Originally Posted by dblack

Wild speculation at best. It wouldn't be what it is today, that's for sure. But we'd likely be around in - just in different form.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

I believe they were right, and that the Civil War shows that even so they failed to establish a government strong enough to hold the union together as it industrialized.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think we should just eliminate official poverty in our republic instead of denying and disparaging individual liberty.

Originally Posted by dblack

huh?

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

If we had continued to have the small, minimal federal government that SOME (not all) of the framers intended, the United States of America would have ceased to exist long ago.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

It's not wild speculation. The minimal government established by the Democratic-Republicans after Jefferson's victory in 1800 failed, as a matter of historical fact, in 1861. The nation became too big, too industrialized, and too regionally diverse to hold together without a stronger central government than Jefferson intended. One of the arguments Hamilton, Jay, and Madison advanced in the early Federalist papers was that a stronger central government (than the Articles of Confederation) was needed to hold the union together, and that failing to hold the union together would result in constant war, which would mean standing armies and (they argued) the end of liberty. I believe they were right, and that the Civil War shows that even so they failed to establish a government strong enough to hold the union together as it industrialized.



I'm no happier about the American empire than you are, but I don't regard splitting the country into 50 countries or (more likely) several regional federations as a good solution -- although I'll grant you it would end the empire. Rather, somehow we must break the corporate power over the state, end the influence of campaign donations over politics.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

public sector means of production

Originally Posted by dblack

daniel,

I'm having a hard time tracking most of what you're saying. I do recognize this phrase, however, and it's always seemed very problematic. What exactly do you mean by "means of production"? And which "means of production" are considered "public sector" in your view?

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

There was no chance of that happening. The slave power in Congress was on the wane, not increasing. That's why the south seceded. 3/5 was the compromise at the time the Constitution was ratified; it was the best deal the slave states could possibly get.

Of course it was about power, but it's ALWAYS about power. There are also always other issues that the struggle for power is itself about, though, and at the time of the Civil War, slavery was the biggest one. It was a conflict between two elites, the planters and the capitalists, but the biggest single quarrel between them was slavery, which was the keystone of the planters' wealth and power. Abolish slavery, and you abolished the planter class.



If you want to understand why the Civil War happened, ignore Abraham Lincoln (for a moment) and look instead at the South Carolina legislature. Without secession, there would have been no Civil War. Why did the states secede? To protect slavery.

Now look back at Lincoln. What did he propose to do that would have threatened slavery? Abolish it? No. But he did want to keep slavery out of the new territories as they became states. Each such state would have meant 2 new anti-slavery votes in the Senate, and at least one (and growing) in the House. Plus one more state that would vote to ratify a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery if such made it out of Congress.

Lincoln also, being a Republican, would support more pro-industry legislation that would strengthen the capitalist elite at the expense of the planters, and they didn't like that, either. But the big issue was slavery. The writing was on the wall, and it was either accept the inevitable or try to secede. They chose the latter.



You're forgetting the capitalist elite. True, the working class in the north did not benefit from emancipation, except morally. The capitalist class, however, benefited greatly, in three ways. One was the expansion of the labor pool which helped them drive wages down. Another was the political victory it handed to the Republican Party, which (then as always) represented their interests. And the third was the total destruction of their rivals, the slave-owning planter elite. After the Civil War, the capitalist class reigned supreme in the U.S., where before they had had to share power with the planters. After that, everything went their way, until the labor wars.

And I have to say, you're also forgetting the slaves. The Civil War may have been at root a cold-blooded power contest between two very nasty elite classes, but for black people held in bondage it also meant freedom. Granted, black people exchanged slavery for a form of serfdom, and were no more truly free than the downtrodden white factory-fodder in the north, but that's still a BIG step up from being someone's chattel.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think it should be considered less moral and less ethical, to advocate eliminating an organ of the federal government that generates revenue, and claiming that eliminating the drug war is less of a priority than reducing social spending; as a form of alleged fiscal conservatism.

Originally Posted by dblack

Again, I'm not confident I'm parsing your comment correctly, but perhaps it's worth noting that the drug war generates considerable revenue.

The ability to generate revenue should never be our guiding star in deciding the proper role of government.

Most of what the federal government currently does has no basis in our Constitution, unless you buy into the "general welfare" exploit, and then pretty much anything goes. Why wouldn't keeping drugs off the streets qualify as "promoting the general welfare"?

Which conspiracy theory are you referring to?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

... as enumerated in our Ninth Amendment.