An interesting article on liberalism and states acting as progressive laboratories. Articles like this make me wonder why we can't find political consensus in this country. Liberals want to ban guns and have weed everywhere. They want a high minimum wage and generous welfare systems. They want illegal immigrants to feel welcome. They are willing to suppress economic activity due environmental protection. They want to use their schools to preach cultural Marxism, God-hatred, and globalism. Conservatives want to ban abortion. They want their schools to teach creationism and nationalism. They want weed banned. Fortunately the founding fathers created a mechanism to deal with these divides. They were called "states." Liberals used to use state governments as mechanisms to advance their agenda through various reforms - minimum wage laws, child labor laws, welfare programs, workers compenstation, etc. Then they decided they hated states rights, because they could also be used to stop liberalism in states where liberals didn't control everything. Now the Right holds power in Washington, and liberals are looking to state government once again to advance their agendas, and conservatives are looking to stop them with federal power. How about if both sides wake up and accept that the founding fathers were right? Let these liberal states have their weed, abortion, and welfare, and let the conservative states do the reverse?Californians think Texans are crackpots and vice versa. The founding fathers would say that's OK. Why can't we say the same today? Maybe this election will make both sides wake up.
The only issue here is the one I hear complaints about in Texas: The states like California implement their pet projects, destroy their state's economy, causing people to migrate to states where there is a better job prospect, where they proceed to push for the same policies. Maybe we could institute a rule that if you voted for a specific party during the last election, you could only "immigrate" into a state whose legislative body is controlled by that party.
What do you think they fought the civil war over? The south lost. It is the ruling party's way in washington or the highway. Sure, I also support the idea of different states with different laws united by free trade, mutual defense and college football where all Americans of any sex, race, religion, creed, etc. can be free to move from one state to another depending on their preferences of government systems, economic systems and rights. However, this was soundly rejected in 1865 and the Lincoln/Hamilton idea of strong central government with unified provinces and unified laws was accepted. Sure, you hear lip service to this from time to time, but if you really listen to Democrats or Trumpricans, both want to impose their beliefs on all people in all fifty states and continue the expansion of less local power and more central power that both parties have supported since 1865.
HTown, just my opinion, but I don't think Lincoln or the North cared about State's Rights or sovergnity if slavery wasn't the wedge issue in the argument. Lincoln was pretty sympathetic to slave states until they seceded. Liberals want to aruge this was a fight over slavery. I disagree. IMO it was a fight over the Truth that All Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights including Life and Liberty - paraphrasing from your boy Mr. Jefferson. Hamilton also believed in the Deceleration written by Jefferson and fought on the frontlines of the War for its principles, leading from the front a decisive crushing frontal assault on a British redoubt in the Battle of Yorktown. Strong central government versus local or state government is a good debate to have today. The principles of Jefferson and Hamilton should guide us, but we shouldn't point to the Civil War or some other event as a statement of what those principles mean in 2016. You have to understand that Federalists were criticized for supporting the creation of a Navy.
See the Tariff of Abominations. The war was over many things and settled many things. State versus federal, north v. south power struggle, slavery, etc. What was the first veto in american history? Washington vetoing a Hamilton bill that would give the north greater representation in congress. Was the 3/5ths compromise about slavery, or about north versus south power/representation? Lincoln very much cared about federal power and the north/south power struggle. Read his douglas debate speeches. Read the Gettysburg address. Lincoln also cared very much about slavery, I do not deny that at all. Slavery was the hot button issue at the time where the state's rights debate manifested itself. Today it is abortion. While religious, violent John Brown abortion extremists exist today, the country is not willing to go to war over abortion alone nor was it willing to go to war over slavery alone. Lincoln was one man, in a long, ongoing north v. south and state v. Federal power struggle. Slavery was a horrible, terrible flaw/policy/institution that infected the constitution, american history prior to the 13th amendment, the south, etc. (and still does. Many of our asian made products are the result of slave labor or defacto slave labor). However, do not make the mistake many historians make and view everything from that lense and miss the bigger power struggles (north v. South)/power structure struggles (federal v. state/local) that existed long before they manifested themselves in the hot button slavery issue. Why did the south secede in 1861 and not earlier or later? Because they realized the north could elect a president (add to the fact it was Lincoln, a republican) without their input and the north as a region could even overcome the electoral college. Only radical republicans believed in that during the civil war. Lincoln probably himself did not believe that (my UT law professor, like many, believe Lincoln changed in the end and who knows but it is an unverified opinion) or at least did not demonstrate that view in his writings/speeches. Many abolitionists believed that slavery was evil, but did not at all believe in equality. Read Lincoln's address to the african population in D.C. during the war about how they needed to leave the country (read this in my UT Law Con History class) because he felt they were not equal and could never compete with free white labor. Lincoln definitely wanted northern free white labor to prevail over slavery and anything else. If anyone but a small minority cared about equality, we would not have ended up with Plessy v. Ferguson. The struggles of the 1960s and 1860s were not one and the same.
But we have gone off point. Deez started discussing a modern, 21st century federalist system similar to the original constitution with greater states' rights not marred by slavery and racism like the first go at it in the 1788. I think something like that is the ideal setup, but it has been rejected in the US partially as part of a regional power struggle and partially to slavery being tied to it. The EU sort of started as this setup, but has had difficulty with uneven expansions of its federal government and encompassing a far less homogenous region than the early United States. The problem with having these discussions is americans view states rights/local gov = racism/slavery. They do not see that they are two independent things or that any form of government can be hugely racist. Fascism/Nazi Germany, for example, had to be the exact opposite form of government of the Articles of Confederation US/pre 1865 US and CSA yet was far, far more racist and slavery dependent than the any pre 1865 american government (the whole Nazi war effort was sustained on the backs of concentration camp and POW camp slave labor). Liberals and most Americans generally see states rights as tied to the thing they most hate (racism), but fail to see that their want for a strong central government (fascism) can just as easily be tied to racism with even worse results. Anyway, like I said, I support states as laboratories of democracy and believe that some states failing with bad policies is better than our entire country failing with bad policies, but Americans rejected this in 1865 and for 150 years have marched futher and further away from states rights and our original setup. It is one policy for all or bust... and history says it will likely eventually bust. Almost all Americans, including conservative americans mostly reject local government/differences and demand national unity and do not even realize it... that is why they support Nikki Haley
I have always felt this to be a great debate (thought, whatever). Hard to argue the two points are independent but it is great food for discussion when considering the attitude(s) at the time.
I do not claim to be absolutely right or the authority on anything (beyond the coaching ability of Shawn Watson), but with apologies to Deez and his thread, I, like ex2000, am just a well educated man with an opinion and I have said quite a bit in my posts that could be debated/are certainly debatable and could greatly derail the thread. The state versus federal power struggle in american history and how power should be divided/government should be structured may be my single favorite academic topic.
Ha, I don't claim that, proven by my often illogical posts, but I always enjoy reading the point-counterpoint posts of the intellectuals on here......even SH is entertaining and a few, albeit very few, times I actually agree with him. Long live HF!
I agree. My favorite posters are the ones that disagree with me. The true beauty of America is, unlike most other countries, anyone here can easily and quickly find a bunch of people with opinions that are different from their own, they disagree with and may even find offensive and learn different perspectives and ways to view the world.
It's a very interesting topic, although it's almost impossible to have today, because to even suggest that calling someone "three-fifths of a person" in any context for any reason because of racial or status issues could be done for any reason beyond racism or bigotry is just not something people can fathom today.
I have a problem with the phrase "3/5ths of a person" because it sounds like it would have been better if they were defined by that law as a full person, when actually it would have better for them to have been 0/5ths, so they didn't unfairly add to the representation of the white plantation owners. Also have a problem with "states rights". Only individuals have rights. States have delineated powers. Right, because seceding = breaking up the Union. And preserving the Union, by peace or by force, by ending slavery or continuing it, was Lincoln's #1 goal.
This is true. Under the constitution, the federal government and states have powers and the people have rights.
First, political dynamics can change, just as they always have. We don't have to be locked into an 1860s mindset forever. Second, the trend hasn't always moved in the direction of consolidation of federal power. There was a significant movement in the direction of state authority in the 1990s, and it impacted welfare policy as well as the judiciary. Third, I don't expect a return to a pre-Civil War realm. That isn't realistic. However, if both sides begin to appreciate the merits of state sovereignty, there's no reason why greater balance couldn't be achieved. I don't think that's entirely true. I think that narrative is more of a political weapon of the Left more than it is a sincere belief. If they really didn't think that states' right were separable from racism and slavery, then they wouldn't use the argument to protect the acts of liberal state legislatures. The real problem is that the Left has mostly had their cake and eaten it too. They've been able to use the 14th Amendment to bully conservative legislatures but have mostly been able to maintain their own states' authority to act as they see fit. What I would like to see is a day of reckoning for them in which they see their own state priorities preempted by federal power. It could happen with their weed initiatives getting shot down, Trump's federal voucher plans (which I actually think are a bad idea), environmental regulations getting preempted by more lax federal laws, and with their tort liability systems getting crapped on. If they see that happening, it could force them to the table and be a little more honest about the issue.
The Progressive movement was a secular pietist movement originating from the NE states that went through the 2nd great awakening. This is important because it explains why we can't/don't have states rights anymore. They want to use the power of the Federal state to impose their morality on the US. It is a movement that has been in action since the early 1900s.
You got me there and you are right. I guess what I was trying to say is that Lincoln was fine with letting the states doing more or less what they wanted, including slavery, until a certain point. And that point was secession. And who forced who to do what is probably more in HTown's wheelhouse than mine. When it comes to Civil War stuff, I'm more of a military history nerd than political history expert. I try not to argue with HTown in history and Deez and NJ in legal stuff and just listen. And from Joe, I admire his political cartoon and meme collection.
