Pause for thought

[MajGenl.Meade]

This, from Forever Free, the story of Emancipation and Reconstruction by Eric Foner:

The Bill of Rights had linked civil liberties and the autonomy of the states. Its language - "Congress shall make no law" - reflected the belief that concentrated power represented a threat to freedom. The three Reconstruction amendments assumed that individual rights required political power to enforce them. They not only authorized the federal government to override state actions that deprived citizens of equality, but each ended with a clause empowering Congress to "enforce" the amendment with "appropriate legislation". Thus began the process - which continues to this day - by which the states have, little by little, been required to abide by the protections of civil liberties inscribed in the Bill of Rights. The Reconstruction amendments transformed the Constitution from a document concerned primarily with federal-state relations and the rights of property into a vehicle through which members of vulnerable minorities could stake a claim to substantive freedom and seek protection against misconduct by all levels of government.

I recommend this book for several reasons. One, is that the period of Congressional Reconstruction in the South came so close to genuine achievement in the cauldron of race relations and the multi-ethnic society AND transformed the North - yet it is so little understood or studied. If all we get is the "Free State of Jones" summary, we do a disservice to the blacks who liberated themselves and to the awful lesson that should be learned from political cowardice and venality.

Second, history is today. This (the post war failure of true "freedom") is how we got here. This is how Black Lives Matter. This may even be something that further study will bring me to new perspectives on many matters. It supersedes Hillary/Trump, even though many will see the Clinton team as more closely aligned to proper objectives. I don't think they really are but....

That quote above is something that resonates. Just as Lincoln (and events) changed the meaning of the "United States of America", so too the Reconstruction amendments both contributed to that change and altered the relation of the Constitution to the country (and vice versa).

[Gob]

Any car chases in it? Helicopter explosions?

[Lord Jim]

Sex scenes?

[Gob]

Home brewing advice?

[Guinevere]

While I do not disagree that the fallout from Reconstruction set the stage for where we we today, I think your underlying theory is incorrect. First of all, the Bill of Rights was added to support individual rights that certain founders did not think were sufficiently fleshed out in the articles. Second, as the "secession cases" make clear, Lincoln's vision of the United States was the correct and constitutional view - even if it had not been fully articulated yet.

And if this matters to you, how could you possibly not vote for the Democratic ticket. The Republicans have shown over and over again that what matters to them is continuing to keep power, control, and wealth in the hands of the upper class white male.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks, Guin. Yes, I think the author understands that the Bill of Rights was added to support individual rights etc. just as you say. His point is that it was assumed the rights enumerated would be enforced in individual states (with an independent Supreme court as final arbiter) and that the biggest (presumed) threat to individual rights was the prospect of a strong, even overbearing, central government.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/f ... of-rights/

Clearly, the states were concerned not to limit their own powers (as if!) but that of the federal government (bolded). Foner's point is that this thinking dominated any consideration of Constitution and Rights until Reconstruction - enforcement of these Rights was a matter for the each state, not the Federal government.

The Reconstruction Amendments changed that way of thinking - exactly as Lincoln's ideas changed the way we think of the United States (and of course he was right). It was a matter of federal thinking vs. the confederation notion - and the secession crisis and resolution brought that debate (practically) to an end.

How can I not vote Democrat? Because in my view, the dems have gone overboard as much as has the Republican party. The defeat of radical Republicanism in the mid-late 1870s has condemned the party (both parties) to reverse their historic origins. The Democrats, a stout organ of race hatred and privilege, somehow become champions of liberty? The Republicans, founded in anti-slavery (expansion) fury, produced the greatest Amendments of all offering true freedom, have become champions of status years-aquo?

I think the strength of support for both Trump and Sanders indicate that large sections of the country are utterly fed up with business as usual. Either one of these (so the thinking goes?) will be a rock cast into stagnant waters. Of course, we know what happens to rocks.

I'm now encouraged to re-think my own views on the Constitution and the meaning of the Reconstruction amendments. This is not easy for me! Water the plant - don't pee on it. Unless it's a peonme.

But I'm not sure that joining the Clinton gravy train (oh yes it is) is the answer, any more than would be a vote for Trump. There is not, in my view, any "lesser" of two evils here.