James Madison
- Thread starter This_person
- Start date
I think the Civil War's outcome killed the notion of the federal government being subordinate to the states.
Yep, it sure did.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Clearly, the Civil War ruined the 10th amendment, but the federal government wasn't ever really subordinate to the states. It was always superior. This is why SCOTUS is the final arbiter of law, and why the states can't coin their own money, etc., etc.
What killed it, in my opinion, was the 17th amendment. The government was set up to have We, the People represented by the House of Representatives - which was clearly to be the most power part of government, the states represented by the Senate, and the federal represented by the Executive. In this way, all was checked by another.
When scandal and corruption in the appointment of Senators was rampant, they "fixed" it by taking the states out of the federal government through the 17th. Now the states have no voice in the federal government except through an Article Five constitutional convention. This was never the intent, and it does not work well. Ask any state about "block grants" from the federal government, or "unfunded mandates" and they will tell you the federal controls the states with no recourse by the states. The states having a voice, through passing or denying Bills in the Senate, is gone and it kills control.
Repeal the 17th, and we will have a much more effective government in terms of how the states are viewed.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No. The fighting of the war to begin with did that. The South, in their zest and zeal for self destruction, went down a path of infinite regression whereby, day 1, it was, at best, a duplicate of the union they just left and, by virtue of going to war, a war most of the major league deep South big mouths thought they were physically immune from due to the unthinkability of any actual Northern invasion coupled to shear physical distance in a nation most young men had never been more than a days horseback ride from their homes, set in motion centralized forces that, at the same time, were excessively sensitive of state sensibilities while embarking on a venture that demanded central authority.
The South had everything in their favor to continue in the Union, to deal with the death of slavery, over time and pretty much on their time schedule, peacefully. And then there was Southern Pride that said we'd rather lose it all than...than what? Accept a abolitionist President who thought, and said, "If I could end slavery I would not. If I wanted to, I could not." Further, if Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on day 1, he'd have had no army.
Furthermore and lastly, the ONLY thing Lincoln was fighting for was to save the Union. He'd have done ANYTHING, including left things be, to avoid the split.
Southern pride killed this nation and changed it from These United States to THE United States. All the forces of centralized power Madison so adored were unleashed in the fury, passion and emotion of civil war.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
One generation? Four score and 7!!!! I'd call that 3 or even four generations.
Come on! Slavery was dying from day one and it was simply a matter of HOW. Those assurances were given to get the thing done. Not to freeze time.
If you are correct, then, why didn't the South simply go in peace? How come it didn't simply start working on negotiating the price to buy federal installations? Because it wanted war. Lincoln was HELPLESS to go to war unless the South started it, or could be maneuvered into it or simply flat out started it. The South could have had a peaceful separation.
No, the weakening of 87 year old assurances are not to blame here. Nothing could have stopped slavery from dying. The South could have overseen it conservatively, deliberately, over maybe another 87 years. But that's not what it wanted. And we ALL, slave and master, would have been the better for it had they chosen so. :shrug:
1789-1860. 71 years. Maybe in WV or SOMD that could encompass four generations......I'd have to ask my bruncledaddy.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Lol!!!!
This_person
Well-Known Member
Nobody agrees or disagrees on the 17th?
Given that the reason for the 17th was to keep monopolies from influencing state legislatures and 'buying' senators, I can understand why it was done. I could probably support repeal of the 17th as long as safeguards were put in place.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Fair. What kind of safeguards? Are we talking term limits, or varying who appoints (as in, Gov appoints and state senate confirms, or something like that), or what?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No. The reason for the 17th was so that monopolies COULD buy off Senators. As it was, if I was, say, Big #### Industries and wanted to move into your state and your Senators, being loyal to their legislatures, were opposing federal legislation that I wanted to pave the way. So, what's an oligarch to do? Get YOUR Senators away from their legislature and me into their pockets.
Hmmmm... you've got some pretty crazy history books there.
Inorite?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What's the point of disconnecting senators from being beholden to their state legislators and governors and putting them before the people? Easier to get at them.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think that was the unintended consequence, not the reason for the 17th.
This_person
Well-Known Member
The problem was the states weren't doing their jobs correctly, and Congress got involved by forcing the state legislatures to choose in a specific way. This ended up with deadlocked state legislatures and empty Senate seats - one empty for four years.
Instead of allowing natural consequences to fix the states, the federal took it upon itself to "right" the "wrong" of the states, and decided the states didn't really need to be represented anyway, so they decided to take the power away from the states.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's all out of context. By and large all those problems were due to new states working things out and very minor. The problems were way over blown. The goal was to take control of senators away from the state gummints. Why Gilligan doesn't know this is beyond me. Simple misunderstanding? If William Jennings Bryans and Randolph Hursts support for it doesn't drive the point home, the goal being national entities being able to get at and control them, nothing can.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No. It was absolutely the reason. This is not hard.