Historical Transformations

Started by norwegen, October 30, 2013, 03:12:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

norwegen

I get the feeing taxed wants someone to jumpstart these history fora ("http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/new-history-forum/msg138466/#msg138466").  So here's a ponderification on history.

So a friend of mine - or an acquaintance, rather (I don't have any friends) - told me some days ago that the Revolutionary War was transformational.

"Oh?" I asked.  "How so?"

"It liberated us from the Crown.  Duh."

So I thought about this for the subsequent some days.  And after some days of deliberation, I thought saying 'duh' to me was uncalled for.

And then I wondered if the Americans hadn't already deemed themselves free, more or less, by the time shots were fired in Lexington.  If the Brits wanted to quibble over American independence with muskets, that was their prerogative.  But by 1775, the Americans were already behaving as if they were free.  They had already begun drafting constitutions and establishing republics.

From the 1760s - or from the 1600s, really, in my opinion - to the 1820s, everyone in the colonies was republican.  The Americans were Enlightenment thinkers.  They knew history, reason (the natural law), and the Scriptures.  They were aware that their society was truly egalitarian, one in which aristocracy was not inherited but rather merited.  And they had this peculiar Whiggish idea that society and government ought to be separate and distinct.  This, in a nutshell (and believe me, if it's in my head, it's in a nutshell), was their thinking, their culture, the way they lived.  The Revolutionary War didn't change that.  The Americans didn't really experience any social or institutional changes as a result of the war.  What the war did, in effect, was affirm to them and the world what they already knew about themselves.

In my opinion, America has been through a mere handful of transformations, the first being in 1789, after the ratification of the Constitution.  Instead of revising the current constitution (the Articles of Confederation) and maintaining a federation of sovereign, independent states, the delegates drafted a new constitution, creating a nation of dependent states.  Essentially, the government was transformed.

The second transformation was in the 1820s, with the emergence of Jacksonian democracy.  The Americans tended away from republicanism and Constitutionalism and toward liberalism and the expansion of slavery.

The next transformation was in the 1860s, when the Americans tended back toward republicanism.  In this rare instance, war is arguably instrumental in transformation.

The fourth and final transformation began when Teddy Roosevelt was president, when bureaucracies - in this case the FDA - began taking upon themselves the business of regulating.  Liberalism here has now infiltrated the government.  As this transformation is one in which liberalism became institutionalized, the transformation is still in progress and will not end until democracy has swallowed up republicanism until maybe only a crumb or two are left.

Does this sound reasonable to anyone?  Or maybe debatable?

War doesn't generally transform countries.  People do, either directly or by way of Assembly, legislative or special.

Thank you all.  I accept cash.
"If you are going through hell, keep going."

Winston Churchill

kopema

Quote from: 9 on October 30, 2013, 03:12:45 PM
So a friend of mine - or an acquaintance, rather (I don't have any friends) - told me some days ago that the Revolutionary War was transformational.

As the old saying goes:  Wars do not determine who is right; only who is left.  If the British had won the Revolutionary War, the founding fathers and everyone who supported them would have been hanged.  And that wonderfully "transformational" Constitution would never have been implemented - at least not in the form it was.

Since it's unlikely England would have (or could have) bombed America back to the Stone Age, it's inevitable that some form of independence would eventually have developed.  But there was nothing at all inevitable about acceptance of the fact that humans don't need an imperial government.  There wasn't then, and there isn't now.

If history has taught us anything, it's that the people who believe men do not have the God-given right to govern ourselves will NEVER quit without violence.  Unfortunately, for a great many people, history has taught nothing.
''It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.''

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

AndyJackson

I think we'll be in a constant, permanent state of war with collectivists, socialists, communists, etc.

Along with the modern waves of progressivism and communism, I'm very intrigued by the historical waves of communists flowing into America and making trouble right after the civil war (coinciding with the actual advent of Marxism), after WW1 in the 30's, after WW2 in the 50's, and after the cold war in the 90's.

It seems that they are always waiting, both internal threats and immigrants jumping in to help, when they see an opening or weakness in the fabric of America.

They will always be available for use as useful tools for any aspiring dictator and demagogue that comes down the pike, which is also a steady flow at all times.

The lure of being part of the "wonderful team", along with class warfare and envy, along with the basic need to believe in "utopia" being just around the corner (if you'll just sign on with this great new movement).....is too alluring to the average schmoe who doesn't want to think about it.

That's a neat recap of the dynamics of America's internal ebb and flow of the political realm.  But I think it's not really connected to the more outward, ever ready series of forays by domestic enemies and foreign reinforcements whenever there's a perceived opening.

norwegen

Quote from: kopema on October 30, 2013, 09:22:20 PM
As the old saying goes:  Wars do not determine who is right; only who is left.  If the British had won the Revolutionary War, the founding fathers and everyone who supported them would have been hanged.  And that wonderfully "transformational" Constitution would never have been implemented - at least not in the form it was.

Since it's unlikely England would have (or could have) bombed America back to the Stone Age, it's inevitable that some form of independence would eventually have developed.  But there was nothing at all inevitable about acceptance of the fact that humans don't need an imperial government.  There wasn't then, and there isn't now.

If history has taught us anything, it's that the people who believe men do not have the God-given right to govern ourselves will NEVER quit without violence.  Unfortunately, for a great many people, history has taught nothing.
I would have preferred a revised Articles.  The central authority didn't really need a new constitution.  It just needed provisions for paying its debts, collecting taxes, regulating commerce among the states, and maybe one or two other things here and there.

The Constitution established a strong central government and left some ambiguities that the Tories could exploit, such as the Necessary and Proper Clause.  And the general welfare, as you know, no doubt, no longer refers to the public good but rather to a gubmit check.

I'm not sure how you mean "wonderfully" - if you genuinely revere the Constitution - but in the 1780s, I would have been an anti-Federalist.  After the 1780s, I would have been a Jeffersonian Republican.  Though the Federalists were essentially Whiggish as well, I would that they had not won the debate at the convention.  In that case, then, I think that the states would have been more likely to "out-republican" each other, and the Tories and Democrats would have struggled harder and longer in their attempts at socializing us.  The founding Fathers knew this history.  They realized that the great masses have an irrational faith in and dependence on the creations of their own civil societies, i.e., on their governments.  And they knew just how quickly a government can tyrannize, as they were witnessing in Britain after the Glorious Revolution.

I think the Constitution left too many openings, and as we have seen, indeed it has.
"If you are going through hell, keep going."

Winston Churchill

norwegen

Quote from: AndyJackson on October 31, 2013, 07:46:28 AM
I think we'll be in a constant, permanent state of war with collectivists, socialists, communists, etc.

Along with the modern waves of progressivism and communism, I'm very intrigued by the historical waves of communists flowing into America and making trouble right after the civil war (coinciding with the actual advent of Marxism), after WW1 in the 30's, after WW2 in the 50's, and after the cold war in the 90's.

It seems that they are always waiting, both internal threats and immigrants jumping in to help, when they see an opening or weakness in the fabric of America.

They will always be available for use as useful tools for any aspiring dictator and demagogue that comes down the pike, which is also a steady flow at all times.

The lure of being part of the "wonderful team", along with class warfare and envy, along with the basic need to believe in "utopia" being just around the corner (if you'll just sign on with this great new movement).....is too alluring to the average schmoe who doesn't want to think about it.

That's a neat recap of the dynamics of America's internal ebb and flow of the political realm.  But I think it's not really connected to the more outward, ever ready series of forays by domestic enemies and foreign reinforcements whenever there's a perceived opening.
Quite right, you are.  The history of the civil society is the history of Toryism.  Republics are few, far between, and short-lived.

This "constant, permanent state of war" against socialism is a war against sin.  Read the Scriptures and ask yourself what sin really is.  Drunkenness, promiscuity, murder, theft, and all the rest.  It appears to be a deviation of the natural law, behavior that is destructive of the civil society.  Doubt if you want, but liberalism is sin.

:ohmy:

Just thought I'd say that.

Not really sure why.
"If you are going through hell, keep going."

Winston Churchill

kopema

#5
Quote from: 9 on October 31, 2013, 10:31:17 AM
This "constant, permanent state of war" against socialism is a war against sin.  Read the Scriptures and ask yourself what sin really is.  Drunkenness, promiscuity, murder, theft, and all the rest.  It appears to be a deviation of the natural law, behavior that is destructive of the civil society.  Doubt if you want, but liberalism is sin.

The Ten Commandments is an incredibly concise list of all of mankind's sins.  Nevertheless, it takes the effort to repeat the admonition against coveting (depending on the translation) between five and seven times.  And, when you think about it, there is also an element of covetousness implicit in most of the other sins. 

It's not a sin to wish somebody who cuts you off in traffic would drop dead, as long as you don't actually do anything about that.  But it is a sin to WANT to take something just because somebody else has something you don't.  And there is a reason for that. 

"Coveting" isn't the same thing as greed.  And even greed isn't simply wanting something better for yourself.  Coveting means wanting what someone else has -- not just wanting a better house, wife, whatever...  more importantly, it means wanting someone else to NOT have it at the same time.  Therefore coveting is inextricably entwined with spite.  Even killing someone can sometimes be justified, but spitefulness never can. 

As the oft-misquoted saying goes, money is not the root of all evil; in fact creating wealth is a great sign that you are aiding your fellow man.  It is the LOVE of money - specifically the love of other people's money - that is the root of all evil.  And that is the definition of collectivism, liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, progressivism - or any other of the other names this one species of snake tries to hide behind.
''It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.''

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

red_dirt


It all smelled so sweet at the time.

As we just reviewed, one of the characteristics of the start of the decline
of the British Empire was when wealthy Brits saw profits investing  abroad,
not home. Places like America and Nigeria, the colonies and the island
slave plantations.  England provided government jobs for the British people
and essentially gutted the spirit of the people. The Royals would never have
permitted this; but the Brits got sold on the idea, "Every man a King."

At one time -- mid 1800's -- the Brits revolted and tried to
throw Parliament and Cromwell out. Called the British Civil War.
Cromwell put down the revolt and genocided the Irish for their part, but 50 years
later the Irish were leading the Brits around by the nose. No spirit left. By the end
of the first world war England was a broken relic. By the time Germany decided to
make its move on England, there was nothing left. It was about the gold, of course,
but the Brits had been too dumbed down to give it a thought.
The way George Orwell put it, "the European investors' unending pursuit of the
Holy Grail -- cheap Eurasian labor."
Now look at England. Muslim hell hole with days numbered.

Same here now. We have people voting who can't sign their own name,
and a president who is a skin puppet, not even one of us.
We can stop all of this now by voting in the Tea Party candidates. First stop
the bleeding in 2014; then take the White House in 2016.
Either that or degenerate  into a hell hole of Democrats.