Turn Your Back This Fourth of July by eric • June 27, 2013 • 146 Comments
In a few days, we will all have an opportunity to peacefully inflict a major psychological blow on the rapidly coalescing police state by the simple but powerful act of refusing to play along with the absurd pantomime on the 4th of July that we live in an even nominally free country – one with the rule of law, an operative Constitution and respect for individual rights. One that isn’t a thugocracy.
We can turn our backs on the flag. Decline to participate when urged to cheer and sing. No fireworks. No barbeques.
We can sit down – and bow our heads.
We can mention the unmentionable: That there is no longer any meaningful limit to the power of the government over our lives. No line beyond which it may not tread. That it lies, spies and tyrannizes.
We can admit to ourselves the shoddy – and frightening – reality bubbling up all around us.
By so doing, we can shatter the illusion that this government operates with anything remotely approximating our consent. This is absolutely essential. The 4th of July pantomime requires that we deny the obvious – that we instead pretend we’re free people living in a free country; one in which the government is accountable to the people, one in which the government is limited by law. One in which people can’t simply be dragooned into prisons without due process, held incommunicado, tortured. A country with a president who doesn’t have kill lists – or use the instruments of state power to punish and intimidate his political opponents. One in which citizens must be suspected of a crime before their personal correspondence is filched through and recorded for later use against them. One in which a traveler is free from arbitrary and random searches of his person and effects. One in which the attorney general of the United States isn’t able to get away with providing guns to gangs or brazenly lie about his use of the power of his office to go after political “enemies” rather than pursue justice.
All these things are everyday realities. And the reality is that the America we once celebrated on the Fourth of July is gone, replaced by something dark and ominous.
It is painfully obvious – so why pretend otherwise?
More to the point, why should we celebrate this ugly transformation?
Mourning is what’s called for.
If we decline to play along – and we still have this option, for the moment – we can shatter the idea that all of the foregoing loathsomeness is done with our approval. We can redefine the relationship between ourselves and the government in an honest way. No more pretending we’re free. No more pretending we’re protected by the rule of law – and not ruled over by a thug caste – a mafia – that does literally whatever it wants, to anyone, at any time – without any real consequences whatsoever. None of this requires elaboration. Everyone knows it to be true. The Constitution is no longer even payed lip service to. It is a sick joke.
We are in the position of a battered spouse who is expected to rouge her bruises and tell her friends that – whoops! – she fell down the stairs. But hubby is a swell guy.
I say, to hell with that.
I say, let’s not give them the cover they still apparently crave. I say, let’s out them – by openly displaying our bruises and no longer denying how we got them. Let the world see the true nature of the relationship between us and those who rule us.
China had its Tiananmen Moment – when one brave man stood up to a column of tanks and changed history by the simple act of refusing to play along. By peacefully forcing the thugocracy’s hand. It faced a hard choice: Either it could either run that man down in full view of live TV, crush him under the treads of a T-72 and thereby give real-life and incontrovertible evidence of the true nature of the relationship of the Chinese government vis-a-vis the average Chinese. Or it could back down – and thereby be compelled to alter the relationship in a way at least somewhat more favorable to the average Chinese.
We have a similar opportunity coming up. A chance to confront the police state by refusing to pretend it’s not a police state. By coming to grips with what it is.
And what it is is nothing to celebrate.
I urge you to join me this July 4th in turning your back on the flag – on all grotesque homilies to a country that no longer exists, because of the government which does exist – and which desperately wants us to keep on playing patty cake and pretending that it doesn’t. http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/06/27/turn-your-back-this-fourth-of-july/
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations. - How is this?" -- From The Diaries of Rutherford B. Hayes, March 11, 1888.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer.
These are the words of an American tyrant that plunged the nation into a civil war killing 600k Americans. "The people" in the confederate states DID choose their government, Lincoln rejected the souths right to secede and their right to self governance. King Lincoln killed more Americans than King George.
These are the words of an American tyrant that plunged the nation into a civil war killing 600k Americans. "The people" in the confederate states DID choose their government, Lincoln rejected the souths right to secede and their right to self governance. King Lincoln killed more Americans than King George.
Cicero sides with State Sponsored Slavery... as a choice.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero sides with State Sponsored Slavery... as a choice.
Slavery was eliminated around the world peacefully, governments bought their freedom to correct the problem. They didn't plunge their nations into civil war. The war between the states had nothing to do with slavery, it was for centralizing power in Washington DC. But it sounds righteous when justifying hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
Slavery was eliminated around the world peacefully, governments bought their freedom to correct the problem. They didn't plunge their nations into civil war. The war between the states had nothing to do with slavery, it was for centralizing power in Washington DC. But it sounds righteous when justifying hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
Top Five Causes of the Civil War Leading up to Secession and the Civil War
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Of course, 5 paragraphs that detail the reasons for the war between the states.(it wasn't a civil war, the confederates were not trying to seize federal power). Wow! How simple.
So if the slaves states emancipated their slaves the union would have peacefully allowed the confederate state their legal right to secede? Why do I doubt that? Oh yeah, because Lincoln clearly said his intention was to keep the union together even if it meant by force.
The Civil War was fought because of competing views on the role and powers of the Federal government NOT to end slavery. Lincoln was very clear for the first 2 years of the war that PRESERVING THE UNION was his first priority and he even said that if he could end the war and preserve the union without ending slavery than he would do that.
Slavery was one of the symptoms -- did the Federal government (president, congress and/or courts) have the constitutional power to interfere with slavery.
But there were other issues -- the transcontinental railroad was one (don't forget that Lincoln made his fortune as a lawyer for northern railroads .. as did Stephen Douglas) and in 1860 the big question was where was the Federal government going to authorize the construction of the transcontinental railroad --- the south wanted the southern route (the shortest and arguably the easier to build) which would have connected New Orleans and Galveston with California .. the northern railroads wanted either the far norther route (through the Dakotas) or the middle route (which was the one built) both of which started in Chicago.
There were issues over tariffs -- the south wanted lower tariffs because most of its trade was with foreign countries and the north wanted higher tariffs.
Oh -- and as for the idea of boycotting 4th of July -- whatever makes you happy. Frankly, I prefer to celebrate on July 2nd which is the actual day that the Continental Congress voted to declare independence and August 2nd which is the day that the Declaration of Independence was actually signed.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
1) To begin with, we must acknowledge, that there WAS much serious discussion and debate of the idea of secession at many points in the first half of the 19th century, and not always initiated by Southerners. Note --"DEBATE" -- which is to say, there was certainly no simple agreement that such a right existed! So while those who dismiss the whole idea are mistaken, those who seem to take if for granted that the was some sort of an acknowledged right are also mistaken (and I believe, in the end much more seriously so).
2) The first question about secession as relates to the Civil War (and there are OTHERS --see points #3 & 4!) is NOT that of whether, under some circumstance or other secession may be legitimate, but whether, allowing that such a grounds might sometimes exist, the grounds on which the Confederate states actually DID secede was legitimate.
Looking at the actual circumstances and statements the Southern states made, I think the answer is 'No!'
In particular, note that this action was taken NOT as a direct response to some sort of abuse by the North, as is often implied. Rather, many in the South had threatened to secede IF the Presidential election ended up choosing a Republican (ANY Republican) as President. Note it had nothing to do with claims that someone "rigged" the elections nor, more importantly, was it because a Republican administration had taken ANY action at all against them (and specifically against slavery)... that government hadn't even been inaugurated yet!! Nor did the platform, or Lincoln, or anyone else I can find, ever declare any wish or intention to take such actions! The South did FEAR (thanks to a lot of fear-MONGERING by some of their leaders) that Republicans would, eventually, attempt to outlaw slavery. But, and this is important, the ACTION of secession (at least for the original seven states to secede) was based on not getting the results they wanted in a fair election that was completely Constitutional!
Here is where I believe one of the great arguments of Lincoln and others against this specific action (and not just against the abstract idea of a right to secede) is dead on. The threat of secession, not to mention its implementation, to try to force people to vote for or against a specific candidate (or bill for that matter) is what is undemocratic and contrary to the Constitution. The fact that the Southern states in fact did just so undercuts all their claims to be acting on Constitutionally recognized rights.
The other point that is important here is found in the specific formal statements the various Confederate states issued to explain and justify their actions. They make much of "states rights" and claim that the North has violated theirs. But in what respect? Again, they all specifically outline concerns about SLAVERY. . . . contrary to modern day Neo-Confederate claims.
Don't take my word for it. Read, for starters, the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States for South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reason…
3) I would suggest that the REAL argument for secession as the Confederacy carried it out would have to be on the basis of a "right of revolt", NOT on the ability to "revoke" their acceptance of the Constitution. In fact, many in the South did appeal to this, and compared their actions to those of the Revolutionary generation. Thus they appealed to the argument of the Declaration of Independence. Leaving aside the issue of whether they in fact had any similar basis (any similar 'train of abuses'), which I find highly doubtful (note again that they responded to a free ELECTION result, not to Republican policies or actions), we can at least admit such a right to revolution in extreme cases.
But in the case of REVOLUTION, who would argue that the one against whom the revolution is being attempted are somehow obligated to quietly sit back and allow it, rather than oppose it. So, even if the South HAD such a right, the Union ALSO had the right to fight its very dismemberment! Oddly, James Buchanan insisted that the South did NOT have the right to secede (here I agree), but ALSO that there was nothing the other states could legitimately do about it! Lincoln, needless to say, thought otherwise.
4) More specifically, whatever "right" the South was seeking to exercise, Lincoln himself argued that his very OATH OF OFFICE required him to oppose this breakup of the Union. So again, even if these states had a "right" and were truly exercising it in this case (not just using it as a smokescreen), that does not imply that the other side must sit still. In fact, it implies a DUTY to do otherwise!
In short, even if we conclude that the Southern states HAD a right to secede and or/revolt a) this does NOT imply they were properly exercising that right (esp. that of secession) b) this does not remove the right or even obligation of Lincoln and the Northern states to counter this action
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Oh -- and as for the idea of boycotting 4th of July -- whatever makes you happy. Frankly, I prefer to celebrate on July 2nd which is the actual day that the Continental Congress voted to declare independence and August 2nd which is the day that the Declaration of Independence was actually signed.
If modern day America celebrated the true meaning of Independence Day I would celebrate. But it has turned into a day to worship the state and military, and especially propaganda to support the troops involved in conflicts overseas. It's the celebration of imperial America and military adventurism, when the irony is, we are supposed to be celebrating our independence from British imperialism.
If modern day America celebrated the true meaning of Independence Day I would celebrate. But it has turned into a day to worship the state and military, and especially propaganda to support the troops involved in conflicts overseas. It's the celebration of imperial America and military adventurism, when the irony is, we are supposed to be celebrating our independence from British imperialism.
Cissy doesn't vote... he doesn't celebrate a National Holiday... and no one notices!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I do believe you've been researching this subject, and commend you for it. But do be aware that much of what you'll find--esp. more recently-- is the pro-secession argument. That's understandable given that that view did not prevail, so that those who advocate it feel much more need to present the case than those on the other side. (And those who do write against the idea tend to do so more in passing.) So do recognize that there is a great imbalance in the literature on the subject.
If you want a good, careful summary of the question of the right of secession, and esp. of Lincoln's arguments on this point from someone who concludes there is NOT such a right, but seeks to be fair, not dismissive, of contrary views, I highly recommend Daniel Farber's book *Lincoln's Constitution* (2003). This is one of the main points he discusses in the book. Unfortunately, I can't attempt to unpack his detailed discussion here.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Cissy doesn't vote... he doesn't celebrate a National Holiday... and no one notices!
I celebrate the secession from imperial Britain, I don't celebrate the parading of troops and worship of imperial America and blind patriotism. The intention of Independence Day was not saluting the Federal standing army(which was opposed by the founders) and imperial adventurism.
I celebrate the secession from imperial Britain, I don't celebrate the parading of troops and worship of imperial America and blind patriotism. The intention of Independence Day was not saluting the Federal standing army(which was opposed by the founders) and imperial adventurism.
These are the words of an American tyrant that plunged the nation into a civil war killing 600k Americans. "The people" in the confederate states DID choose their government, Lincoln rejected the souths right to secede and their right to self governance. King Lincoln killed more Americans than King George.
States that are prisoners of the Union, and have no right to free themselves from it, are actual slave states.
Lincoln freed the blacks and forced the states into slavery.
No use of force is justified to keep states against their will.
The civil war freedom fighters in the south used the wrong tactics.
The USSR was dissolved by a dock worker who sat down and refused to work.
Logged
