Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: The Constitution Failed. It Secured Neither Peace nor Freedom.
Source: Mises.org
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01 ... red-neither-peace-nor-freedom/
Published: Jan 12, 2023
Author: Ryan McMaken
Post Date: 2023-01-12 09:26:45 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 140
Comments: 21

If one cares to look, it’s not difficult to find numerous columns written for mainstream news outlets announcing that the US Constitution has failed. This ought to raise the question of “failed to do what?” The answer depends largely on the one claiming the constitution has failed. On the Left, claims of constitutional failure generally revolve around the idea that the constitution doesn’t empower the federal government enough. For example, Chris Edelson of the American Constitutional Society believes the constitution has failed because the US government hasn’t done enough about global warming and racial injustice. Ryan Cooper at The Week says the constitution is a failure because of gerrymandering and not enough “democracy.” On the other hand, many classical liberals (i.e., libertarians) have declared the constitution a failure because it has failed to restrain the US government from violating human rights such as life and property.

We see there are many standards we might employ to show that the constitution has failed, depending on what metric we wish to use. But let’s ask what the politicians pushing the new constitution of 1787— i.e., the “Federalists”—promised as the benefits of the new constitution. They promised three things: that the constitution would ensure the government would respect the freedoms of the citizenry, that it would provide a means of keeping the peace among the member states, and that it would provide a strong military defense.

Sadly, the constitution long ago failed on two counts out of three. A mere 73 years after its ratification, the constitution failed to prevent a bloody civil war. The Federalists had promised that wouldn’t happen. When it comes to the matter of freedom, of course, the record is even worse, and the constitution has been used to justify countless assaults on liberty from Japanese internment to unleashing armies of spies against the American people.

The only area in which the constitution has “succeeded” has been in growing the size of the central government in Washington. The enormous state that has grown out of the constitution of 1787 has indeed rendered invasion by foreign powers virtually impossible. But this has been done at the cost of numerous elective wars, trillions in waste, and an out- of-control national security state.

Yet, nostalgic appeals to the alleged greatness of the constitution—and the brilliance of the so-called “Founding Fathers”—continue to be a fixture in defending the status quo while granting legitimacy to the regime. Any real challenge to federal power, however, will require we stop clinging emotionally to this failed legal document that has secured neither peace nor freedom.

The Constitution Does Not Protect Freedom

When it comes to the Constitution’s ability to restrain government power, it is apparent that the text of the document is insufficient to counter efforts to empower the federal government rather than limit it. We need only look around us to see how the federal government taxes, regulates, spies, sues, and imprisons countless Americans with federal powers that are in no way authorized in the constitution itself.

It is also apparent that the public and their representatives are uninterested in limiting federal power. I claim no novelty in pointing this out, of course. More astute observers recognized the impotence and failure of the US Constitution decades ago. As Murray Rothbard wrote in 1961:

From any libertarian, or even conservative, point of view, it has failed and failed abysmally; for let us never forget that every one of the despotic incursions on man’s rights in this century, before, during and after the New Deal, have received the official stamp of Constitutional blessing.

And before Rothbard, there was Lysander Spooner, who noted:

the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize….But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

In our modern day and age, anything that the regime’s federal judges decide is “constitutional” is, in fact, de facto constitutional. In other words, appealing to the text of the Constitution to claim illegitimacy for the latest government power grab is pointless and irrelevant to the task of actually limiting the power of the state.

Everything the federal government wishes to do is ultimately “constitutional.” So long as the public tolerates it. Public opinion is the only true restraint.

The Constitution Failed to Prevent Civil War

Moreover, the US constitution didn’t even last three generations before a civil war broke out. If the constitution were ever nearly as magnificent as its defenders claim, the US Civil War would never have occurred at all. Many defenders of the current constitution prefer to distract from this fact by attempting to dwell on the blame game: “oh, if those dastardly guys on the other side hadn’t done those bad things, there would have been no war!”

Who is to blame, however, is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution failed to provide for a peaceful way out of the conflict that boiled over by 1860. That is, the constitution’s failure can be seen in both the fact that the secessionist states concluded exit was the only option, and in the fact that the unionists felt a bloody war of conquest was constitutionally acceptable.

Decades earlier, the constitution had been pushed on the masses by the Federalists with the promise that the constitution would manage competing interests and conflicts in such a way that the new nation would be able to overcome such differences. This is part of James Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 51. He insists that even assuming self-serving motives among various groups—i.e., assuming men are not “angels”—the federal government would somehow be balanced against itself to prevent the need or impetus for civil wars.

Instead, by 1861 the United States fit the definition of a violent failed state. Much of the country rejected the authority of the central government which could no longer claim to exercise authority over all of the nation’s regions and borders. The central government’s response was to rely on military force. In this regard, from 1861 to 1865—and arguably throughout Reconstruction—the United States was no different from many of the failed states in similar situations we have seen in Latin America and Africa. We find many cases in these countries in the last century in which separatists rejected rule from the center. This often resulted in civil war and military occupation of the losing side’s territory. When this happens in other countries, we often conclude (correctly) that the country’s constitution has failed. For some reason, when the same thing happens in the United States, we declare the constitution to have been “preserved” and a stunning success.

As with many other failed states, the crisis in the US was only brought to an end by a bloodbath. The numbers were so large, in fact, that were a similar proportion of the US population to be killed in a war today, it would amount to seven million people. Moreover, as usually occurs in the wake of a conflict of that magnitude, a drastically changed constitution replaced the old one with political institutions that were far more centralized than what had come before. The union was no longer a matter of voluntary membership among states, but was now based on threats of military intervention from the center.

The Constitution’s Only “Success” Has Been in Increasing State Power

Of course, it is always possible to label the constitution a “success” if we view the constitution primarily as a means of growing the power of the national regime. In this endeavor, the constitution and its supporters have been enormously successful. The seeds of this development were already apparent even in the days of the ratification when the Anti-Federalists greatly feared the national government would overwhelm the member-state governments. Their opposition was strong enough that the Federalists resorted to a number of dirty tricks, as noted by Murray Rothbard:

The Federalists, by use of propaganda, chicanery, fraud, malapportionment of delegates, blackmail threats of secession, and even coercive laws, had managed to sustain enough delegates to defy the wishes of the majority of the American people and create a new Constitution.

The Federalists managed to win the day, although their promises of freedom did not even survive the eighteenth century. Rather, the central government immediately got to work abusing its own powers with vicious attacks on freedom such as the Alien and Sedition acts. By the mid eighteenth century, the nation was on the verge of civil war. The “solution” to this was to have one half of the country invade the other half.

Yet, we’re told the constitution behind all this has been a wonderful success, the “Founding Fathers” were geniuses, and we must never break up this sacred union by means of “national divorce” or any radical departure from the status quo.

The reality is far more disappointing.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

Sorry but the constitution was the best thing they could come up with, and they had no idea that “Constitutional Scholars” would be telling us all it’s a living document that is free to be interpreted. Once that ball got rolling, then that was how the ever growing leviathan of government became what it is. I like my constitutional rights. I simply don’t have any way of protecting them because some shitweasel communist tells me that my rights are no longer absolute.

What the government does not want, is a free and critically thinking American Citizen seeing the truth, and spreading that truth around. Bullshit and glitter are the two things that you can never get rid of no matter how many times you wash it, and that’s what happened to our country. A big bullshit glitter bomb of lies was detonated and keeps getting spread around. So when I read articles like this, what I see is someone who wants the constitution gone so they can pave the way for more authoritarian rule.

What I want, is my government downsized to the point to where McDonald’s offers me more benefits for being a member of their club.

"Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2023-01-12   9:37:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#1)

Sorry but the constitution was the best thing they could come up with,

Not so. They shudda simply amended the Articles to allow for collection of tariffs.

Ada  posted on  2023-01-12   10:10:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Ada (#0)

The US Constitution has not failed us, the elected people have failed us by not following the US Constitution

Darkwing  posted on  2023-01-12   11:52:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Darkwing, neoconsnailed (#3)

You have a point. The people let the government get away with murder.

AdaC  posted on  2023-01-12   11:59:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: AdaC, Ada, TommyTheMadArtist (#4)

As (in so many words) I opined via email. Wonder why the Const was hatched in secret.... major classic commentary here:

oll.libertyfund.org/title...tion-of- no-authority-1870

I of course maintain that the Const has quite often been used for good, the Bill of Rights proving especially useful. But it can't be denied the Const is highly flawed -- even booby-trapped.

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-13   4:32:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)

Lot of opposition to the Constitution. Many were suspicious and it only was ratified when a Bill of Rights was promised to be added at a later date.

Ada  posted on  2023-01-13   8:33:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Ada (#2)

Agreed

"Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2023-01-13   9:30:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Ada (#6)

Wouldn't it be interesting to see how things would have worked out without the Const i.e. if the Anti-Federalists had completely won. Wonder if there's ever been any philosophization or major analysis etc on it.

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-13   13:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Ada (#0)

"...When (Patrick) Henry was among those the Virginia Assembly selected to attend the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, he declined. He told fellow Virginian George Washington, “I cannot bring my mind to accord with the proposed constitution…The concern I feel on this account is really greater than I am able to express.”[vi]..."

Yet he said, "I smell a rat."

psalm8116.com/i-smelt-a-r...ecured-american-freedoms/

==================

"...the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid..."

First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

The United States is not a land mass, it is a corporation. Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War.

Now the Articles of Confederation which were declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12:

"All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."

The Articles of Confederation acknowledge the debt owed to King George. Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, the conquest was not yet complete. Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.

What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other words, a Person.

"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272 "Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction. For an in-depth look into the nature of these corporations and to see how you also have been declared a fictional entity. See: AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. VOL.XIII By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. This book explains in detail the nature and purpose of these corporations, you will be stunned at what you read.

Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.

Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid it states; "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it. The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States. Now the creditors of the United States which included the King wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States. So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the founding fathers, their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!!

If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One Section Eight clause (15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.... the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their duty to collect our substance. As you can plainly see all the Constitution did is set up a Military Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves. If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation". This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice King that he was, he decided that the troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the King wanted them here..."

12160.info/profiles/blogs...elusion-by-stephen-k-ames

====================

"...When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington on October 19th, 1781, he surrendered the battle, not the war. Under the Articles of Capitulation, the common British soldiers were held in forts, under conditions that they were fed the same as American troops; the officers -- one for every fifty soldiers -- lived nearby to see to their good treatment, while the officers themselves lived in fine quarters in society being served like royalty; the injured were hospitalized and treated, all at the cost of Americans (as usual).

The war had not been formally ended; and in fact, it was nearly six months later -- in March, 1782 -- that the House of Commons finally settled on a resolution to advise the king that the fighting part of the war should end. . . to be continued to this day, under cover, with silent weapons for quiet wars. From The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9, we read:

". . . Dec. 12,1781, it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion,

"That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain."

The resolution failed at that time. Then:

"General Conway in five days after (Feb. 27), brought forward another motion expressed in different words, but to the same effect with that which he had lost by a single vote. This caused a long debate which lasted till two o'clock in the morning. It was then moved to adjourn the debate till the 13th of March.

". . . together with other suspicious circumstances, induced General Conway to move another resolution, expressed in the most decisive language. This was to the following effect that,

"The house would consider as enemies to his majesty and the country, all those who should advise or by any means attempt the further prosecution of offensive war, on the continent of North America, for the purpose of reducing the colonies to obedience by force."

"This motion after a feeble opposition was carried without a division. . . This resolution and the preceding address, to which it had reference, may be considered as the closing scene of the American war."

In other words, the good ol' boys got together and decided to stop the fighting. They had other ways to control their subjects (slaves) in America other than by "force", via the Rothschild banking cartel. It's interesting to note, too, that although the fighting stopped in 1781, the actual Treaty of Peace was not finalized until 1783.

Under this treaty the King, his heirs, subjects, etc. were allowed to keep, in perpetuity, any property they owned in America, without having to become American citizens; as well the King (and his heirs and successors) was to retain mineral rights: one third of all gold, silver and copper mined in America. The King granted fishing rights even designating where the fishermen could clean and dry their fish. To the victor go the spoils? ..."

www.sweetliberty.org/perspective/jewishpersecution18.htm

======================

The Constitution CON

"...The US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787, and ratified behind closed doors on June 21, 1788. Thirty nine of the fifty five delegates attending the Philadelphia Convention signed the document. Their con job is evident from the very first line penned. Legally, the "People" mentioned are not sovereign beings, but willing slaves who have been granted the illusion of freedom.

From an occult point of view the Constitution was ratified on an Atonist festival day. It is, therefore, a patently Solar Cult document.

This is because the date of ratification - June 21st - is the day the sun ascends to its highest point in the zodiac.

Washington presided on a low rostrum in the Assembly Hall (where the Declaration of Independence had been approved) from his “rising sun chair.” The top of the chair showed half a sun with two eyes and a nose and thirteen rays like hair. Above it on a stem hung a pyramid-shaped plant. The whole is a Templar image. As the delegates sign the new Constitution, Benjamin Franklin told them that the sun on Washington’s chair was rising, not setting on the new union - Nicholas Hagger (Secret History of the West) Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were three of the men who framed the infernal Constitution and pushed for its ratification. Their document served the American aristocracy, not the people. In fact the document was never put before the people for ratification, and was openly opposed by the majority of men and women in the original thirteen states, who resisted coming together to form any kind of unified nation. Facts of this sort have been deliberately concealed through the decades, but are now openly accepted by some mainstream American historians, such as Joseph Ellis, Thomas DiLorenzo, and others.

The Constitutionalists were guileful traitors whose attendance at the Philadelphia Convention was kept secret for an entire generation. Their document served to leave the "door" of America unlocked and ajar, so the country's foreign enemies could surreptitiously re-enter in the days and years following the supposed War of Independence..."

www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html 

"supposed War of Independence". It was a war of independence from Christ and a Christian America. Psalm 2.

www.wnd.com/2007/04/41327/

1607covenant.com/americas-covenant-with-god/

www.csmonitor.com/2004/0915/p12s01-lire.html

recall the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, with the coiled serpent.

That was contrary to what Christ told His people:

Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

biblehub.com/luke/10-19.htm

Protocols of Zion (or Sion)

"...Notes II - The Symbolic Snake of Judaism.

Protocol III opens with a reference to the Symbolic Snake of Judaism. In his Epilogue to the 1905 Edition of the Protocols, Nilus gives the following interesting account of this symbol:

"According to the records of secret Jewish Zionism, Solomon and other Jewish learned men already, in 929BC, thought out a scheme in theory for a peaceful conquest of the whole universe by Zion.

"As history developed, this scheme was worked out in detail and completed by men who were subsequently initiated in this question. These learned men decided by peaceful means to conquer the world for Zion with the slyness of the Symbolic Snake, whose head was to represent those who have been initiated into the plans of the Jewish administration, and the body of the Snake to represent the Jewish people—the administration was always kept secret, EVEN FROM THE JEWISH NATION ITSELF. As this Snake penetrated into the hearts of the nations which it encountered. it undermined and devoured all the non-Jewish power of these States. It is foretold that the Snake has still to finish its work, strictly adhering to the designed plan, until the course which it has to run is closed by the return of its head to Zion and until, by this means, the Snake has completed its round of Europe and has encircled it—and until, by dint of enchaining Europe, it has encompassed the whole world. This it is to accomplish by using every endeavour to subdue the other countries by an ECONOMICAL CONQUEST..."

biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2023-01-13   13:20:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: NeoconsNailed (#8)

Assuming the states got their financial house in order, the first challenge would have been the War of 1812 which the southerners wanted and the northerns didn't and no doubt would not have supported the southern states. Of course, the southern states knowing this might have hesitated to declare war.

Ada  posted on  2023-01-16   11:24:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Ada (#10)

So was that war needed or not? PLease convince me nay -- I'd love to whittle our valid wars down to nil, and we've made such good progress ;)

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-16   13:16:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: NeoconsNailed (#11)

War was foolish. If Britain hadn't been distracted by Napoleon, we would be bowing to King Charles today.

We had a few legitimate complaints. Not only the impressment of seamen but the refusal of the Brits to allow us to trade with France, something we really wanted to do.

We also greedily wanted to annex Canada and in that we failed.

Ada  posted on  2023-01-17   11:23:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Ada (#12)

How should those legitimate complaints have been handled? Supposedly Washington will swiftly rescue any American wrongfully held afar in peacetime -- wink wink.

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-17   11:30:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: NeoconsNailed (#13)

It was New England seamen who were subject to British impressment. The New England shipowners, however, didn't seem to mind and figured it was the cost of doing business. Besides, many of their seamen were refugees from the Royal Navy.

Taking on the Royal Navy in order to trade with France would have ended in disaster for the Americans and, therefore, could not be justified. Only go to war if there is an expectation of success.

Ada  posted on  2023-01-17   12:17:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Ada (#14)

You've done it -- boffo! Politicians are demonically impelled to cause trouble and bloodshed, that's all there is to it.

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-17   19:36:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#15)

IMO our only possibly justifiable war was the Revolution because it was a war of national liberation. Too bad it didn't turn out that way.

Ada  posted on  2023-01-18   10:41:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: NeoconsNailed, 4um (#15) (Edited)

Politicians are demonically impelled to cause trouble and bloodshed, that's all there is to it.

You mean like the politicians in SanFran, CA that are promising every SF negro $5 million for their suffering as slaves?

How do you suppose the other 45 million ex-slaves nationwide will respond to that? Certainly that won't cause demonically impelled trouble and bloodshed, will it?

(Edit) Upon reflection, those stupid bastards really painted themselves into a corner. If they were to pay them, say, $50,000, now, they're going to see it as whitey cheating them out of $4.95 million. A classic no-win scenario. IDIOTS.

Personally, I would offer them $1,000.00 ("Oh, looky, five zeros!), if they sign the paper (forfeiting their rights forever to sue again, for anything).

“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left Alone.
TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy…
but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”

Esso  posted on  2023-01-18   10:56:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Esso (#17)

Yeah!

infostormer.com/san-franc...black-resident-5- million/

I've ("Scronx") been having fun with slavery in YT comments

www.youtube.com/watch? v=F...Ag.9kXsTWksF0o9l3AnHMkIQx

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-19   11:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Ada (#16)

"possibly justifiable" -- exactly. But Rushdoony himself wrote of how the Revo cut down the 'black-robed regiment' that incited it -- said there was a severe US preacher shortage afterward.

Just as slavery wouldov died out given the chance, surely ameriKa's rapid growth and bodacity would have led to peaceful, inexorable independence.

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-19   11:10:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#19)

The Revolutionary preachers, like Rushdooney himself, tended to be of the Calvinist persuasion and not favorably disposed to the official English religion. Many of them led the fight against England and were targets.

Britain would have thwarted US growth. In 1763 the British government prohibited any colonial settlements beyond the Appalachians and decreed that the ones that were there like in the Ohio Valley had to be disbanded. The Brits were a bit too chummy with the injuns for the comfort of the colonists even tough Britain was on their side during the French and Indian wars.

AdaC  posted on  2023-01-19   13:11:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: AdaC (#20)

Your erudition is our benefition!

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2023-01-19   19:28:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest