Does Anybody See A Problem With This?

[HeatherAnn]

Reference was made in another thread to an article and podcast published in the Mormon Chronicle website, titled: “The Rapture, New Order Mormons, LDS Politicians, and Church History”. In that thread I chanced to mention that after listening to that podcast, I came to the conclusion that those who organized it had questionable motives.

The commentators began by explaining that they love the church in many ways, yet they also are open to truth where ever it may be found, as Joseph Smith taught.

Zerinus, you seem to feel upset by this podcast... why?

The part of the podcast that interested me most was about "New Order Mormons." In my experience with temporarily posting on the "New Order Forum" - I agree that it has become anti-Mormon, instead of the "middle way" as the founder ("LDSMan") intended...http://www.newordermormon.org/essays/about-ldsman.php

There are some great people, who I've learned from & who've also moved on from there, yet the majority of frequent posters regularly put down positive lds comments.

I believe Joseph Smith encouraged questioning & discovering truth through study, meditation, prayer & personal revelation.

I believe that no church is all knowing, because the people & leaders are not.

Yet I believe the LDS church is the best for me & my family & I need to focus on the positive, so I avoid the NOM & other negative forums.

[volgadon]

Ante-1850 = statesmen and inspired leaders. Post-1850 = petty beaurocrats.

[thesometimesaint]

volgadon:

Not really. They were on both side of 1850, men of both passions and logic; base desires, and noble ambitions. Pretty much like we have today. Though I am glad to see we don't fight duals anymore.

[volgadon]

volgadon:

Not really.

Two words for you- bronzy and goldy. And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

They were on both side of 1850, men of both passions and logic; base desires, and noble ambitions. Pretty much like we have today. Though I am glad to see we don't fight duals anymore.

I dunno, I consider fighting a duel preferable to litigation.

[thesometimesaint]

volgadon:

I thought it was made of iron.

It did not seem to work out real well for Hamilton or Burr.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande17.html

[Calm]

I dunno, I consider fighting a duel preferable to litigation.

I take it you are good with a gun.

Me, I'll take litigation over a duel any day unless it's who can talk the most at 20 paces.

[zerinus]

The commentators began by explaining that they love the church in many ways, yet they also are open to truth where ever it may be found, as Joseph Smith taught.

Zerinus, you seem to feel upset by this podcast... why?

I thought I had spent half of this thread trying to explain that.

The part of the podcast that interested me most was about "New Order Mormons." In my experience with temporarily posting on the "New Order Forum" - I agree that it has become anti-Mormon, instead of the "middle way" as the founder ("LDSMan") intended...http://www.newordermormon.org/essays/about-ldsman.php

So is the Mormon Chronicle. They are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse the NOMs of doing—pretending to be in the Church and supporting it, while attempting with subtlety to undermine it—and they think people are too stupid to notice! Well nobody is stupid. Only stupid people think that other people are stupid.

There are some great people, who I've learned from & who've also moved on from there, yet the majority of frequent posters regularly put down positive lds comments.

The Mormon Chronicle is attempting to be a NOM with double disguise, thinking that no one will notice! LOL!

I believe Joseph Smith encouraged questioning & discovering truth through study, meditation, prayer & personal revelation.

I believe that no church is all knowing, because the people & leaders are not.

Yet I believe the LDS church is the best for me & my family & I need to focus on the positive, so I avoid the NOM & other negative forums.

Then you should be avoiding the Mormon Chronicle as well, because they are a variation on the same theme.

[LeSellers]

A house divided against itself can not stand. The US would not have existed for long half free and half slave.

Secession would have solved that problem without a devastating war. The "Civil War" was waged to keep the southern states in the union, as all acknowledge. It was not to eliminate slavery (although that was the apparent cause, even to those whom I distrust on the matter), because slavery is economically unsound. In a very few years, the costs of slavery would have destroyed all connected with it, on both the slave and slave holder sides, unless abandoned as a very, very, bad investment/system.

It seems to work for a while, but then the costs (usually unrecognized by the slaveholders) becomes so high that the system collapses. All the more so when there is a viable free economy in competition with the slave economy.

It was so bad that, at Monticello, Jefferson, in spite of his huge farm and many workers, with enormous additional resources, had to buy produce from his slaves (who worked small plots of land to supplement their rations and were able, given the incentives to do so, to raise more than they needed, and sell it to the mansion). Jefferson dies deep in debt, and it was because of his owning slaves, not because he was extravagant (he was), nor because of bad economic times in general. The costs of owning slaves impoverished him, and he was wise enough to know it. The banks to which he was indebted did not, and they refused to allow him to free the slaves, nor to sell them: they were collateral for his debts, part of the "real estate" of Monticello and Shadwell .

Nice to see you don't believe women, minorities, and citizens over 18 but under 21 should have the right to vote.

You're putting your words into my mouth. Please desist, I don't know where they've been.

Since I didn't say that, and since the Constitution doesn't (and never did) prohibit women, minorities, and the young from voting, your argument is vapid, at best.

The Constitution allowed each state to define the electorate. That definition varied from state to state, to be sure, but it was expanding even in the XIV, and would have come to the point we are today (and perhaps even more inclusive, who knows?) without federal imposition.

Most of the states had already decided, long before 1920, to recognize women's right to vote. Congress need not have interfered, and the other states would have done it on their own. Utah and Wyoming were the first, and as territories. Interestingly, for those who believe that federal intervention is a requirement for such freedoms, Congress rescinded female suffrage for Utah women.

Why 18, anyway? Why not 16? Why not 14 or 12? Why not a rational test to see if someone is mentally, emotionally, intellectually qualified to vote?

Are you also in favor of Poll Taxes? They're specifically prohibited by Amendment 24 adopted well after 1850.

Poll taxes and the requirement that a voter have paid property taxes, admittedly widely abused, served a very valuable purpose: they assured that the voters would not do exactly what we have seen happen over the past several decades: the imposition of a welfare state that will, in the view of the Founders, impoverish the country by transferring the legitimate wealth created by those whose enterprise and industry make the country rich, to those whose lack of industry has made them poor. We had, "a republic, ma'am if we [had the will] to keep it." We didn't and so we now have a nation, to our detriment.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Compared to the weaker union that existed before. That is what the words in the Preamble mean.

That's what I was getting at: a "more perfect union" is not a "perfect union". They did not want a single, unified government, they wanted a federation of sovereign states which a central government strong enough to do a very few things, and leave the rest to the states. That's why, that at one point, we had a true Senate.

Nation and federation is the same thing.

No, they are not.

This is where some reasonable study of history would come into play.

Some nations have a federal system of government, some are constitutional monarchies, some are absolute monarchies, some are military dictatorships, some are tribal etc.—and a wide variety of types in each of those categories. It is a silly argument to pit “nation” against “federation”. “Federation” defines a system of government. “Nation” is a declaration of sovereignty. The Constitution created a nation which had a federal system of government. You don’t try to pit nation against federation.

All wrong.

A nation is a country with several things in common across the whole.

• Laws
  Each area of a nation has the same laws. In a federation, the laws may be, and often are, different. This is the case with USmerica.
  
• Heritage
  All Frenchmen are French, Spaniards are Spanish, Irishmen are Irish, Scots are Scottish, and have been for centuries. Recently, this is changing, and the nations of which we speak are disintegrating before our eyes.
  In USmerica, and especially in the early days of the country, each state was a separate nation. South Carolinians detested North Carolinians, Georgians despised New Yorkers. New Hampshiremen considered themselves a breed apart, as did Virginians, Rhode Islanders, and all the others.
  Modern-day USmericans are losing these distinctions, but the fact that I, now living in Colorado, still feel like a Utahn, is an indicator of what I mean. People from other states often say, "Back home ..."
  
• A nation sees itself as a unified whole
  Until the Lincoln era, the United States were several states in a federation and the standard terminology was plural. Only after the War of Northern Aggression did we see phrases like "The United States is...". Prior to that, it was always "The United States are...".
  
• A nation has administrative districts (often call "Provinces").
  Federations are made up of independent entities, and the relationships must be defined if they are not to be quickly dissolved (which was why the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation they established had to become a "more perfect union"). In USmerica, the states can and often do fight (legal) battles over an enormous number of things.
  Further, the very word "state" tells us a great deal about the nature of the federal government, and one of those things is that it does not head up a nation.
  

The list talks about “establishing Justice,” and justice is established by the rule of law.

The Constitution was unique in 1787~9 in that it did impose limits on the federal government (as well as a very few limits on the states, as well). But, by and large, it left all important matters to the states. The states could (and did, until about 1820, have established churches (Maryland was Catholic and the last state to have such a church). The states could, did, and do, have separate militias (although the purpose and nature of them has been changed drastically), which, except in rare occasions, the federal government had little to do. That they have now become barely more than an extension of the federal military masks their original goals, but they were (and remain potentially) the most important sign of states' sovereignty. That sovereignty dispels the fallacy of USmerica's being a "nation".

Welfare is welfare. Whether you call it “general” or “particular” is immaterial.

This is absurd. It shows you do not know what "welfare" means, and even less what "general" and "individual" (my word) or "particular" mean. It also shows that you ignore the concepts of "promote" and "provide for" in contrast to "provide".

How can you establish “general” welfare without being concerned about “particular” welfare? Now exactly how that “welfare” is “promoted” is debatable issue; and I don’t see that you have a monopoly of opinion on that. People may have different opinion on how that should be achieved, and I don’t see why your opinion should be superior to those who might differ from you.

"Promote the general welfare" and "provide for the general welfare" mean, essentially, that the government (federal in this case) were to make things easier for people to act in ways that would makes the country better off. that requires low taxes, few regulations (as we understand the word today, not as they did in 1787), and as little interference in commerce as possible. It never meant, until the late XIX, that government would take form those who create wealth and give it to those who create nothing of economic (meaning tradable) value.

I don’t buy that. Lots of opinions have been expressed since 1850, and I have no reason to suppose that all of them are necessarily bad. That is just plain silly.

That's because, as near as I can tell, you fail to recognize that many of the important words in the Constitution do not mean today what they did when Washington, et al. wrote it. "Welfare" is one example. "Militia" is another. "Regulated" is a third.

Moreover, and more importantly, the very concepts the Founders cherished and enshrined in the Document, had been, by about 1850, much maligned. The ideal of the yeoman farmer was giving way to an urban citizenry. The notion of the federation, as opposed to a nation, was dying. The ideal of state sovereignty was snuffed out at Appomatox Courthouse in 1865, but it had been under assault for decades.

Finally, the establishment of government-run, tax-funded schools, complete with the requisite compulsory attendance (interestingly, it's not compulsory education) laws in 1852 (at first in Massachusetts, under the infamous Horace Mann) created a homogenized "national mind" (it took a century, but the desired effect is evident today, some of it in your writings).

The Founders would not recognize the country today, no more than Romulus would know the Rome of ad 300. It's not anything like what they envisioned.

It wasn’t as simple as that. It was the Confederacy who seceded in order to preserve slavery, which had been abolished in the north. The confederacy didn’t just want to preserve slavery for themselves; they wanted to expand it into the other states in which it had been abolished. After they had seceded, they actually started the war by raising an army and attacking a military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina; and the fighting spiralled from there.

None of that is at issue.

the thing that separates us is whether it is a good thing to have a one-way door into the union, and especially when that union unilaterally changes the rules. Without the means to escape such tyranny, the union is not worth being member.

If the Confederacy had won, it certainly wouldn’t have survived; and if the US had not fought back they would have lost! So I let intelligent folks draw their own conclusions from that.

Well, this intelligent folk can't decide what you mean by it, so I hope others get a better idea from your words than I do.

However, it is clear that had the Confederacy won, the notion of states' being able to secede would have been resolved in favor of the states, and there are many intelligent folk who believe that to be a good thing. Tyranny, even a tyranny of the majority, is still evil.

They created something that was worth defending; and the US acted in good faith and in the right spirit to defend it.

Even were I to accept your premise (and I do not) it was not the Founders who fought against the South. You cannot use the War Between the States as an argument to establish what the Founders would have done about secession. They were all dead.

In fact, however, the mere existence of the Constitution, as they wrote it, points to the notion of secession as being more than palatable to them: they bent over backwards to make the Constitution and the government is defined as limited as possible precisely to accommodate states like South Carolina, that didn't really want it. To use the Constitution to forcibly hold reluctant states in the union just doesn't pass any reasonable test: the smell, the logical, the linguistic, whatever.

Lehi

[Calm]

It wasn’t as simple as that. It was the Confederacy who seceded in order to preserve slavery, which had been abolished in the north.

Not exactly...

For example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our symapthy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Slavery was the Cause celebre of the Civil War.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm

Succession was a secondary cause. The South claimed the right to disregard laws made by the Federal Government, particularly their "Peculiar Institution" of the continuing importation of slaves from Africa.

Slavery is not economically unsound, and has a very much longer history than Capitalism. It is still going on in the US http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/slavery-21st-century-over-1000-freed-1997

There is no such thing as a free economy. Some are just more tightly regulated than others. It is Laissez-faire economics that is unsustainable.

[zerinus]

Not exactly...

For example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html

I believe you are making a serious historical mistake with that one; and you are also quoting that passage out of context. The complete context of the passage (from your own link) is as follows (emphasis mine):

As early as 1849, Abraham Lincoln believed that slaves should be emancipated, advocating a program in which they would be freed gradually. Early in his presidency, still convinced that gradual emacipation was the best course, he tried to win over legistators. To gain support, he proposed that slaveowners be compensated for giving up their "property." Support was not forthcoming.

In September of 1862,

after the Union's victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary decree stating that, unless the rebellious states returned to the Union by January 1, freedom would be granted to slaves within those states. The decree also left room for a plan of compensated emancipation. No Confederate states took the offer, and on

January 1

Lincoln presented the

Emancipation Proclamation

. The proclamation declared, "all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our symapthy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.

The proclamation allowed black soldiers to fight for the Union--soldiers that were desperately needed. It also tied the issue of slavery directly to the war.

Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation nearly two years after the civil war had started, and as a means of putting further pressure on the breakaway slave states. The history of slavery in America is complex, and there had been "free" states and "slave" states since before the writing of the Constitution. This site tells you which states had been "free" and which ones "slave" since 1789. There are a series of maps on the right of the screen; if you click on each map you get an enlarged version which explains it. Abraham Lincoln was against slavery and eventually pushed though the 13th amendment (after the civil war) that made it illegal in the US. But he had also been pragmatic enough initially to realize that with so many vested interests involved, it would be hard to put an end to it by a drastic action all at once, so he had tried to do it gradually and by compensation (as the above quote shows). But the slave states wouldn't have any of it, which eventually pushed the country into a civil war. There are a number of very good articles in Wikipedia relating to this subject that give you valuable information. Try these ones: 1, 2, 3.

[WalkerW]

Slavery was the Cause celebre of the Civil War.

http://militaryhisto...ilWarCauses.htm

Lehi specifically said that the war was not to abolish slavery, but preserve the union. The succession was largely caused by the slavery issue, but Lincoln did not pursue the war to abolish slavery. See Thomas E. Woods, Jr., "Question 10: Was the Civil War All About Slavery, Or Was Something Else at Stake as Well?" in his 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (Three Rivers Press, 2007).

Slavery is not economically unsound

Actually, it has become very unsound economically. Government subsidy actually helped preserve the profitability of slavery in the U.S., though the profitability worldwide was declining. See Woods' article mentioned above and Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (HarperCollins, 2010), specifically Ch. 7, Mark Thornton, "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process," Review of Austrian Economics 7:2 (1994), Mark Yanochik, Mark Thornton, Bradley Ewing, "Railroad Construction and Antebellum Slave Prices," Social Science Quarterly 84:3 (2003). As economist Don Boudreaux writes,

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

But even on purely economic grounds, capitalism rejects slavery because slaves are productive only when doing very simple tasks that can easily be monitored. It's easy to tell if a slave is moving too slowly when picking cotton. And it's easy to speed him up. Also, there's very little damage he can do if he chooses to sabotage the cotton-picking operation.

Compare a cotton field with a modern factory -- say, the shipyard that my father worked in as a welder until he retired. My dad spent much of his time welding alone inside of narrow pipes. If you owned the shipyard, would you trust a slave to do such welding? While not physically impossible to monitor and check his work, the cost to the shipyard owner of hiring trustworthy slave-masters to shadow each slave each moment of the day would be prohibitively costly. Much better to have contented employees who want their jobs -- who are paid to work and who want to work -- than to operate your expensive, complicated, easily sabotaged factory with slaves.

Finally, the enormous investment unleashed by capitalism dramatically increases the demand for workers. (All those factories and supermarkets must be manned.) Even if each individual factory owner wants to enslave his workers, he doesn't want workers elsewhere to be enslaved, for that makes it more difficult for him to expand his operations. As a group, then, capitalists have little use for slavery. History supports this truth: Capitalism exterminated slavery.

It is Laissez-faire economics that is unsustainable.

If by laissez-faire, you mean anarcho-capitalism, then I can agree. Laws are essential.

EDIT: Added couple of links.

[zerinus]

That's what I was getting at: a "more perfect union" is not a "perfect union". They did not want a single, unified government, they wanted a federation of sovereign states which a central government strong enough to do a very few things, and leave the rest to the states. That's why, that at one point, we had a true Senate.

No, they are not.

This is where some reasonable study of history would come into play.

All wrong.

A nation is a country with several things in common across the whole.

• Laws
  Each area of a nation has the same laws. In a federation, the laws may be, and often are, different. This is the case with USmerica.
  
• Heritage
  All Frenchmen are French, Spaniards are Spanish, Irishmen are Irish, Scots are Scottish, and have been for centuries. Recently, this is changing, and the nations of which we speak are disintegrating before our eyes.
  In USmerica, and especially in the early days of the country, each state was a separate nation. South Carolinians detested North Carolinians, Georgians despised New Yorkers. New Hampshiremen considered themselves a breed apart, as did Virginians, Rhode Islanders, and all the others.
  Modern-day USmericans are losing these distinctions, but the fact that I, now living in Colorado, still feel like a Utahn, is an indicator of what I mean. People from other states often say, "Back home ..."
  
• A nation sees itself as a unified whole
  Until the Lincoln era, the United States were several states in a federation and the standard terminology was plural. Only after the War of Northern Aggression did we see phrases like "The United States is...". Prior to that, it was always "The United States are...".
  
• A nation has administrative districts (often call "Provinces").
  Federations are made up of independent entities, and the relationships must be defined if they are not to be quickly dissolved (which was why the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation they established had to become a "more perfect union"). In USmerica, the states can and often do fight (legal) battles over an enormous number of things.
  Further, the very word "state" tells us a great deal about the nature of the federal government, and one of those things is that it does not head up a nation.
  

The Constitution was unique in 1787~9 in that it did impose limits on the federal government (as well as a very few limits on the states, as well). But, by and large, it left all important matters to the states. The states could (and did, until about 1820, have established churches (Maryland was Catholic and the last state to have such a church). The states could, did, and do, have separate militias (although the purpose and nature of them has been changed drastically), which, except in rare occasions, the federal government had little to do. That they have now become barely more than an extension of the federal military masks their original goals, but they were (and remain potentially) the most important sign of states' sovereignty. That sovereignty dispels the fallacy of USmerica's being a "nation".

This is absurd. It shows you do not know what "welfare" means, and even less what "general" and "individual" (my word) or "particular" mean. It also shows that you ignore the concepts of "promote" and "provide for" in contrast to "provide".

"Promote the general welfare" and "provide for the general welfare" mean, essentially, that the government (federal in this case) were to make things easier for people to act in ways that would makes the country better off. that requires low taxes, few regulations (as we understand the word today, not as they did in 1787), and as little interference in commerce as possible. It never meant, until the late XIX, that government would take form those who create wealth and give it to those who create nothing of economic (meaning tradable) value.

That's because, as near as I can tell, you fail to recognize that many of the important words in the Constitution do not mean today what they did when Washington, et al. wrote it. "Welfare" is one example. "Militia" is another. "Regulated" is a third.

Moreover, and more importantly, the very concepts the Founders cherished and enshrined in the Document, had been, by about 1850, much maligned. The ideal of the yeoman farmer was giving way to an urban citizenry. The notion of the federation, as opposed to a nation, was dying. The ideal of state sovereignty was snuffed out at Appomatox Courthouse in 1865, but it had been under assault for decades.

Finally, the establishment of government-run, tax-funded schools, complete with the requisite compulsory attendance (interestingly, it's not compulsory education) laws in 1852 (at first in Massachusetts, under the infamous Horace Mann) created a homogenized "national mind" (it took a century, but the desired effect is evident today, some of it in your writings).

The Founders would not recognize the country today, no more than Romulus would know the Rome of ad 300. It's not anything like what they envisioned.

None of that is at issue.

the thing that separates us is whether it is a good thing to have a one-way door into the union, and especially when that union unilaterally changes the rules. Without the means to escape such tyranny, the union is not worth being member.

Well, this intelligent folk can't decide what you mean by it, so I hope others get a better idea from your words than I do.

However, it is clear that had the Confederacy won, the notion of states' being able to secede would have been resolved in favor of the states, and there are many intelligent folk who believe that to be a good thing. Tyranny, even a tyranny of the majority, is still evil.

Even were I to accept your premise (and I do not) it was not the Founders who fought against the South. You cannot use the War Between the States as an argument to establish what the Founders would have done about secession. They were all dead.

In fact, however, the mere existence of the Constitution, as they wrote it, points to the notion of secession as being more than palatable to them: they bent over backwards to make the Constitution and the government is defined as limited as possible precisely to accommodate states like South Carolina, that didn't really want it. To use the Constitution to forcibly hold reluctant states in the union just doesn't pass any reasonable test: the smell, the logical, the linguistic, whatever.

Lehi

After reading posts by you, Larsen, and a few others, I have come to the conclusion that you guys pose a greater danger to the Constitution than any of the folks whom you (collectively) accuse. If you people had your ways, you would destroy the Constitution faster than anybody else would.

[Calm]

I believe you are making a serious historical mistake with that one; and you are also quoting that passage out of context.

My response was in regards to your claim that slavery had been abolished in the north (assuming here you meant the states that did not secede). I was using the quote to point out that slavery was not as abolished as your claim made it appeared.

[LeSellers]

After reading posts by you, Larsen, and a few others, I have come to the conclusion that you guys pose a greater danger to the Constitution than any of the folks whom you (collectively) accuse. If you people had your ways, you would destroy the Constitution faster than anybody else would.

That is easily the most useless post I've read in a very long time.

Specifics, man, details.

Lehi

[zerinus]

My response was in regards to your claim that slavery had been abolished in the north (assuming here you meant the states that did not secede). I was using the quote to point out that slavery was not as abolished as your claim made it appeared.

Well, it had been abolished in the twenty most-Northern states (emphasis added):

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war in the United States of America.

Eleven

Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy". Led by Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy fought for its independence from the United States. The U.S. federal government was supported by

twenty

mostly-Northern free states

in which slavery already had been abolished,

and by

five

slave states that became known as the

border states

. These

twenty-five

states, referred to as the

Union,

had a much larger base of population and industry than the South. After four years of bloody, devastating warfare (mostly within the Southern states), the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation.

Source

.

Conclusion: The Civil War was a cause worth fighting for by the United States!

[Calm]

Conclusion: The Civil War was a cause worth fighting for by the United States!

A conclusion that has nothing to do with what I was pointing out...which you demonstrated nicely for me by pointing to the fact that 5 slave states were part of the "north" in the disagreement between Union and Confederacy.

[Biz]

I understand this is not a political forum so I will leave my analysis and opinion to a very limited stance.

I have followed all of the threads I have seen on the constitution hanging by a thread, liberty, and free agency. With that said I have enjoyed the sensible comments by some who have explained their opinions that the constitution has been extremely close to hanging by a thread on numerous occasions. The fact is while some see the constitution as black and white it really isn't and never has been. If you look back at its creation we are lucky we even came to an agreement to have one. This is very frustrating to me after just completing the law courses, "Constitutional Law" and "Federal Courts" (the most in depth important classes on the constitution) at a conservative law school in which the co-chair of the ABA section on law and religion was my Professor for Con Law. It is frustrating because debating what is Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional is really like debating what are the true colors of the rainbow, there really is for the most part no right or wrong answer. Our government is a give and take system that dances around balancing sensitive issues of both sides on the Separation of Powers between the Federal Government (The Supreme Law of the Land) and the State's as separate sovereign entity's.

If you look at two fundamental modern constitutional issues that would put someone's liberty at issue, immigration, and marriage, the Church is on opposite sides on both issues from a "conservative's" perspective. So which one and which side is constitutional? and which one would be hanging by a thread? That's the problem it is near undefinable because this same argument has been going on since the late 1700's. Our constitution will be hanging by a thread when we are literally at war with each other like we were during the civil war.

I guess I am addressing two different threads:

In conclusion regarding this thread, people who are participating on this thread take issue because they see the web site in question taking a black and white stance when the realty the issues are very colorful. Read The Rise of Modern Mormonism and you will even see our leaders saw these issues as a color spectrum and not as black and white. Not to mention one of the authors directly attacked (helpful) apologist. I am not an apologist, I spend my time learning from them because I find that they are able to answer my questions in an appropriate manner. I do this because these apologist have defined their mission. I understand when I come to this site what I am dealing with. But the site in question seems to want to dictate one color and not accept any other colors. I am fine with that and I am fine with opining that I think the site is at best unproductive and I am a conservative free market economist. Maybe the site should be entitled, The ........ .......... for Latter-Day Saint Conservative American's. Then their mission would be defined. I mean there are more members of the Church outside America than inside.

In conclusion for the constitution hanging by a thread topic. Define for me the constitution? Define what would be blatantly unconstitutional? Who's constitution, Joseph Smith's or the one we have today? Define what hanging by a thread is? The problem is that all of these things are near undefinable. Why should the prophecy be waited for when we are not sure what the prophecy is or how it is even applied. Furthermore, how do we interpret the prophecy or (second hand statements) when the modern Church has said it is not apart of the Doctrine of the LDS Church?

Biz

Need I say anymore about this thread. This debate began when the Constitution was finally agreed upon and signed by all and continues today. When we no longer say, "We the People of The United State's of America" then the constitution has failed us. Until then the debate continues!

Biz

[blarsen]

Lehi specifically said that the war was not to abolish slavery, but preserve the union. The succession was largely caused by the slavery issue, but Lincoln did not pursue the war to abolish slavery. See Thomas E. Woods, Jr., "Question 10: Was the Civil War All About Slavery, Or Was Something Else at Stake as Well?" in his 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (Three Rivers Press, 2007).

Actually, it has become very unsound economically. Government subsidy actually helped preserve the profitability of slavery in the U.S., though the profitability worldwide was declining. See Woods' article mentioned above and Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (HarperCollins, 2010), specifically Ch. 7, Mark Thornton, "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process," Review of Austrian Economics 7:2 (1994), Mark Yanochik, Mark Thornton, Bradley Ewing, "Railroad Construction and Antebellum Slave Prices," Social Science Quarterly 84:3 (2003). As economist Don Boudreaux writes,

The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.

To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.

But even on purely economic grounds, capitalism rejects slavery because slaves are productive only when doing very simple tasks that can easily be monitored. It's easy to tell if a slave is moving too slowly when picking cotton. And it's easy to speed him up. Also, there's very little damage he can do if he chooses to sabotage the cotton-picking operation.

Compare a cotton field with a modern factory -- say, the shipyard that my father worked in as a welder until he retired. My dad spent much of his time welding alone inside of narrow pipes. If you owned the shipyard, would you trust a slave to do such welding? While not physically impossible to monitor and check his work, the cost to the shipyard owner of hiring trustworthy slave-masters to shadow each slave each moment of the day would be prohibitively costly. Much better to have contented employees who want their jobs -- who are paid to work and who want to work -- than to operate your expensive, complicated, easily sabotaged factory with slaves.

Finally, the enormous investment unleashed by capitalism dramatically increases the demand for workers. (All those factories and supermarkets must be manned.) Even if each individual factory owner wants to enslave his workers, he doesn't want workers elsewhere to be enslaved, for that makes it more difficult for him to expand his operations. As a group, then, capitalists have little use for slavery. History supports this truth: Capitalism exterminated slavery.

If by laissez-faire, you mean anarcho-capitalism, then I can agree. Laws are essential.

EDIT: Added couple of links.

Thanks for the post. Fascinating stuff. Some things I hadn't given much thought to.

[blarsen]

After reading posts by you, Larsen, and a few others, I have come to the conclusion that you guys pose a greater danger to the Constitution than any of the folks whom you (collectively) accuse. If you people had your ways, you would destroy the Constitution faster than anybody else would.

Huh?? Zerinus, you seem to by unraveling. With regard to your accusation against me, why would you think such a thing? What have I said that would make you say this? I welcome your reply.

[zerinus]

Huh?? Zerinus, you seem to by unraveling. With regard to your accusation against me, why would you think such a thing? What have I said that would make you say this? I welcome your reply.

It is your attitudes that I have a problem with. Here is a typical quote from Lehi that demonstrates it:

The Constitution was unique in 1787~9 in that it did impose limits on the federal government (as well as a very few limits on the states, as well). But, by and large, it left all important matters to the states. The states could (and did, until about 1820, have established churches (Maryland was Catholic and the last state to have such a church). The states could, did, and do, have separate militias (although the purpose and nature of them has been changed drastically), which, except in rare occasions, the federal government had little to do. That they have now become barely more than an extension of the federal military masks their original goals, but they were (and remain potentially) the most important sign of states' sovereignty. That sovereignty dispels the fallacy of USmerica's being a "nation".

If this sentiment was put into effect it would destroy the Constitution. Basically he doesn't want a Constitution at all. His "constitution" is a no-constitution. The way he defines a "nation" is also an indicator of his attitude. He basically doesn't want a nation or a constitution. The Constitution creates a nation. It creates a sovereign state in which the sovereignty rests with the people of all the states, united into a nation. He is opposed to that. He wants a complete free for all for the individual states. They do not even have a "nationhood" collectively, hence no constitution. He may be taking it to the extreme; but it is a sentiment that basically all of you guys support; and if it was put into practice it would destroy the constitution faster than you would know it. He pays lip service to the Constitution; but essentially wants to destroy it. And I think you would agree with him, otherwise you would have opposed him.

[zerinus]

A conclusion that has nothing to do with what I was pointing out...which you demonstrated nicely for me by pointing to the fact that 5 slave states were part of the "north" in the disagreement between Union and Confederacy.

The situation was even more complicated than that. There was a danger that if the southern states had successfully seceded, that foreign powers (notably Britain) would have become involved to try to use the breakaway states to as a leverage to weaken or destroy the United States. National security and interest dictated that the cession should have been fought against and defeated.

[LeSellers]

If this sentiment was put into effect it would destroy the Constitution. Basically [Lehi] doesn't want a Constitution at all. [Lehi's] "constitution" is a no-constitution. The way [Lehi] defines a "nation" is also an indicator of his attitude. He basically doesn't want a nation or a constitution.

Absolutely and unequivocally false.

I want a Constitution, I do not want a single nation. I want a Constitution, but I want it to be a federal constitution, as it was prior to the 1900~20 period when Amendments XVI, XVII, XIX ended it and created a "nation" that is inimical to the ideas of the Founders.

The Constitution mentioned in the word of the Lord (sections 101 and 98) was not the same Constitution we have today. And we are not as well off because of it.

You are putting words into my mouth—that is both forbidden by the board rules and unhygienic. Please stop.

The Constitution creates a nation. It creates a sovereign state in which the sovereignty rests with the people of all the states, united into a nation. He is opposed to that.

The Constitution did not "create a nation". It did not create a sovereign state. It created a "more perfect union" or federation of sovereign states.

He wants a complete free for all for the individual states.

this is a gross distortion of my position. I am perfectly happy with a federation, the federation defined by the Founders. It's the "nation" trash to which I object.

They do not even have a "nationhood" collectively, hence no constitution.

You equate two very different things. The Constitution did not create a nation. Where that idea came from is a total mystery, because it did not arise from any of the founding documents, nor the Founders.

He may be taking it to the extreme; but it is a sentiment that basically all of you guys support; and if it was put into practice it would destroy the constitution faster than you would know it. He pays lip service to the Constitution; but essentially wants to destroy it. And I think you would agree with him, otherwise you would have opposed him.

I submit that you know little about the Constitution if you believe this.

The Constitution is founded on limited central government and federalism: the power of the individual states supersedes that of the central government in nearly all aspects of government. It was the creation of the states (not of the people: notice the processes of writing it and of its ratification, see how the President is elected—especially in the case of no majority vote in the Electoral College); which is why we had a Senate (originally chosen directly by the states, not the people of the states) that ratifies treaties, ratifies judges and justices, ambassadors, general officers, and cabinet appointments: all actions of sovereign states. The federal government was designed to represent the united States of America (the original capitalization) to the outside world. It was to resolve conflicts between states. It was not designed to control citizens except in the most remote instance.

Lehi

[zerinus]

The Constitution did not "create a nation". It did not create a sovereign state. It created a "more perfect union" or federation of sovereign states.

this is a gross distortion of my position. I am perfectly happy with a federation, the federation defined by the Founders. It's the "nation" trash to which I object.

You equate two very different things. The Constitution did not create a nation. Where that idea came from is a total mystery, because it did not arise from any of the founding documents, nor the Founders.

The Book of Mormon identifies the (future) United States as a “nation:”

1 Nephi 22

:

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a

mighty nation

among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

The Doctrine and Covenants identifies it as a “nation:”

D&C 101

:

89 And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the

nation;

D&C 123

:

6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole

nation

may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm.

D&C 124

:

3 This proclamation shall be made to all the kings of the world, to the four corners thereof, to the honorable president-elect, and the high-minded governors of the

nation

in which you live, and to all the nations of the earth scattered abroad.

D&C 136

:

34 Thy brethren have rejected you and your testimony, even the

nation

that has driven you out;

Both God and man identify it as a “nation”. You want to rewrite history, rewrite scripture, rewrite the dictionary, in order to promote your wild fancies that have no connection with the world of reality; and you want other people to take you seriously. Why?