Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
On 2/19/10, CeJ wrote: > Most people have forgotten who Thaddeus Stevens was (one of the > greatest legislators in US history) ^ CB: Wasn't he a Radical Republican and abolitionist ? ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
Most people have forgotten who Thaddeus Stevens was (one of the greatest legislators in US history) while they remember James 'the Mercersburg Flash' Buchanan as the 'worst president' (thankfully George W. Bush will give him some competition in that category). It's ironic that Stevens was the Pennsylvanian (his adopted home state) who gave Lincoln backbone but was based in the same area as Buchanan (very close to the Mason-Dixon line). A further irony is that Lincoln was preceded by the worst president in US history (James Buchanan) and then succeeded by the worst president in US history (Andrew Johnson). http://www.fergusbordewich.com/PAGESjournalism/FBsteve.shtml Thaddeus Stevens and James Buchanan: How their Historic Rivalry Shaped America By Fergus M. Bordewich. This article originally appeared as “Was James Buchanan Our Worst President? Digging into a Historic Rivalry” in Smithsonian Magazine, February 2004. WHEN JIM DELLE’S crew of student archaeologists broke through the roof of an old cistern in Lancaster, Pennsylvania last December, they discovered something totally unexpected: a secret hiding place for fugitive slaves in the backyard of one of nineteenth century America’s most powerful, most passionate, and most hated political figures, the radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens. Although the story of the Underground Railroad is replete with legends of exotic hiding places, they are actually quite rare. “I’ve looked at many tunnels that were alleged to have been used by the Underground Railroad,” says the dark-haired, bespectacled Delle, a man of ordinarily skeptical disposition. “Usually, I’m debunking these sites. But in this case, I can think of no other possible explanation.” The site sheds a dramatic new light on the life of Stevens, a brilliant lawyer with a rapier wit, a withering Yankee gaze, and a commitment to racial equality that was far in advance of his time. Stevens was the father of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guaranteed African-Americans civil liberties and the right to vote, and the architect of post-Civil War Reconstruction. A lightening rod for the political passions that electrified the United States during and after the Civil War, he was almost forgotten for more than a century after his death in 1868. “If you stopped a hundred people on the street today, right here in Lancaster, and asked them who Stevens was,” says Lancaster’s gregarious mayor, Charlie Smithgall, “I bet only fifty would know, and most of them would think you were talking about the junior college that has his name on it.” IRONICALLY, STEVENS’S REPUTATION in Lancaster is dwarfed by that of his neighbor and bitter ideological rival, James Buchanan, the nation’s fifteenth president and possibly its worst, whose palatial home has been lovingly restored as a memorial. Stevens’s far more modest home lay utterly neglected, until now. (Unfortunately, much of it, including the recently excavated archaeological site, is slated to be demolished to make way for a massive new convention center.) The two men could not have been more different: one the foremost radical of his generation, the other a pro-slavery Northerner, or “dough face,” who committed his career to the preservation of the South’s “peculiar institution.” Stevens was a man driven by deep-running moral convictions, Buchanan diplomatic, legalistic, and so priggish that Andrew Jackson once impatiently dismissed him as “a Miss Nancy”—a sissy. Yet their lives ran in curiously parallel courses. Both men had humble origins. Buchanan was born in a log cabin on the Pennsylvania frontier in 1791, Stevens a year later in poverty, in rural Vermont. Both were lifelong bachelors, workaholics, and fueled by intense political ambition. Both lawyers, they built their careers in Lancaster, and lived less than two miles apart. And both would die in 1868, two months apart, amid the postwar trauma of Reconstruction. For decades, their politics were inextricably intertwined, the twin counterpoints of the age when slavery was the six-hundred pound gorilla in the parlor of American democracy. One of them would lead the United States to the brink of Civil War. The other would, more than any other American, shape its aftermath. Lancaster was a prosperous little rose-red city of some ten thousand souls when Buchanan arrived there in 1812. Its handsome two- and three-story brick or cut-stone homes were laid out in pleasing, dignified lines as befit a city which had served as the state’s capital since 1799. Furniture makers, gunsmiths, shoe factories, and markets for the thousands of German and Quaker farmers who lived in the surrounding county lent its unpaved streets an atmosphere of bustle and importance. Fresh out of Dickinson College, Buchanan was a young man on the make, determined to please his demanding Scots-Presbyterian father, who never tired of telling him how much he had sacrificed to send him to school. Had he lived in the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
WL: >>Very reactionary political current reminiscent of the ideological bent of the pro slavery forces during the lead up to the Civil War in America. The slave oligarchy and the Southern elite claimed to stand on the side of the Constitution, and they did. That the Constitution legalized and protected slavery meant its defense supported slavery. No real difference today. These people are very angry and believe they can recast bourgeois private property in their favor. They are horribly mistaken. Perhaps, Texas needs to be given back to Mexico. << What does it mean to say one believes in the Constitution? That it creates a federal structure that controls a nation, and that structure can not be broken up or seceded from by any state? That the Constitution can not be amended (by amendment, by legal decisions)? The Constitution can and has been constitutionally amended, as allowed for by the constitution? Aren't the long-running issues: 1. What does the Constitution (having been amended quite a number of times since its first form) in its current state actually allow and provide for? 2. In what ways can the current Constitution be changed in order to improve the federal structure and its relationship with the states and with citizens? I grew up in 'Thaddeus Stevens country'. I even played near the forge he co-owend outside of Gettysburg (the Confederates destroyed it). He believed in the constitution enough to support the federal structure and then lead the movement to amend it. He was a federalist, a constitutionalist and a 'Congressionalist'--believing in the powers of Congress as provided for under the constitution. First, for TS, reconstruction was re-establishment of the USA in its sovereignty over all parts beyond martial law. So if teabaggers want to get back to the constitution, they might start with the beginning of the Civil War and work their way forward in time to the US of today. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1851-1875/reconstruction/steven.htm >>Nobody, I believe, pretends that with their old constitutions and frames of >>government they can be permitted to claim their old rights under the >>Constitution. They have torn their constitutional States into atoms, and >>built on their foundations fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men >>cannot raise themselves. Dead States cannot restore their existence "as it >>was." Whose especial duty is it to do it? In whom does the Constitution place >>the power? Not in the judicial branch of Government, for it only adjudicates >>and does not prescribe laws. Not in the Executive, for he only executes and >>cannot make laws. Not in the Commander-in-Chief of the armies, for he can >>only hold them under military rule until the sovereign legislative power of >>the conqueror shall give them law. Unless the law of nations is a dead >>letter, the late war between two acknowledged belligerents severed their >>original compacts and broke all the ties that bound them together. The future >>condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror. They >>must come in as new states or remain as conquered provinces. Congress . . . >>is the only power that can act in the matter. Congress alone can do it. . . . Congress must create States and declare when they are entitled to be represented. Then each House must judge whether the members presenting themselves from a recognized State possess the requisite qualifications of age, residence, and citizenship; and whether the election and returns are according to law. ... << >>They ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in the Union, or of >>being counted as valid States, until the Constitution shall have been so >>amended as to make it what its framers intended; and so as to secure >>perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union; and so as to render our >>republican Government firm and stable forever. The first of those amendments >>is to change the basis of representation among the States from Federal >>numbers to actual voters. . . . With the basis unchanged the 83 South ern >>members, with the Democrats that will in the best times be elected from the >>North, will always give a majority in Congress and in the Electoral college. >>. . . I need not depict the ruin that would follow. . . But this is not all that we ought to do before inveterate rebels are invited to participate in our legislation. We have turned, or are about to turn, loose four million slaves without a hut to shelter them or a cent in their pockets. The infernal laws of slavery have prevented them from acquiring an education, understanding the common laws of contract, or of managing the ordinary business of life. This Congress is bound to provide for them until they can take care of themselves. If we do not furnish them with homesteads, and hedge them around with protective laws; if we leave them to the legislation of their late masters, we had better have left them in bondage. If we fa
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
In a message dated 2/18/2010 12:20:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: As the meeting ended, Carolyn L. Whaley, 76, held up her copy of the Constitution. She carries it everywhere, she explained, and she was prepared to lay down her life to protect it from the likes of Mr. Obama. “I would not hesitate,” she said, perfectly calm. more at _http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html) Comment Very reactionary political current reminiscent of the ideological bent of the pro slavery forces during the lead up to the Civil War in America. The slave oligarchy and the Southern elite claimed to stand on the side of the Constitution, and they did. That the Constitution legalized and protected slavery meant its defense supported slavery. No real difference today. These people are very angry and believe they can recast bourgeois private property in their favor. They are horribly mistaken. Perhaps, Texas needs to be given back to Mexico. WL. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
On 2/18/10, Shane Mage wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, c b wrote: > > > I gotta find some of their interpretations of the Constitution. I'm > > sure they are gungho on the 2nd Amendment and probably the 10th > > Amendment. I don't know that they have much truck for Miranda warnings > > or Warren Court interpretations of the Constitution. They probably > > think affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment - not > > Probably. But if strict adherence to the constitution is their > thing, we should find it easy to persuade the brighter and less > brainwashed among them that the real anticonstitutionalists are right > wingers, not leftists. Just like when prospective teabaggers are > outraged at Obama's plans to cut Medicare we should be able to > persuade the brighter and less brainwashed among them that the real > answer is to offer Medicare to everybody, not force them to buy > insurance from the Health Insurance Corporations that they hate! ^ CB: maybe , though anybody who takes Palin seriously might not be very intelligent. > > > > > On 2/18/10, Shane Mage wrote: > >> Common ground? > >> > >>> Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded > >>> constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to > >>> some, > >>> given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, > >>> though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — > >>> would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member. > >> > >> Shane Mage > >> > >>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > >>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > >>> kindling in measures and going out in measures." > >>> > >>> Herakleitos of Ephesos > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > >> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > >> To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > >> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > >> > > > > ___ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > Shane Mage > > > Porphyry in his Abstinance from Animal Flesh suggests that there are > > appropriate offerings to all the Gods, and to the highest the only > > offering acceptable is silence. > > > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
I don't know if this is representative. They don't like some Constitutional Amendments that come after 1913 ( like women voting ? smile). So, do they not consider the provision on the Constitution on Amendments valid , or what ? CB http://taxdayteaparty.com/2010/01/constitutional-reform/ Constitutional Reform Posted by Eric Odom on Jan 12, 2010 in Daily Tea | The following was submitted for posting and I’ve published it on behalf of the author. -Eric ——– I am perplexed by the issues that are facing our nation right now. But I am even more concerned that the root of these problems are not being addressed. The answer to everything that ails this nation is the Constitution. We are losing our freedoms because we are ignoring the Constitution as put forth by our Founding Fathers. Washington is taking liberties that do not belong to them, and they have the arrogance to ignore the citizen protests in the process. The Constitution is very clear in stating where the power lies. It is with the people, and the States in which they reside. We have been far too complacent in letting the Federal government, aided and abetted by the Progressive movement, to erode and transfer this power, beginning with the constitutional amendments ratified in 1913. In much the same way that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage, the States sold their birthright to the Federal government. It is time to take this birthright back. What I would like to explore and debate, with the help of other conservatives such as the Liberty Alliance, is using the ballot initiative process (in the 24 States that use ballot initiatives) to force a Constitutional Convention designed to restore the Constitution back to a document designed to ensure the liberties of its citizenry. Some of the restorative changes I would like to see are as follows: 1. Reiterate the 10th Amendment which already states that the federal government does not have the power or authority to introduce programs such as health care. 2. Rescind the 16th Amendment. Let the States set the Federal budgets and collect monies needed for the operation of the Federal government. This will end the progressive movement, pork barrel spending, most corruption, influential lobby groups, and much more. It will also allow the States to make decisions that are better suited to the needs of its own citizens in areas such as healthcare, education, and much more. It will also put an end to tax dollars being used to bail out companies that should be allowed to fail. This change would make the federal government subservient to the States, rather than controlling the States. In turn, this would put an end to enough wasteful spending that would allow States to balance their budget deficits. 3. Force a balanced budget amendment. No more borrowing or printing money. Put an end to the Federal Reserve. This will protect our currency and allow America to lead the world economically. 4. Rescind the 17th Amendment. Let the State Senators be appointed by the States. This will give direct power to the States and put an end to the need for term limits. 5. Require that all foreign treaties be ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds majority, essentially letting the States determine foreign policy by virtue of the States appointing and controlling the Senators. This will ensure against being absorbed into the International community and protect our Sovereignty, and respect for American law over International law. 6. Define the meaning of “regulating interstate commerce” to mean that Congress shall encourage interstate commerce and shall do nothing to hinder interstate commerce. 7. Reiterate property rights by restricting eminent domain. It is not my intention of defining in detail the Constitutional changes that need to be made that will end federalism, shrink the government and restore freedoms. I need the feedback of those much smarter than me. But I see no alternative. Fighting and debating Washington is like debating your four year old. It is pointless, when neither of them have any power except that which you are willing to succeed them. If I could come up with specific language to be used in any ballot initiatives, I see great synergies in using the grassroots movement that has developed this past year in moving these initiatives forward. I am looking for assistance in this endeavor. Although I would prefer to just raise my family and run my business, I sense an urgency in correcting this and am willing to dedicate my time and efforts to this cause. Regards, Lyndon Brittner lbritt...@connect2.com 54 Responses to “Constitutional Reform”« Older Comments Eric Smith says: February 8, 2010 at 3:35 am Lesser words are not meant in less meaning… Politics has become a business. From there, all evil has sprung. We NEED to stop the career minded campaign politician. Term Limits. << That little punctuation right there is a period. I don’t infer that there are no other problems t
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, c b wrote: > I gotta find some of their interpretations of the Constitution. I'm > sure they are gungho on the 2nd Amendment and probably the 10th > Amendment. I don't know that they have much truck for Miranda warnings > or Warren Court interpretations of the Constitution. They probably > think affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment - not Probably. But if strict adherence to the constitution is their thing, we should find it easy to persuade the brighter and less brainwashed among them that the real anticonstitutionalists are right wingers, not leftists. Just like when prospective teabaggers are outraged at Obama's plans to cut Medicare we should be able to persuade the brighter and less brainwashed among them that the real answer is to offer Medicare to everybody, not force them to buy insurance from the Health Insurance Corporations that they hate! > On 2/18/10, Shane Mage wrote: >> Common ground? >> >>> Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded >>> constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to >>> some, >>> given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, >>> though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — >>> would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member. >> >> Shane Mage >> >>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it >>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, >>> kindling in measures and going out in measures." >>> >>> Herakleitos of Ephesos >>> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >> To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis >> > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Shane Mage > Porphyry in his Abstinance from Animal Flesh suggests that there are > appropriate offerings to all the Gods, and to the highest the only > offering acceptable is silence. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
I gotta find some of their interpretations of the Constitution. I'm sure they are gungho on the 2nd Amendment and probably the 10th Amendment. I don't know that they have much truck for Miranda warnings or Warren Court interpretations of the Constitution. They probably think affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment - not Anyway, they might be splintering the righjt rather than starting a majority fascist party. On 2/18/10, Shane Mage wrote: > Common ground? > > > Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded > > constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, > > given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, > > though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — > > would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member. > > Shane Mage > > > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > > > Herakleitos of Ephesos > > > > > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right
Common ground? > Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded > constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, > given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, > though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — > would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
