The American Spectator

Mary| 5.18.09 @ 7:08AM

Way to go, good Governor. Way to go!

Godspeed!

Richard Baker| 5.18.09 @ 7:36AM

Great sentiments. The question is whether or not the American citizenry has gotten tired of being free. Freedom is SUCH hard work. Too many of our citizens want the sugar tit, instead. Remember what Dr. Franklin said about Liberty and security. Trading the former for the latter and you will soon find that you have neither.

Nick| 5.18.09 @ 7:50AM

I would say Govenor Sanford is definitely in the top five for 2012. He should be running the RNC right now.

Reading his words made me think of a commercial the GOP should be running now.

1) A grandmother comes up to her granddaughter and says, "Little Suzy, where is your piggy bank?" Grandma smashes it and takes the cash. Then she tells a tearful Suzy, "Sorry honey, me and grandpa like going out to eat too much." Then grandpa says to little Joey, "Wheres your jar of pennies?" An announcer says, "You wouldn't steal from your grandchildren. Tell Obama to quit stealing from our grandchildren."

John Galt| 5.18.09 @ 7:56AM

"Liberty is the very last idea that seems to occur to anybody, in considering any political or social proposal. It is only necessary for anybody for any reason to allege any evidence of any evil in any human practice, for people instantly to suggest that the practice should be suppressed by the police." -G.K. Chesterton

blackelkspeaks| 5.18.09 @ 9:05AM

I'm sorry, but the good Governor undermines and confuses his advocacy for liberty with the "de riguer" comments concerning Rosa Parks, Abraham Lincoln, and the "plight" of the black man, yada, yada, yada. In fact, Rosa Parks was an NAACP plant who staged the bus affair with the ACLU in tow. This ploy was used by leftists to good effect earlier in the Scopes "Monkey Trial" and later in the "Jane Doe" Row vs. Wade case, staged events all, orchestrated by leftist attorneys to tear apart freedom at its root. If the governor wants to align himself with the forces of liberty, then he should stop conflating efforts by true patriots (such as earlier generations of his own South Carolinians) to secure same by using the BS arguments of the leftists who destroy liberty at every opportunity. In this generation, it is pretty obvious to any thinking person that the outcome of the "Civil Rights Movement" has led to all manner of oppression, rather than liberty and justice for all. We need to stop this nonsense now. Better to use the American Revolution and its participants who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as a guide than BO and his minions.

John Knox| 5.18.09 @ 10:37AM

Good article. I appreciate what I have seen of Governors Sanford & Perry. That said, I would have to agree with 'blackelkspeaks' that Gov. Sanford undermines his arguments by appealing to Abraham Lincoln of all people. (The fact that the Governor of South Carolina should appeal to the 1st American dictator is distressing in & of itself.)

Abraham Lincoln, while having a number of intriguing characteristics, was no friend if liberty or the Constitution of these United States. He is, rather, the chief exemplar of one who allows his ends to justify his means. 650,000 dead Americans, the utter devastation of SC, and the fact that there are still Yankee canon & musket balls in the South Carolinian Capitol Building should be testimony to that fact.

As conservatives consider which historical figures to appeal to as we seek to salvage our Federal Union, let us seek those who truly stood on the ideals of Madison, Jefferson, & co, not those who-- like 'Honest' Abe-- trod the Constitution underfoot, unleashed the dogs of war upon Americans who stood upon their Constitutional rights, slaughtered 100s of thousands of their countrymen, suspended the US Constitution (in order to 'save it'...), and looked the other way as madmen like Grant & Sherman raped, murdered, starved, and laid waste to the entire South.

Please, let us consider true men of character-- Washington, Madison, Jefferson Davis, RE Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Ronald Reagan-- not scalawags who would allow their noble ends to justify means. Never forget that it is the road to hell that is paved with good intentions, but that honorable defeat (and even death) in defense of liberty and right is where true virtue of found.

Jon in S.C.| 5.18.09 @ 10:46AM

Good show governer.... Glad we have you watching over S.C.

Jon in S.C.| 5.18.09 @ 10:55AM

John Knox, you sir know your history.... You are 100% correct that Mr. Lincoln was not necessarily a lover of Liberty, Freedom and the Constitution.... he in fact abused the hell out of it...and in it was his terms that started the big time gov't growth....that got involved in way too many private projects, heavy handed law enforcement....

In fact I would be money that if you drew up a document with the acts of Lincoln, Sherman, Grant, Sheridan and others.... Without giving their names...just the deeds, that many people would say these men are guilty of War Crimes.

Excellent observations... Glad to know that there are those out there who know the Real History and not that written solely by the victor.

Old Texican| 5.18.09 @ 11:22AM

Hi John Knox

You are absolutely correct...and dead wrong at the same time.
When the Southern Slaveowners confused "States Rights" with racial slavery, they were tarred irrevocably.
My vertical family tree has never held slaves. My Great grandfather put it very simply. "A slave's chain has TWO shackles: on one end for the slave, the other for the owner."

Our Declaration of Independence stated: "All men are created equal...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Somehow, our founders did a "double think", and many of our southern forebears could not get past it. Had they been able to do so, the war would not have happened.
That is called "being on the wrong side of history."

We must lay aside old grudges now.

We have to be about being on the right side of history. The "north" is collapsing like a house of cards in these days.
"the slavery" we have to be against is the slavers being the various government entities and regulators crushing freedom one step at a time, what ever our color or creed.
Best regards

Michael Tomlinson| 5.18.09 @ 11:40AM

In the last week thanks to BO's inflation we've learned our home owners insurance, auto insurance and utility bills will be going up 30%, 10% and 10% (not to mention the increasing cost of food and gas). That's just the start of ever skyrocketing costs for just living in a country with Barack Obama and Democrats in control of the Federal government. (Note with the election of BO we have also begun a period of wage stagnation for working Americans.)

Republicans need to focus on these simple realities for ordinary Americans and talk about them and how things were better under the GOP and will be better again with Republicans back in the saddle reigning in out of control spending (in three months Obama made the last 8 years look parsimonious), higher taxes and a higher cost of living by implementing free market principles and kicking corrupt union bosses out of the decision making process.

John II| 5.18.09 @ 12:04PM

Toddard? Where are you?

Donaldoc| 5.18.09 @ 12:27PM

To Blackelkspeaks and John Knox, the reality is that the Civil War was destined to happen when the Founding Fathers failed to address the issue of slavery during the first constitutional convention.

In fact, they postponed discussion for 20 years so they could get the votes of the southern states, then never raised the issue again. This ensured the beginning of this great nation, and also a traumatic cataclysm in the future as more and more people came to believe that slavery was a terrible stain on our nation, and an affront to the concept of freedom and liberty so eloquently spelled out in our Declaration of Independence.

I believe all reasonable people can agree that slavery was inherently wrong and morally indefensible. That this nation fought a terrible war to eliminate slavery was a tragedy of immense proportions, and while it may be convenient to review Lincoln's actions through today's lens, I cannot question the outcome which was the beginning of a long and slow process to parity between races.

I don't presume that we've achieved that parity - many government programs since have created a cult of victimhood for minorities and others who don't understand what liberty means, but I will never doubt that ending slavery was necessary and good.

John II| 5.18.09 @ 1:53PM

Toddard? . . . . TODDARD!!!

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 2:00PM

I find that a lot of conservatives are "rediscovering" their conservative principles, now that doing so will help obstruct a Democratic administration. So I take most such rallying calls with a grain of salt. The Tea Parties being a case in point – where were these “conservatives” when the neoconservatives were plunging us deeper into debt to the tune of nine TRILLIONS of dollars? Did they object then, when it counted, at the ballot box? Sanford is usually on-point with this sort of thing though, at least as far as his rhetoric goes, and I agree with him here wholeheartedly - that's the entire point of demanding the government be held accountable under the law when they violate it - "to halt the relentless drive of government to encroach on our liberty". An objective which most of you seem to oppose, unless of course the government being halted is headed by a Democrat.

As for blackelkspeaks, I don't believe Lincoln "preserved the Union" (the one he left behind was radically different than the one he swore to serve), and he did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves, but I understand what Sanford is trying to do with that and the Rosa Parks reference. Trying to make the GOP more palatable to traditional or knee-jerk Democrats. It never works, and I wouldn't have used that language either. I think it's all beside the point ultimately, which is that yes Americans should be trying to halt gov't encroachment on their Liberty - and the best way to start is to expose gov't lawbreaking and hold those lawbreakers accountable, especially with regards to torture and the illegal domestic spying program. For, categorically, one cannot simultaneously claim it's our duty to halt gov't encroachment on our Liberties while also refusing to hold gov't accountable for their encroachment on our Liberties.

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 2:10PM

"Toddard? . . . . TODDARD!!!"

Haha. I hadn't seen that when I posted. I more or less pasted the response from the other thread.

Also, you never really answered any of my questions regarding how a conservative who cites the French Revolution as the beginning of a downward slide can support the un-conservative Neo-Jacobins who now control the GOP.

John Knox| 5.18.09 @ 3:26PM

Hello all,

By way of clarifying my earlier comments, it was not my intent to deny that racism & slavery were awful, horrible problems that were, as some have rightly observed, was "America's original sin." However, the war was not fought either to preserve slavery or to eliminate it.

The North originally fought simply to disallow the South's secession-- not out of some high-minded allegiance to the Union or to liberty for slaves. And the South didn't secede in order to preserve slavery or to deny rights to millions of enslaved people. It is, rather, much more nuanced than that. If I may explain (in brief):

THE NORTH: The (small, fringe) minority in the North agitating for war was a group of radical abolitionists. They welcomed the war (& in part precipitated it, cf. Jn Brown) & agitated throughout for Lincoln to 'change the subject' & make it about slavery. This he did (in 1863) out of mere political expediency in order to keep Victoria's & Napoleon III's gov'ts from recognizing the South. The majority of Northerners fought to preserve the Union either b/c they actually viewed the war as a 'Civil War' (i.e., an internal war within one 'state'-- and these were largely immigrants) OR b/c they knew where their bread was buttered. (Never forget that as of the census of 1860 the VAST majority of the taxes raised by the US Gov 't came from the far wealthier South... and was overwhelmingly used to benefit the North.)

THE SOUTH: The (small, powerful) minority had seen the handwriting on the wall as far back as the Alien & Sedition Acts of the Jn Adams Administration (1798, opposed by nullification by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson via 'the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions') and the 'Tariff of Abominations' of the JQ Adams Administration (opposed by JC Calhoun in the Nullification Controversy of 1830-31). What handwriting? That the Federal system & the states' sovereignty was being steadily eroded by an ever more powerful Federal gov't-- a gov't that took from one class of Americans in order to buy votes & benefit another group. (Sound familiar?) This Southern minority looked for 30 years for what one might call a 'pocketbook issue' to get the Southern majority to support a general secession of the South. They tried it with taxes, territories, fugitive slave laws, etc... but it wasn't until Lincoln's election that the least savory 'pocketbook issue'-- abolition/slavery & fears by poor whites that emancipated slaves would become their social equals-- was lighted upon.

THE POINT: The war wasn’t about slavery, per se. The Southern majority had no slaves & were fighting to protect their homes (which were being burned & sacked by Yankees) & states (which they viewed as their native countries—US citizenship wasn't created until the 14th Amendment was imposed). Many in the Southern minority (wrongly) feared social equivalence with emancipated slaves, whom they looked down on. The Southern minority (which wanted secession for 30 years) & who owned the slaves were fighting for states’ rights & the Constitution. (Also remember that the War was truly the 'War Between the States', not a 'Civil War,' as until the 14th Amendment there was no such thing--legally speaking-- as an American State. By definition, each state reserved-- & reserves-- the right to secede. Once they did, it was a war between two separate political entities.)

The Northern majority couldn’t care less about blacks (indeed, most Yankees were as racist or more so than Southerners: to wit, Grant owned slaves & Lincoln never freed the White House slaves until late in the war).

Three last, & brief, points:
1) Lincoln was a political pragmatist who trampled on the US Constitution.
2) The sad association of States’ Rights with racism came about as a result of the Civil Rights era.
3) You who claim to be ‘Conservatives’ and yet idolize Lincoln are idolizing the Obama of that era—a political pragmatist who had no use for the US Constitution except insofar as it can be used as a cover to advance his personal & partisan aggrandizement. No one who stands on the foundation laid by the Founders could slaughter 650,000 Americans, suspend the Constitution, establish military tribunals & military governments over Americans, or arrest elected state legislators & US congressmen who disagreed with him. (Lincoln did all these things.) It is only b/c Lincoln set this precedent that Obama can now nationalize/socialize our auto industries & banks, take our guns, shake down industry, & attempt to seize 15% of the US economy by shoving a socialist medical system down our throats.

If you can justify Lincoln’s actions by the words of the Constitution or the Founders (e.g., the Federalist Papers), then Obama can justify 100% tax rates & socialize every industry in America. You cannot have it both ways. Either both Lincoln & Obama are right to do whatsoever they desire, or both are wrong.

My main point: The ends DO NOT justify the means-- even when the ends are enlightened. And why? B/c if I abuse the Constitution to advance ends you & I both agree are enlightened, what's to prevent the next generation from abusing the Constitution to advance their, iniquitous, ends? Answer: nothing.

Lincoln abused the Constitution for what he thought of as enlightened ends. Liberals in 1973 did the same to legalize abortion. Obama does it today to socialize America.

Forgive the length of my post.

Shalom, y'all.

Jim Fraser| 5.18.09 @ 3:29PM

Governor Sanford makes good points in his articles. The Republicans need to get back to limited Gov't and fiscal responsibility. President Bush did not live by these things and it cost the Republicans dearly in two elections.

I believe a Republican who can demonstrate limited Gov't and fiscal responsibility history would unseat Obama in 2012.

blackelkspeaks| 5.18.09 @ 3:49PM

To: John Knox

I agree with your lengthy exposition concerning the War Between The States, Lincoln's role in that conflict, and the subsequent growth of Leviathan government launched by his policies. It seems to me that the only way to stop this juggernaut (if, indeed, it can be stopped) is to demand a return to strict adherence to the Constitution, including the dismantling of the Federal beast and the reinstitution of State's Rights. And it may take Civil War Version 2.0 to accomplish this.

Old Texican| 5.18.09 @ 5:51PM

Thanks, John Knox
...for your clarifications. I must say, I never pictured Lincoln as a radical until your original comments here.
I have always viewed our "American experiment" as a sort of evolving thing, and having attended Baylor U....my grasp of US history if fairly solid, I think.
Your clarification post pretty much outlines my grasp of that history...more or less (smile).
For instance:

I tend to forgive FDR for his "socialist tendencies" because of his foresight (lend-lease and US build-up), and execution during WWII.

In 20-20 hindsight, (smile), I can see him struggle with "providing a US safety-net " (Social Security), vs. outright communism in our country as the western world was in the HUGE transition from an agrarian economy of subsistence farms to the full blown industrial age.
Here in Texas, my dad grew up in the "horse and buggy" age. His parents were genuine pioneers in the forest, hacking out a farm from the primeval forests of east Texas.
My grandfather never did learn how to drive a car.
Heh! "The damned thing dsoesn't have the SENSE to stay out of the ditch."
Thankfully, my grandmom got it!

Heh! At 86 years of age she climbed on her first airplane to go see a sick son. Everyone in our family was astounded...except me. I took her to the airport.
You know, John, I never have winced at paying Social Security taxes for the old folks, and the disabled folks. I can even enjoy paying taxes for Medicaid, even though I could wish it were more carefully administered.
Medicare? What a mess! So much paperwork instead of caring...care.
National health care scares the dickens out of me. Under that, we are all enslaved. Living and dying becomes a bureaucratic calculation.

Freedom of expression is important to me. Obama's crowd wants to kill me for that.

Freedom to fail or succeed is important to me.
Obama's crowd wants to strip that away.

Most of the world still kills people and EATS them. Obama's crowd want's to bow to them as if they were civilized.

I have lived a significant portion of my adult life outside this fragile bubble known as "America".

I UNDERSTAND that most of the world's people owe ANY of their freedom and liberty...to us.

John, I look around the earth and wonder.

Now, we have a government, (executive, congressional, and soon judicial), that wants to reduce us to the "average".
To Hell with that!
You and I MUST say NO!
Best regards

John II| 5.18.09 @ 5:52PM

Toddard. Whew. I thought you had disappeared into the ether searching for this new list of postings.

First things first. Regarding 1979, I need to apologize for suggesting that I could recall nothing special about that year, but I should have known better on the general principle that something momentous happens EVERY year. John Wayne died in 1979. There: I stand corrected.

Aren't you happier here, among so many like-minded State's Rights folks? And, for the time being, it's a hell of a lot easier to access.

Now where were we? Oh yes, the French Revolution. Let me rephrase your inquiry as a direct question, which I hope is more revealing of the problem with the question: How can a conservative who cites the French Revolution as the beginning of a downward slide support the un-conservative Neo-Jacobins who now control the GOP?

Well, apart from the fact that you're posing a complex question (I mean, what logicians call a "complex question": a question-begging assertion disguised as a question--e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife lately?), I say, apart from the illogic of the question as framed, I have no idea who controls the GOP--but, given the witlessness of the GOP's intermittent behavior (the Stupid Party, as against the Evil Party, in a Heritage wag's formulation), my moral imagination suggests to me that, whoever may be pulling the strings in the GOP, they can't plausibly be described as "Neo-Jacobins." The Jacobins were murderous fanatics, not clueless babbitts.

Besides, I intended only to use the French Revolution as the most obvious wrong turn in western sociopolitical and cultural history, among many unhappy lurches. The Protestant Reformation, which antedates the French Revolution by two and a half centuries, was of deeper baleful consequence, and the Reformation itself was in huge part, though not at all entirely, the consequence of corrupt and incompetent Church stewardship.

I am indeed "conservative" generally in Kirk's sense, but I don't like being called "a conservative" for the same reason I don't like the term "conservatism"---it all smacks of ideology, the very antithesis of what Kirk called "the conservative mind."

I shall be happy to answer any questions properly framed. I don't respond to snooker-questions.

Snooker-questions: I think I just made up a new term of rhetoric. Glad to see that you found your way into a more recent round of more appealing postings. I thought you'd lost your way.

Old Texican| 5.18.09 @ 6:08PM

Hi JohnII
I hope you will do me the honor of reading my most recent comment aove.

I am a big fan of our most recent "Constitution" (including amendments).
I sorta' think each amendment is pretty well thought out.
Let's all call for a "Constitutional Convention" and look at the issues one by one. I believe true Americans can hammer out the right course...unless of course the Jihadists bomb it and kill our best and brightest.
Best regards

Marc Jeric| 5.18.09 @ 7:09PM

In my youth I was exposed to marxist indoctrination; there the words repeated ad nauseam are very important, just as they were for the Nazis. For example, our commies in the MSM used to call Reagan nasty names, day in and day out; they called him uneducated, primitive, simplistic, stupid, or at best an amiable dunce. And Reagan understood the tactics - do not accept the language of the enemy: for example, when a far-left reporter asked him a question about the Nicaragua contras (that was the communist name for their enemies), Reagan responded: "Do you mean the Nicaragua freedom fighters?". Also all our commies refer to the largest economic expansion in the world history following the Reagan tax cuts, with 28 years of growth in employment, wide-spread personal wealth growth, 25 million new jobs, and the doubling of income tax receipts - as the failure of tax cuts, widening between the rich and poor, failure of trickle-down economics, and tremendous deficits. We are forgetting how O'Neil would walk out on the Capitol steps carrying the Reagan budgets proclaiming them "dead on arrival". Thus today our commies talk about "Bush recession" - but it started exactly one year after our commies took power in Congress in January 2007. Let us not lose the battle of the dictionary!

Jane Hall| 5.18.09 @ 7:22PM

This is excellent! I'm passing this on. You are so right, Mark Sanford. You keep this up! You have convictions and backbone. VERY refreshing! YES! Jane Hall, North Carolina

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 7:37PM

First, to John Knox: Huzzah! I'm a life long New Englander but agree with most of what you've said vis a vis the WBTS. I only mention being a New Englander so people will understand I did not come to my position through any regional loyalty. I believed, for a long time, the mythology of the Great Emancipator.

"It seems to me that the only way to stop this juggernaut (if, indeed, it can be stopped) is to demand a return to strict adherence to the Constitution, including the dismantling of the Federal beast and the reinstitution of State's Rights."

I couldn't agree more. But we need to repeal, reverse, and correct the transgressions of both Liberals and Neoconservatives, and hold them accountable under the law for such.

Cygnet| 5.18.09 @ 7:44PM

I appreciate the Governor's "government vs. liberty" delineation. It will help us all focus on the positive implications of a conservative future.

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 7:50PM

"I shall be happy to answer any questions properly framed. I don't respond to snooker-questions."

I withdraw the question. Thanks for your time.

Nick| 5.18.09 @ 7:58PM

Mr. Knox,

I also agree with most of your clarification on TWBS. Lincoln didn't abide by the constitution.

I disagree on secession though. How does a state have the right to secede when the Articles of Confederation begin: "Articles of Confederation and [PERPETUAL]l Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia." ?

The rest of the states were formed out of U.S. terrritory. How can people who formed a PERPETUAL UNION, secede?

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 9:05PM

"The rest of the states were formed out of U.S. terrritory. How can people who formed a PERPETUAL UNION, secede?"

Because the Articles of Confederation are no longer binding law as they were superseded by the Constitution. As the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to regulate secession, that power is, per the 10th Amendment, relegated to the States.

The WBTS was not a "Civil War", technically - it was a war between sovereign nations.

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 9:09PM

The following is not relevant law either, but it does sum-up certain ideas the Founders believed "self evident":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

S.L. Toddard| 5.18.09 @ 9:17PM

Nick, I'd like to recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's work over at Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html

Scroll to the bottom and work your way up. You might start with "Secession and Liberty". I found his work particularly elucidating regarding secession, Lincoln etc.

John II| 5.18.09 @ 11:28PM

Toddard. You're in great form! See how important it is to mull over things among the like-minded? I'll send you my bill shortly, demanding more of same.

And I'm not at all surprised by your brief response to my logic quibble. I took you for a gentleman from the first, probably because of my advanced years. We old bastards are given a certain wisdom but, like Cassandra, we are given no one to take us seriously. One point, though: I think the sentiments expressed in abundance on this string of responses is not nearly as romantic as I would have thought them to be 20 years ago. The screwball-nerd advances in technology, which we have no reason to suppose won't continue, are products of the urban culture--and may very well make possible a return to cottage industries and gracious rural subsistence. Wouldn't mind that at all for my grandkids, so long as they remain tutored in the maintenance of fuel cells and cold fusion while they're growing vegetables adapted to various climates and pitching in now and then for Big Projects like space exploration. Meanwhile, I expect them to tend their own kids and mull over Aristotle and Aquinas with all that leisure time. The agrarian disposition may be rescued yet by the most unlikely of social developments. In other words, don't be so damn hard on Lincoln--for his own reasons, he may have been serving forces that needed another two centuries to materialize as beneficial. Slavery was gravely evil; willy-nilly, he helped put a stop to it.

Old Texican: I have long done you the honor of reading your posts, although I would express it differently. In fact, I've merely responded with proper awe to your wisdom, reduced to lip-reading. This country is loaded with Americanos like yourself, Old Texican; there are flashes of that spirit even in GOP functionaries and lefty activists (the kind that eventually convert, of course). But most don't have their heads screwed on tight enough to put it all into words as eloquent as yours. My mother was from Texas. Nice people.

Terry Morris| 5.19.09 @ 9:14AM

"Perpetual Union?"

The idea of perpetual union is a form of slavery in itself--slavery to a dead generation. Now, others may be so, but speaking for myself I'm not particularly inclined to be enslaved by anyone, dead or living. Must it be said that Voluntary Union implies the right to secession; that anything other than voluntary union is ... slavery?

To the individual critical of the TEA rallies and those who organized and attended (and will continue to organize and attend) them:

I think you need to internalize our founding documents, particularly the Declaration of Independence (memorizing it is a good start in that direction), which states:

... and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves...

Read the sentences which immediately precede and follow that statement.

Nick| 5.19.09 @ 9:26AM

Terry Morris,

So the Founding Fathers enslaved themselves while at the same time fighting tyranny? Is that your argument?

Old Texican| 5.19.09 @ 11:12AM

Hi Nick
I think (hope) Terry was saying that we need to muddle along...when muddleable, (smile), rather than tearing down the whole edifice with the attendant mess.

You Know, guys, I have read a number of fictional "alternate histories" by some pretty bright authors with some pretty good credentials.

Conversely, I cannot recall where I read the phrase: "heaven rescued land"...but I do believe that phrase. I think of those several occasions across our history where it was a "flip of the coin" whether a free America could sustain our unique presence on the earth.....or not.
I view those "coin tosses" as Divine interventions.
That being the case, I have to think "America e pluribus Unum" still has a mission, (from God), and an opportunity to muddle through and accomplish it.

Bill| 5.19.09 @ 12:16PM

"The Southern majority had no slaves & were fighting to protect their homes..."

Right. That's exactly why they were fighting all those years BEFORE Sherman brought the concept of total war to the South. I can accept that the majority of Southerners weren't fighting for slavery, but they weren't fighting because those evil Yankees were burning their homes to the ground.

Or was Sherman's march through the South really not such a big deal? Last time I checked, he wrought unholy hell, but maybe that was just par for the course...yeah, sure.

John| 5.19.09 @ 1:28PM

It certainly is ironic the Gov. Sanford would use both Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln as examples in his discussions of Liberty and Freedom. As seen, here in Lincoln’s speech given in Charleston, SC on September 18, 1858, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Obviously, Abraham Lincoln, would have been the first one to tell Ms. Parks that she had to give up her seat. Be that as it may, just last week I took my son to the Museum at Gettysburg. As you enter the museum, the first display is about slavery and how it was the cause of the Civil War. My son had plenty of questions. I tried to explain to him that the Civil War was actually about State Rights and that Mr. Lincoln was using slavery as a catalyst to polarize the nation and ultimately keep the Union (United States) intact. For the record, I consider all forms of slavery, to include taxation for the purpose of Redistribution or Repricing, and reverse discrimination to all be deplorable. The next display contained South Carolina’s Declaration of Independence, dated two years after Lincoln’s aforementioned speech, December 24, 1860. I then read to my son: “The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; … We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.” I asked my son, how could South Carolina resume being an independent nation state, if they hadn’t been one to begin with? I then moved my finger down the page and stopped pointing out the name of his Great, Great, Great Grandfather. I think Gov. Sanford should study the history of his heros and his state a little more closely. He would have more credit and could probably have my vote in 2012 if he stuck to Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson as examples of pioneers of Liberty, Freedom and a small controllable Government.

Sara| 5.19.09 @ 3:03PM

There is a culture of freedom that evolved around the constitutional freedom our land was founded upon. However, Leftists have worked dillegently since the 70's to cleanse that culture.

We no longer have a constitution because courts have decided it does not mean what it says rather it means what they want it to mean. If we had a constiution, it would be impossible for socialists to take over whole industires and aspects of our personal lives like they do.

Al Kelly| 5.19.09 @ 3:25PM

Freedom, Liberty, Absolutely!

Derek Douglas| 5.19.09 @ 5:06PM

Too bad the leaders of the GOP don't believe this anymore. We need guys like Sanford, Paul and Flake to take the leadership of the party, and they will win elections. Running the party on a "Democrat-Lite" platform won't get them anywhere.

John Knox| 5.19.09 @ 5:06PM

Aristotle once made this observation:

"Republics decline into Democracies; Democracies degenerate into Despotisms."

The federal Republic established in Philadelphia in 1789 long since declined into a democracy; & the Federal Union into an American State with 50 provinces. We are now watching the degeneration of that sad democracy (demagogcracy?) into the despotism long feared & envisioned by those who long ago began to ring the bell of danger.

How to reestablish the Federal Union I cannot tell.

-JK.

James Antley Jr.| 5.19.09 @ 9:46PM

As a South Carolinian, I appreciate our Governor very much. He gets A grades from us conservatives along with our one very-decent Senator, Mr. DeMint. I am proud of both of them, while Gramnesty can go straight to hell (don't pass through Atlanta, don't collect 200 dollars).

It took some guts for Mr. Sanford to refuse the bailout money, especially when we have commercials on TV whining "call the Governor's office and complain that we want our share of the money, wahhhhh!" (I wish that organization had the guts to put their own phone number on the screen - I'm good on my minutes this month.).

However, Governor, I think the last part of your article, regarding Rosa Parks and Abe Lincoln, was indeed superfluous You don't need to pander - maybe all politicians can't help this, but it brings you down to an A-.

Mr. Knox, nice job at trying to straighten out the clueless on Southern history. Your May 18th @ 3:26 P post was very well written!

James Antley Jr.| 5.19.09 @ 9:57PM

"That's exactly why they were fighting all those years BEFORE Sherman brought the concept of total war to the South. I can accept that the majority of Southerners weren't fighting for slavery, but they weren't fighting because those evil Yankees were burning their homes to the ground."

Uhhhh, let's see, Bill, that might have had a lot to do with the fact that the Yankees could not get down here for 4 years or so, due to the Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee. They can't burn down your house, if you stop the invasion, right?*

* Just like, they can't drive drunk with no fear of deportation and kill your kids if you stop the invasion (different country, different time).

G.B.| 5.20.09 @ 11:24AM

Re: "heaven rescued land"

Yyou are probably remembering the last verse of our national anthem (verse 4, sometimes given as verse 3 when the original #3 is omitted) :

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Old Texican| 5.20.09 @ 2:59PM

Damn, GB, Thank you!
I get misty eyed every time I read that verse.

Old Texican has gone "viral" across the internet. OK.
I can't find a way to take back one thought. Heh! I am in deep poo poo...again.
Best regards

Richard Baker| 5.20.09 @ 11:00PM

To John Knox:
Considering the circumstances Lincoln faced and the extraordinary crisis that occurred upon his election, exactly what would you have done to Preserve the Union? So many who denigrate Lincoln prove that hindsight IS 20-20. While I'm a Virginian, I recognize that his effort was to save that which Washington, Jefferson, and "Light- Horse" Harry Lee, Robert E. Lee's Father, struggled to create. If he could have Preserved the Union any other way then he'd have done it. The modern day whining about his actions show those complainers to be beneath the the Founders or in a polite way, not fit to carry their bridles.

Dave Lincoln| 5.21.09 @ 8:15PM

Richard B: What makes you assume that the union needed saving? Back in those days, if you remember, a man's state of residence was much more of his Nation than the united states was.

John Knox| 5.23.09 @ 6:38PM

Richard,

Four points for your consideration:

1) Lincoln had no authority to do what he did. It didn't take 20-20 hindsight to see that. The Democratic Party of the day saw clearly that he was in error. Pres. James Buchanan refused to stop the Southern secession-- not b/c he was a coward-- but b/c there was NOTHING ILLEGAL with the recourse that the Southern states took.

2) As DL says above, why do you assume that the Union needed preserving? Why is a political association of independent & sovereign states (such as our Union) worth 'preserving' at the cost of its destruction? Lincoln destroyed the American Union just as certainly as Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic-- and for the same purported rationale: to preserve it against 'internal enemies' who would have brought about its destruction. But I ask you: why would you 'preserve the Union' at the cost of destroying it? What good is a bastardized Constitution or a debased system of gov't? And why would you sacrifice so many 100s of thousands Americans for such a goal?

3) Lincoln DID NOT save that which Geo Washington et al established, any more than Adolph Hitler 'saved' the German Empire of Wilhelm I & Otto von Bismarck. Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Madison, etc staked their sacred honour upon a vision & goal that Lincoln in his Machiavellian machinations prostituted for his own sectional & partisan ends.

4) Your arrogance in your attitude toward those with whom you disagree is a sad reflection upon the State of your citizenship. Virginia is a land of heroes & patriots, not sycophants & lick-spittle water carriers for those on both the wrong side of history & of the culture wars. If your ancestors fought under the Stars & Bars or Gen Beauregard's Battle Flag, they surely regret their progeny.

-JK.

Richard Baker| 5.25.09 @ 7:17PM

I believe the Union needed saving when Edmund Ruffin fired the first shot at Ft. Sumter. Or did you miss that? Is it arrogance to note that the Union to be saved from dissolution was dissolving? Or did you miss that? Since some of you seem to be engaged in an attempt to use modern knowledge to judge the actions of others living in 1861, I'll ask, again, what would you have done with Lincoln's information? Remember, there is no manual on how to deal with Civil War. And to John Knox: I heard that using insults instead of thought showed a tired mind. I just didn't know that yours was so tired and so quickly.

Dave Lincoln| 5.25.09 @ 7:40PM

" Is it arrogance to note that the Union to be saved from dissolution was dissolving? "

Say what? Did you miss the question, Richard? I wrote (and Mr. Knox elaborated on): "What makes you assume that the union needed saving?"

Maybe you interpreted that sentence as saying that it was not dissolving. That's not what I meant anyway. I meant, if a state has a good reason for wanting to get out of this union (for example, the federal government no longer stays bound in their powers by the Constitution that all states agreed to) they have every right to. The contract has been completely violated by one party. That party does not have a right to force the violated party back into the union via arms.

Even if there is no be grievance, I believe if the it is not worth it to be part of the US, a state has every right to get out. Say, it's like a no-fault divorce, only S. Carolina again won't be asking for alimony or child support (the "children" can remain with the fed like the sheep they are.)

Go Republic of Texas!

Dave Lincoln| 5.25.09 @ 8:01PM

oops: Wow, not even drinking, haha

"Even if there is not grievance, I believe if it is not worth it ...."

Richard Baker| 5.26.09 @ 3:19PM

Do you folks understand the dictionary definition of the word Union? You also don't know much about the founding construction of the country and WHY the Founding Fathers created this system in the first place. When you understand the above, do try and speak of the United States and not some, seeming, hypothetical country. Clever and obtuse reveals your lack of understanding of the History of this country. This is why so many Americans don't understand who we are a nation in history. A mile wide and an inch deep.

Richard Baker| 5.26.09 @ 3:21PM

Correction:
This is why so many Americans don't understand who we are as a nation in history.

Dave Lincoln| 5.26.09 @ 8:22PM

Richard, In that whole paragraph (1st post, not the correction) you never did relay to us your understanding of the founding fathers purpose in forming the Union over the original Confederation. I assume that's because you don't know anything about it.

Many of the 13 states were very hesitate to join any organization that included anything but a weak federal government, as they had already. The reasons for the union, and the Constitution were mainly a common defense, common money, no tariffs between states, and that sort of thing.

The Bill of Rights was specifically added to limit the power of the federal government, and the Union would not have been formed without it; not enough of the states would have signed on.

Once, the federal government works outside the limits set by the Bill of Rights, I see no reason for any state to feel that have to remain in that obamanation of a country. This is what you don't seem to understand at all. I said, think of it as a divorce, without lawyers, but with the guns and money.

Richard Baker| 5.27.09 @ 9:32PM

To Dave Lincoln:
Still don't understand the meaning of the word union, do you? Do you know what fasces are? Remember, they were once on the dime. Do you know what they symbolize? The weak collection of states abandoned the Articles of Confederation because what you had were 13 individual sovereign nations. The Constitution bound the states together in a tighter bond for strength in a very hostile world. Therefore, that is the reason forthe analogy of the fasces. Do very much understand the reason for their actions. Why does any team work better together than as a group of individuals? It is self-evident.
Did you consider secession when Carter was President? After all he screwed up the Country more than has Obama. Be honest ,now.

Dave Lincoln| 5.28.09 @ 6:06PM

Richard, why can't you understand the idea of dissolving of a contract? (Again, think divorce and maybe a light bulb (the newer, greener ones, of course) may light up in your head). The Constitution created a federal government mostly for the reason you said, a common defense. The signer states put in Amend 9 and 10 to make it very clear what the limits of this government would be. Did you ever read this document? (US Constitution - google it - you won't be sorry).

Our federal government has no business running education of our children (or ruining will suffice to), dictating speed limits, car gasoline mileage, substance illegality and a million other things.

"Why does any team work better together than as a group of individuals? It is self-evident." Tell that to the Ukraine, buddy. How about India? How about America? Wasn't it self-evident that as a team with the biggest empire in the world, we should have taken one up the wazoo for said team? Better than a group of independent, rebellious individuals called "rowdy colonists", right?

BTW, the stuff going down now is pure socialism. Jimmy was an idiot, sure enough (actually, still is), but what he did was kid stuff, and Reagan came in in time to clean up somewhat. We may not have a chance to go back from socialism without war, but I think secession beats and all-out civil war.

BTW, I include Reagan when I say every president of the US has lied when taking the oath of office since probably Herbert Hoover (not sure, as my family didn't have a TV back then, so I missed that one). Not a one has made the effort required to uphold the constitution.

Nope, I don't know what "fasces" are. Put em back on the dime - anything to get the socialist Roosevelt's picture off it would be a nice gesture.

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:09AM

are located in all major cities such Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
as Shanghai, New York, etc, you may travel to these cities and get one for yourself.

mimi| 12.15.09 @ 12:49AM

cheap watches

mimi| 12.16.09 @ 12:52AM

good

mimi| 12.16.09 @ 12:53AM

cheap watches

Crimping Tool| 2.1.10 @ 3:06AM

Manufacture Hydraulic Tools, offer from hydraulic crimping tool, cable cutter, pipe bender, gear puller, hole digger and hand pumps.