists solely for the protection of individual
> rights.
> >
> > Perhaps the South should have been allowed to secede and
the
> > North should have offered asylum to escaped slaves. But whatever
> > "injustices" perpetrated by the North in the Civil War ("War of
> > Northern Aggression" is racist code, must like "states' rights")
do
> > not justify disgusting neo-confederate revisionism, nor do they
> > preclude the morality of a national government wielding its
> monopoly
> > of force against those who violate individual rights. All the
nasty
> > stuff you can cite and I'm not "dismissing" it or contesting
it
> > still doesn't invalidate the virtue of the 14th amendment
applying
> all
> > other amendments to the states as well as the federal
government.
> You
> > will argue that the government should not exist. My point is, if
it
> > cannot defend my rights, then no, it shouldn't.
> >
> > 9. pauliecannoli Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm e
> >
> > It's not my "theory" it's from the Declaration of
> > Independence.
> >
> > That's a theory. The results are somewhat different.
> >
> > The absence of government is tribalism.
> >
> > Monopoly government itself is tribalism, only elevated to
a
> more
> > deadly level. Or is it technological progress that you think is
> made
> > possible by government?
> >
> > I'll take our current state of affairs over pre-
historic
> > barbarism, and I'll work to make the government conform to the
> unknown
> > ideal of a truly limited government that exists solely for the
> > protection of individual rights.
> >
> > It's a false choice. Prehistoric barbarism is a function of
> > technology. Monopoly government does not advance the progress of
> > civilization, it retards it. As for limited government, that's
like
> > limited cancer.
> >
> > But whatever "injustices" perpetrated by the North in
the
> > Civil War ("War of Northern Aggression" is racist code, must like
> > "states' rights") do not justify disgusting neo-confederate
> > revisionism, nor do they preclude the morality of a national
> > government wielding its monopoly of force against those who
violate
> > individual rights.
> >
> > Injustices perpetrated by the north were quite real.
> > Neo-confederate revisionism goes too far in many cases, but it
also
> > exposes commonly held misconceptions about the war; both sides
go
> too
> > far in looking at complex historical events selectively to
> whitewash
> > one side and overvilify the other.
> >
> > As for monopoly force, I'm against it. It may protect some
> > individual rights but ultimately it destroys them far more.
> >
> > You will argue that the government should not exist. My
> > point is, if it cannot defend my rights, then no, it shouldn't.
> >
> > Glad we agree :-)
> >
> > 10. pauliecannoli Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm e
> >
> > Hey, other people, feel free to chime in
any time
> >
> > 11. G.E. Smith Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 8:05 pm e
> >
> > Neither of us is going to convince the other, but this can
> still
> > be productive (I guess): Yes, I do believe that limited-
government
> > capitalism is the only moral or rational method of societal
> > organization, and that the absence thereof ("anarchy") is
> inherently
> > tribalist and collectivist, as history (pre-history)
demonstrates.
> > Tribes do not respect individual rights; they respect force
both
> > internally and externally. And yes, I do believe technology is a
> > function of capitalism, which requires the existence of
government
> to
> > enforce individual (and property) rights. Again, I think the
> empirical
> > data is on my side. The progress of humanity under various
tribal,
> > feudal, mercantilist regimes was largely stagnant, whereas
> America's
> > form of limited-government capitalism is where most innovations
> took
> > place. If you quantified technological accomplishments throughout
> > man's history a good 99.9999999%+ have taken place in the past
200
> > years; most of them in America, and virtually all others
inspired
> by
> > the American system.
> >
> > Truly legitimate government which exists solely to defend
> > individual rights is an unknown ideal. But it is more
realistic
> an
> > ideal than utopian anarchism, wherein the very nature of man
must
> be
> > recalibrated in order for the fantasy of "anarcho-capitalism" to
> work.
> > In truth, the destruction of the state leads to tribalism,
> feudalism,
> > or the rise of a new (not necessarily more benevolent) state. The
> > government envisioned in the Constitution is ultimately
desirable,
> and
> > we have more ability to re-engineer the nature of government
than
> we
> > do to re-engineer the nature of man.
> >
> > 12. pauliecannoli Says:
> > June 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm e
> >
> > GE - I could answer, but I want to give some other people a
> > crack at this. I'll try to do some recruiting for the thread
> comments
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > =paul
> >
>
