The Cost of Maintaining a Union

When a Union is beneficial to all parties involved, it is applauded by members - old and new alike. When the Union becomes toxic to certain portions, is it not justifiable to cast off allegiance to that Union and develop a form of self-governing that is healthier for those individuals?

You may be thinking to yourself - is this another anti-Federal Government rant? Or perhaps that I am playing to the Civil War topics springing up due to Lincoln's 200th birthday.

In this case, I know what many of you may be saying - Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve the Union at all costs... the war was justified, as the Union is a perpetual necessity for our way of life...

What if we applied, as was my original intent, the logic to the Soviet Union - whose demise in 1990/1991 was applauded across the United States.

Specifically, let's look at Georgia and Ukraine - two areas that are under threat of "reabsorbtion" by the Russian federation. The invasion of Georgia last summer drew criticism and outrage from Americans... and the threat of Russia to reclaim Ukraine is drawing further cries of a renewed Cold War with the Imperial Bear that is Russia...

...but with what double standard do we look at Russia that we fail to see the resemblance to our own situation during the American Rebel War, the Southern War for Independence, often referred to as the Civil War.

Lincoln was given a free pass to break law after law, conduct campaigns of genocide, and plague the South with other forms of Crimes Against Humanity... all in the name of preserving the Union. Honest Abe suspended many of the rights protected by the constitution - and the average citizen forgets that those rights are NOT granted by the government, rather listed as protected FROM the government.

Applying the logic of Lincoln, we should applaud and encourage Russia in a quest to re-unify the Soviet Republics... especially the Ukraine, who was one of the founding Republics of that Union.

Lincoln's war changed the face of the nation - where it was once seen as the collective "these United States", it became the unified "The United States" under one infinitely strong central government. It replaced the humble Constitutional Republic with an Imperial Superpower, locking the future of the nation into continued foreign entanglements - something which Washington warned against in his farewell address to the nation.

Is it prudent to do whatever it takes to maintain a union?

If so, would you argue for the invasion of Ukraine and Georgia so passionately as you defend the invasion of the seceded states of the Confederation?

At what point is a perpetual union of independent states overshadowed by a union of vassal states to a central government, and thus subject to the terms of Independence as outlined by our forefathers who declared a broken union between the colonies and the British Empire?

Is there ever a case to defend both sides of the argument? Dare you try?

Pat Buchanan's take on Lincoln's War

Pat Buchanan is riling up the Republicans who live in praise of Lincoln, and the Democrats who live in praise of Obama - Lincoln reborn (apparently).

There was a post in THE CHRONICLE MAGAZINE questioning how responsible Mr. Lincoln's war actually was for the continent.

A good read - This is the stance that I took during my Advanced American Studies course regarding the Civil War period... it really pleased me to watch my instructor and liberal classmates squirm when I questioned the idol status of Mr Lincoln, and the Heraldry of the Northern Soldiers - while they equally demonized my ancestors who so nobly fought for independence from tyranny.

As I said in my previous post, Mr Lincoln clearly had an impact on the reconstruction of these United States... The Southern Rebellion and Reconstruction era marked the death of the truest and purest meaning of the 9th and 10th amendment to the constitution, and replaced them with the inferred understanding of "perpetual union" - a phrase which existed in the Articles of Confederation, but which were purposefully left out of the Constitution. Historical texts would indicate that some founding fathers wanted it in, and revisionist historians would lead you to believe that this "inferred" right of the Union trumped the right of secession.

There is a fundamental question that I have to ask folks on this topic - which document guides their philosophy: the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?

If it is the Constitution, great - you are dedicated to the rule of law, regardless of how imperfect that law may be - it is a document subject to change - for better or worse - take special note of prohibition... a constitutional amendment banning alcohol, leading to one of the greatest eras of organized crime, and alcoholic consumption!

If it is the Declaration, better! This document is unchanging - boldly giving the finger to the King of England. The words declare that ultimate freedom and liberty beat in the hearts of every man... The words have remained unchanged for nearly two and a half centuries... and will remain ever unchanged. The truth was written that day.

I can usually gage the caliber of character by the way that an individual answers this question... though I hold my cards very close to my chest...

Please read Mr Buchanan's interesting question on the idolatry of Lincoln, and question Liberty - as it has been taught to us... does it meet the definition of Liberty on which this country began its first rebellion?

2 Year Stall in the Senate - Our Only Hope

As the votes continue to be tallied, it is now clear - The Liberal Democrats do NOT have their Super Majority. The count looks to be Democrats 56, Republicans 44, assuming that Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats - if not, that would make it 55/45 - enough for a 2 year stall while we figure out how to act like libertarian conservatives again!

I am reminded of Star Wars scene of Leia - only this time, it is "Hold on Senate - You're our only hope!"

The Senate Results in the 4 remaining close-call states:

99% Reporting in Alaska: R-Stevens 106351 (49%) to D-Begich 102998 (48%)
Since Steves is now a convicted felon, I believe that the process is that the seat will be opened for Sarah Palin to appoint a replacement. Fingers crossed for Todd Palin.

75% Reporting in Oregon: R-Smith 525942 (48%) to D-Merkley 510999 (46%)
Smith is the incumbent, and a necessary hold for the Northwest Republicans

100% Reporting in Minnesota: R-Coleman 1210940 (42%) to D-Franken 1210370 (42%)
Coleman is the incumbent... this race will be recounted - but I feel that Coleman will retain this seat.

99% Reporting in Georgia: R-Chambliss 1834836 (50%) to D-Martin 1723760 (47%)
Chambliss is the incumbent, and it looks like this seat is safe from recount.

A stall in the senate could slow the appointment of liberal justices, block ultra liberal social policy (like Freedom of Choice act and Fairness Doctrine), and hold out for the 2010 election, at which point the country may be ready to balance the power at the federal level.

One thing is for certain, to those on the right, who are anti-Authoritarian / anti-Socialist - an Obama election was a slap in the face - the same way a Lincoln election was a slap in the face to Southern States. Lincoln was a radical who promised fundamental change in America. A true historian knows that the fundamental change was not about slavery, but about state's rights and the sovereignty of states. Obama has the notion, the desire, and the momentum to finish the job started by Lincoln - eliminating the States as sovereign entities, and eliminating the ability of the people to self govern. Lincoln accomplished his task by the use of military force. Obama will take the White House with combat troops deployed to the US, and with the battle cry of a 'civilian military police force' - with the same power and funding as the US military... perhaps it is not 1984, but 1860...

One thing is for certain - those 4 senate seats may be all that is keeping this country together.