The Difference Between Our Founding Fathers and Today's "Revolutionaries"

[nodoginnafight]

There seems to be quite a few threads championing the legality of succession and/or invoking the spirit of our founding fathers in "overthrowing a tyrannical government." The common theme of these threads seems to be in supporting the "legality" of such actions.

These threads are a study in futility. Our founding fathers would be either laughing at you or (more likely) rolling their eyes at you.

Why?

Because our founding fathers were well aware of the fact that there was never going to be any legal (or moral) defense had they failed. They would have been hanged or jailed and go down in history as scum who tried to overthrow their government.

Today, it appears that most of these "overthrow the government" types are trying to hedge their bets. They want everyone to just agree that win, lose, or draw, they are "patriots" and acting on very firm legal footing.

Give me a break.

You wanna start a new revolution? Knock yourself out. A lot of us are going to be fighting against you. If you win, me and the other losers will suffer the consequences. If we win, you are gonna pay the price. That's just the reality of how it works.

Don't expect any help from us or our government no matter how "legal" or "moral" you think your cause is. Quit trying to whine about how others are "illegally" making your little insurrection so much more difficult. If it's worth it, then it is worth risking all to achieve, no?

Our founding fathers knew this.

 

[rightwinger]

Our founding fathers would laugh at what today's "revolutionaries" consider grievances

 

[nodoginnafight]

Our founding fathers would laugh at what today's "revolutionaries" consider grievances

I believe you are correct.
I think they would also admire how American resembles their vision a lot more today than it did during their lifetimes.

Just MHO.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

 

[martybegan]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

because it destroys the ability to have representative government. If seccession was an accepted fact parties could just threaten it, thus forcing the majority side to either give up what it wants, or accept secession.

Seccession is still an option, you are just going to have to fight for it.

 

[martybegan]

Our founding fathers would laugh at what today's "revolutionaries" consider grievances

I believe you are correct.
I think they would also admire how American resembles their vision a lot more today than it did during their lifetimes.

Just MHO.

I think they would be appalled by the sensless busybody laws being passed in most urban areas, confused by the concept of gun control, and shocked that so many people rely on the government for sustinance. They were advocates of LIMITED government, not the clusterfuck we have today.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

From a purely practical standpoint - you hold the Union together to keep it stronger. If states pulled out over every grievance, you wind up with the kind of instability we see in the Balkins.

In a perfect, threat-free world maybe every city or county or state could stand as their own country. But we do not live in such a world. Utopian dreams rarely work in the real world.
Just MHO.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Our founding fathers would laugh at what today's "revolutionaries" consider grievances

I believe you are correct.
I think they would also admire how American resembles their vision a lot more today than it did during their lifetimes.

Just MHO.

I think they would be appalled by the sensless busybody laws being passed in most urban areas, confused by the concept of gun control, and shocked that so many people rely on the government for sustinance. They were advocates of LIMITED government, not the clusterfuck we have today.

Yes, I'm sure that the transition from a rural, largely agrarian society to a more urbanized society would cause them some consternation too.

But I also believe that we have achieved a level of diversity and equality that they could only write about and dream about.

 

[bripat9643]

There seems to be quite a few threads championing the legality of succession and/or invoking the spirit of our founding fathers in "overthrowing a tyrannical government." The common theme of these threads seems to be in supporting the "legality" of such actions.

These threads are a study in futility. Our founding fathers would be either laughing at you or (more likely) rolling their eyes at you.

Why?

Because our founding fathers were well aware of the fact that there was never going to be any legal (or moral) defense had they failed. They would have been hanged or jailed and go down in history as scum who tried to overthrow their government.

Today, it appears that most of these "overthrow the government" types are trying to hedge their bets. They want everyone to just agree that win, lose, or draw, they are "patriots" and acting on very firm legal footing.

Give me a break.

You wanna start a new revolution? Knock yourself out. A lot of us are going to be fighting against you. If you win, me and the other losers will suffer the consequences. If we win, you are gonna pay the price. That's just the reality of how it works.

Don't expect any help from us or our government no matter how "legal" or "moral" you think your cause is. Quit trying to whine about how others are "illegally" making your little insurrection so much more difficult. If it's worth it, then it is worth risking all to achieve, no?

Our founding fathers knew this.

We'll risk it when we have sufficient numbers supporting it. We aren't obligated to make suicide attacks because imbecile toadies like you demand it.

 

[martybegan]

I believe you are correct.
I think they would also admire how American resembles their vision a lot more today than it did during their lifetimes.

Just MHO.

I think they would be appalled by the sensless busybody laws being passed in most urban areas, confused by the concept of gun control, and shocked that so many people rely on the government for sustinance. They were advocates of LIMITED government, not the clusterfuck we have today.

Yes, I'm sure that the transition from a rural, largely agrarian society to a more urbanized society would cause them some consternation too.

But I also believe that we have achieved a level of diversity and equality that they could only write about and dream about.

I don't think diversity was a concern of thiers, because the concept didnt really exist at the time. Also remember alot of them were slaveholders and while agreeing about equality for some, they did not agree with equality for all.

The sheer scope of our current government would probably remind them more of Gerorge III's government than the one George Washington would want.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think they would be appalled by the sensless busybody laws being passed in most urban areas, confused by the concept of gun control, and shocked that so many people rely on the government for sustinance. They were advocates of LIMITED government, not the clusterfuck we have today.

Yes, I'm sure that the transition from a rural, largely agrarian society to a more urbanized society would cause them some consternation too.

But I also believe that we have achieved a level of diversity and equality that they could only write about and dream about.

I don't think diversity was a concern of thiers, because the concept didnt really exist at the time. Also remember alot of them were slaveholders and while agreeing about equality for some, they did not agree with equality for all.

The sheer scope of our current government would probably remind them more of Gerorge III's government than the one George Washington would want.

I don't remember any fiery speeches about the size of George III's government. I do recall talk of equality and diversity.

But I certainly haven't read EVERY utterance.

 

[FA_Q2]

There seems to be quite a few threads championing the legality of succession and/or invoking the spirit of our founding fathers in "overthrowing a tyrannical government." The common theme of these threads seems to be in supporting the "legality" of such actions.

These threads are a study in futility. Our founding fathers would be either laughing at you or (more likely) rolling their eyes at you.

Why?

Because our founding fathers were well aware of the fact that there was never going to be any legal (or moral) defense had they failed. They would have been hanged or jailed and go down in history as scum who tried to overthrow their government.

Today, it appears that most of these "overthrow the government" types are trying to hedge their bets. They want everyone to just agree that win, lose, or draw, they are "patriots" and acting on very firm legal footing.

Give me a break.

You wanna start a new revolution? Knock yourself out. A lot of us are going to be fighting against you. If you win, me and the other losers will suffer the consequences. If we win, you are gonna pay the price. That's just the reality of how it works.

Don't expect any help from us or our government no matter how "legal" or "moral" you think your cause is. Quit trying to whine about how others are "illegally" making your little insurrection so much more difficult. If it's worth it, then it is worth risking all to achieve, no?

Our founding fathers knew this.

The POINT of those arguments is that they do not want to start a revolution. That a revolution should NOT be necessary to make fundamental changes in the government OF, FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE.

Denying the ability to cede just ensures that you actually don’t think the government is of the people but rather above them, able to subject them to something that they do not want to be a part of. The entire point of those on the other side of this issue is that they believe government operates at the behest of the people and that they have the right to dissolve it when they no longer wish to be a part of that government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

because it destroys the ability to have representative government. If seccession was an accepted fact parties could just threaten it, thus forcing the majority side to either give up what it wants, or accept secession.

Seccession is still an option, you are just going to have to fight for it.

I don't want to secede, nor do I want to fight on either side of a secession conflict. The fact of the matter, however, is that secession is an important bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. The majority should not simply always get their way, and secession was a check on that as you admit. Your response, however, doesn't answer the question. Secession doesn't destroy representative government, it simply lets one group opt out and form their own government. The representative government still exists for the rest who have not opted out. So why the need to kill people to force them to remain in the Union? It seems to me that's the far greater evil. If people don't want to associate with me for whatever reason I don't punch them in the face until they change their mind.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The POINT of those arguments is that they do not want to start a revolution. That a revolution should NOT be necessary to make fundamental changes in the government OF, FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE.

I agree 100%.
The correct forum for a government to be reformed in a representative democracy is at the ballot box.

The revolution is only necessary in a representative democracy when a minority wants to impose their will on the majority because they are so convinced they know better.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

From a purely practical standpoint - you hold the Union together to keep it stronger. If states pulled out over every grievance, you wind up with the kind of instability we see in the Balkins.

In a perfect, threat-free world maybe every city or county or state could stand as their own country. But we do not live in such a world. Utopian dreams rarely work in the real world.
Just MHO.

And yet I see no basis for assuming that every city or county would want to be its own country in the U.S. When the south seceded no state decided it would rather be on its own than either the Union or the Confederacy, and when the New England states were constantly threatening secession during Jefferson and Madison's presidencies they always retained the idea that they would simply form a New England confederacy as far as I can tell. There is not such a cultural or economic difference in the states making up the U.S. today that I can see any of them wanting to be completely independent from all the others. More likely you would see New England banding together as always, the south, and maybe the northwest, in my opinion. Would that really be so terrible?

 

[martybegan]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

because it destroys the ability to have representative government. If seccession was an accepted fact parties could just threaten it, thus forcing the majority side to either give up what it wants, or accept secession.

Seccession is still an option, you are just going to have to fight for it.

I don't want to secede, nor do I want to fight on either side of a secession conflict. The fact of the matter, however, is that secession is an important bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. The majority should not simply always get their way, and secession was a check on that as you admit. Your response, however, doesn't answer the question. Secession doesn't destroy representative government, it simply lets one group opt out and form their own government. The representative government still exists for the rest who have not opted out. So why the need to kill people to force them to remain in the Union? It seems to me that's the far greater evil. If people don't want to associate with me for whatever reason I don't punch them in the face until they change their mind.

If every time a side lost an important issue they seceeded, then you would be left with a balkanized set of states where one existed. People can still seceed, but the need for
1) either armed conflict or 2)the other side agreeing to the secession keeps the bar high enough so it is only seen as an option in the gravest of circumstances.

 

[Katzndogz]

I think they would be appalled by the sensless busybody laws being passed in most urban areas, confused by the concept of gun control, and shocked that so many people rely on the government for sustinance. They were advocates of LIMITED government, not the clusterfuck we have today.

Yes, I'm sure that the transition from a rural, largely agrarian society to a more urbanized society would cause them some consternation too.

But I also believe that we have achieved a level of diversity and equality that they could only write about and dream about.

I don't think diversity was a concern of thiers, because the concept didnt really exist at the time. Also remember alot of them were slaveholders and while agreeing about equality for some, they did not agree with equality for all.

The sheer scope of our current government would probably remind them more of Gerorge III's government than the one George Washington would want.

They weren't great fans of equality either. Only landholders could vote.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There seems to be quite a few threads championing the legality of succession and/or invoking the spirit of our founding fathers in "overthrowing a tyrannical government." The common theme of these threads seems to be in supporting the "legality" of such actions.

These threads are a study in futility. Our founding fathers would be either laughing at you or (more likely) rolling their eyes at you.

Why?

Because our founding fathers were well aware of the fact that there was never going to be any legal (or moral) defense had they failed. They would have been hanged or jailed and go down in history as scum who tried to overthrow their government.

Today, it appears that most of these "overthrow the government" types are trying to hedge their bets. They want everyone to just agree that win, lose, or draw, they are "patriots" and acting on very firm legal footing.

Give me a break.

You wanna start a new revolution? Knock yourself out. A lot of us are going to be fighting against you. If you win, me and the other losers will suffer the consequences. If we win, you are gonna pay the price. That's just the reality of how it works.

Don't expect any help from us or our government no matter how "legal" or "moral" you think your cause is. Quit trying to whine about how others are "illegally" making your little insurrection so much more difficult. If it's worth it, then it is worth risking all to achieve, no?

Our founding fathers knew this.

We'll risk it when we have sufficient numbers supporting it. We aren't obligated to make suicide attacks because imbecile toadies like you demand it.

I would discourage you from any attacks on the U.S. government - EVER.
But if you rise up against the government of the United States of America during my lifetime - I will fight against you.

My country isn't anywhere near perfect, but it is my country and I will defend it.
I don't care how pissed off or how well-armed a minority is, insurrection is not the remedy for losing an election (or two).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

because it destroys the ability to have representative government. If seccession was an accepted fact parties could just threaten it, thus forcing the majority side to either give up what it wants, or accept secession.

Seccession is still an option, you are just going to have to fight for it.

I don't want to secede, nor do I want to fight on either side of a secession conflict. The fact of the matter, however, is that secession is an important bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. The majority should not simply always get their way, and secession was a check on that as you admit. Your response, however, doesn't answer the question. Secession doesn't destroy representative government, it simply lets one group opt out and form their own government. The representative government still exists for the rest who have not opted out. So why the need to kill people to force them to remain in the Union? It seems to me that's the far greater evil. If people don't want to associate with me for whatever reason I don't punch them in the face until they change their mind.

If every time a side lost an important issue they seceeded, then you would be left with a balkanized set of states where one existed. People can still seceed, but the need for
1) either armed conflict or 2)the other side agreeing to the secession keeps the bar high enough so it is only seen as an option in the gravest of circumstances.

You throw around this Balkans nonsense like the states comprising the Union bear any resemblance to them economically or politically, which is completely false. Nor is your other point valid, that people would just secede over every little thing. It happened once in the history of the Union, and up to that point it was indeed considered a perfectly legal and legitimate act. So if it was perfectly legal and legitimate, why did it only happen once when you seem to be of the opinion that it would happen every five minutes?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I've never understood why anybody would want to force a state that wanted to secede to remain in the Union. If these people have decided that they want no political connection with you, why would you want to kill them to force them to stay?

From a purely practical standpoint - you hold the Union together to keep it stronger. If states pulled out over every grievance, you wind up with the kind of instability we see in the Balkins.

In a perfect, threat-free world maybe every city or county or state could stand as their own country. But we do not live in such a world. Utopian dreams rarely work in the real world.
Just MHO.

And yet I see no basis for assuming that every city or county would want to be its own country in the U.S. When the south seceded no state decided it would rather be on its own than either the Union or the Confederacy, and when the New England states were constantly threatening secession during Jefferson and Madison's presidencies they always retained the idea that they would simply form a New England confederacy as far as I can tell. There is not such a cultural or economic difference in the states making up the U.S. today that I can see any of them wanting to be completely independent from all the others. More likely you would see New England banding together as always, the south, and maybe the northwest, in my opinion. Would that really be so terrible?

Just MHO: I don't have a big moral or philosophical problem with what you outline in the abstract. I just think that practically speaking, these regional entities would be far easier targets and would produce a continent that is far less stable and less prosperous.

Some may find that an acceptable trade off in order to live in an area that is governed in a way that they more closely align with. I'm just not one of them. I'm fine with our Constitutional democracy and believe it to be flexible enough to accomodate the majority while ensuring a set of baseline rights to minorities.