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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

 

[editec]

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.

It is seldom that I see AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT starting out a thread for our consideration.

I believe that the ANTI-GOVERNMENT folks here are seeking to rationalize though their own interpretations of the constitution.

I think most of them actually believe the tripe they're posting because they've heard it said so many times on anti-government radio or TV.

And FWIW I do not think one in every thousand of these right wing internet warriors is going to do jackshit other than post a load of hooey about how they're going to show the Libtards


Empty vessels make the loudest noise, ya know?

 

[rightwinger]

Our founding fathers were willing to fight and die for what they believed in

Today's "revolutionaries" are content to get a show on FoxNews

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Yeah warrantless wiretaps would make them laugh.

The government forcing you to buy a product, pshaw

Cops arresting you for using a camera on public property, chuckles all around.

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole circumstances of the war in 1776 and today are different and can not be compared. The only thing remaining is whether the bonds that bind both sides together have sufficiently frayed as to make anything but division impossible.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yeah warrantless wiretaps would make them laugh.

The government forcing you to buy a product, pshaw

Cops arresting you for using a camera on public property, chuckles all around.

Try not being allowed to vote

 

[martybegan]

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 think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

and they would keep forming smaller and smaller confederacies until you get to the point that conquering each of them becomes pretty easy for the state that wants to take a shot at it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Yeah warrantless wiretaps would make them laugh.

The government forcing you to buy a product, pshaw

Cops arresting you for using a camera on public property, chuckles all around.

Try not being allowed to vote

A violation of one's rights no matter how small you perceive it to be is still a big deal.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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 think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

Switzerland (and some others) could be good examples of how it may work well. The Balkans are another example (IMHO) of how this is fraught with danger. I don't see how one comparison is any more compelling than the other.

I see both examples as distinct possibilities.

But no matter how much we debate the possibilities in the abstract, it doesn't change the reality. If a state or a region of the U.S. wants independence, they are going to have to fight for it. And in that fight they are going to have to go "all in" and risk it all. That's just the reality.

And the parent governing body will not be held under any obligation to help.

A previous poster hit upon a key element (imho) in that I just don't believe that there are very many people who believe that they have it so bad in the United States of America in 2013 that they will risk everything to bring about the changes they would like to see. Differences aside, we do live in a society that is probably the best mix of power, prosperity, and tolerance that this planet has ever seen. And I also believe that our system includes an adaptability to the will of the people that make insurrection unecessary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

and they would keep forming smaller and smaller confederacies until you get to the point that conquering each of them becomes pretty easy for the state that wants to take a shot at it.

Pure conjecture, and already addressed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Side note:

I just really appreciate the quality and the respectful nature of the posts on here. Threads tend to degenerate in this forum, (I'm as guilty as anyone else) but I'm really grateful to all the posters here.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah warrantless wiretaps would make them laugh.

The government forcing you to buy a product, pshaw

Cops arresting you for using a camera on public property, chuckles all around.

Try not being allowed to vote

A violation of one's rights no matter how small you perceive it to be is still a big deal.

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

and they would keep forming smaller and smaller confederacies until you get to the point that conquering each of them becomes pretty easy for the state that wants to take a shot at it.

Pure conjecture, and already addressed.

Yes it is conjecture as is more optimistic conjecture.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it does it? We probably all have a gut feeling about how it would turn out.

Maybe the way to address this is to say WHY we believe it would work out well or WHY we believe it wouldn't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

Switzerland (and some others) could be good examples of how it may work well. The Balkans are another example (IMHO) of how this is fraught with danger. I don't see how one comparison is any more compelling than the other.

I see both examples as distinct possibilities.

But no matter how much we debate the possibilities in the abstract, it doesn't change the reality. If a state or a region of the U.S. wants independence, they are going to have to fight for it. And in that fight they are going to have to go "all in" and risk it all. That's just the reality.

And the parent governing body will not be held under any obligation to help.

A previous poster hit upon a key element (imho) in that I just don't believe that there are very many people who believe that they have it so bad in the United States of America in 2013 that they will risk everything to bring about the changes they would like to see. Differences aside, we do live in a society that is probably the best mix of power, prosperity, and tolerance that this planet has ever seen. And I also believe that our system includes an adaptability to the will of the people that make insurrection unecessary.

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

 

[Katzndogz]

In the conflict now brewing, the government is almost a bystander. Circumstances are not pointing to a revolt, but a balkanization. The nation is undergoing tribalization.

It is true that we have an adaptability to the will of the people, but that adapatability is being abused by an overbearing judiciary and legislators. The government has substituted satisfaction of some minority groups for the will of the people. The fight isn't against the government, it's directly against other tribes as they fight for resources or for government patronage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Try not being allowed to vote

A violation of one's rights no matter how small you perceive it to be is still a big deal.

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

You can't vote to stop unconstitutional acts as they are already illegal but yet the government commits these acts daily.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Try not being allowed to vote

A violation of one's rights no matter how small you perceive it to be is still a big deal.

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

But what if you lose in the voting ........


I think that's the real bone of contention for many here.

And as you point out - that's a whole lot different. There is a big difference between having no voice and having your voice ignored.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and they would keep forming smaller and smaller confederacies until you get to the point that conquering each of them becomes pretty easy for the state that wants to take a shot at it.

Pure conjecture, and already addressed.

Yes it is conjecture as is more optimistic conjecture.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it does it? We probably all have a gut feeling about how it would turn out.

Maybe the way to address this is to say WHY we believe it would work out well or WHY we believe it wouldn't.

You're right. I explained why I think it would not be as he describes it, yet he ignores that post and simply continues posting the same unsubstantiated nonsense. I was merely pointing this out.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think that denies the reality of several other countries in the world right now which punch way above their weight class in terms of stability and prosperity. How big is Switzerland compared to the U.S.? I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for the states forming different confederacies.

Switzerland (and some others) could be good examples of how it may work well. The Balkans are another example (IMHO) of how this is fraught with danger. I don't see how one comparison is any more compelling than the other.

I see both examples as distinct possibilities.

But no matter how much we debate the possibilities in the abstract, it doesn't change the reality. If a state or a region of the U.S. wants independence, they are going to have to fight for it. And in that fight they are going to have to go "all in" and risk it all. That's just the reality.

And the parent governing body will not be held under any obligation to help.

A previous poster hit upon a key element (imho) in that I just don't believe that there are very many people who believe that they have it so bad in the United States of America in 2013 that they will risk everything to bring about the changes they would like to see. Differences aside, we do live in a society that is probably the best mix of power, prosperity, and tolerance that this planet has ever seen. And I also believe that our system includes an adaptability to the will of the people that make insurrection unecessary.

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A violation of one's rights no matter how small you perceive it to be is still a big deal.

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

You can't vote to stop unconstitutional acts as they are already illegal but yet the government commits these acts daily.

If a majority agrees with your assessment, then the offenders can be voted out of office