The War for Southern Independence was about the rights of the individual states as the primary entity of government opposing a massive federal government dictating to the states. Before someone starts screaming, “What about slavery?!”… sure, that was an important factor, but that too was tied into the whole issue of state’s rights. What really drove the final nail in the coffin was the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913.
America was never intended to be one massive government with states being little more than administrative subcontractors for the federal government. It was intended to be a group – a confederation – of sovereign states. The support of “States Rights” has been a Southern theme for almost as long as there has been an America.
Many today will argue that senators should be elected by popular vote. I’ve stated several times here that I am no fan of the popular vote. People wrongly equate popular vote with freedom, when in fact, it has just the opposite effect. It is bad enough that our form of government has descended into something little better than mob rule. What makes it worse is that, thanks to the 17th Amendment, mob rule extends throughout the entire government from the White House to the town hall.
In a future post, I hope to present my own ideas on how a government should be set up – a mental exercise that everyone should go through at least once in their life. More importantly, I’ll also include why I believe it should be that way. Until then, this video goes into the amendment that should be repealed – the 17th Amendment.
Anytime I hear someone mention campaign finance reform, such as John Sidney McCain for example, I tell them, “repeal the 17th Amendment, you’ll get all the campaign finance reform you want”.
From thugs like McCain, you get the really mean stare.
Yes, there are a number of changes that could be made that would clean up politics. They will never happen – at least until God presses the “Reset” button on America – because there is too much money to be had. They are not going to willingly cut off the money.
“People wrongly equate popular vote with freedom, when in fact, it has just the opposite effect.”
With that one modest sentence you have not only made an accurate appraisal of the American Experiment in Democracy, but also made a statement that can be applied to other issues, such as foreign policy.
For instance, much was made of the kind of government a subdued Afghanistan should have, under the assumption that if it had the right mixture of modern equalitarian structures, combined with force of arms, “the people” would naturally follow. How contrary that is to “governments are instituted among men…”
I’m not sure what the rationale was for the 17th amendment, but the early 20th century was certainly a time of consolidation of state power. No surprise then that such a thing would have been established at this time [1913]. Before this epoch — and certainly before Lincoln’s reign — the unscrupulous power-grabber politician was far less of a threat to the liberties of the people, simply because he had no outlet for his desires at the national level.
Mark – thanks for adding your insight. I hadn’t made the connection to foreign policy until reading your comments.
The arrogance that we have here in America is just amazing; our insistence on other nations following American-style “democracy” (which it isn’t) and universal suffrage is a classic example of it. The slogan “Live Free or Die” takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to international relations. We tell the world, “you will submit to American-style government or be bombed into submission.” We insist that Third-world illiterate peasants be given the power to vote, knowing that they will be easily swayed by those who promise to take from the productive and give to the non-productive. The results are the same as they are here – creeping socialism and the suicide of a nation.