Aren't you confusing NAM with the Bay of Pigs when it comes to Ike & JFK? I didn't think there was a whole lot of mystery with the Viet Nam situation.WOW!
Got some documentation for your OxyContinized brainfart above skippy??????
IKE got the USA into NAM after the French pulled out!
IKE did it secretly and covertly with few knowing anything about it!
JFK was first told about it when he went to the White House!
JFK was shocked at this revelation of the USA being in NAM!
This is what REAL History books taught for years.
What bullcrap book did you get your revsions from???....
Thomas Jefferson
- Thread starter GlennQuagmire
- Start date
He's forced to argue against the U.S. Constitution because he denies the OP's quote by TJ on the basis of his slave-ownership which may have been sanctioned by the Constitution at the time, in the interim period during which that issue was unresolved.
It's plainly both.
Correct. It claimed implicit authority to govern based on the argument advanced in the Declaration of Independence. Namely that the sovereign had lost the authority to govern due by violating unalienable rights. Therefore, in the absence of a proper government, it fell to the local population to formulate a new government, which they did.
Nevertheless that's the argument that was advanced and it's the legal lawful basis of the United States and the source from which all constitutional authority since has flowed.
I agree with you that it flowed through the State legislatures to the Continental Congress, but that's really not material to the point that the authority originated in the claim that the sovereign had lost it.
In 1775 they were still hoping that the violations of their unalienable rights could be rectified within the context of British rule. By 1776 they had concluded that was not possible and they drafted the Declaration of Independence.
What was different about the northern fishing colonies was that they had a longer history of independence from Britain within the commonwealth. They'd been there since the earliest days, having been initially set up as among the very first permanent European settlements in North America to dry fish for shipment back to Europe. Britain lacked an ample source of salt and so British fishmen plying the Grand Banks had to sun dry their fish in racks on land. Spain, by contrast, had lots of salt, and so their fishermen were able to salt their fish in barrels and did not need to make land fall nor set up colonies. Britain had to set up colonies in order to dry the fish prior to shipment back to Europe and as that could only be done on land they set up colonies early early on to do that.
As the earliest settlements they had to fend for themselves and gained a strong and independent culture early on. Further south there was a much more dependent, integrated relationship with Britain. The consequence is that when Britain came along and tried to impose chartered monopolies and associated taxes on the New World the Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders were able to say "no", and they made "no" stick. They got an act passed in the British Parliament exempting them from monopolies and taxes on the grounds that they'd been independent from Britain for long enough that they didn't need them.
Thus the resentment that grew in the American colonies over the monopolies and the taxes just didn't happen in what became the Canadian maritime provinces--they simply had less to resent and therefore saw no reason to revolt against British rule.
In any case we're off topic--the topic of the day is the authority of the Americans to throw off British Rule, set up State and Continental legislatures, and rule on their own. That authority derived from their claim that unalienable rights had been violated--it's an implicit claim, not an explicit claim, as it's based on universal self-evident truths and not written law.
I'm not arguing against the U.S. Constitution. I'm simply pointing out the fact that no constitution, the US one, or any other, can deprive people of unalienable rights, and that any government which does so commits a war crime, and can be prosecuted, such as was done at Nuremberg, or that government can be violently overthrown, such as was done in 1776 in the Americas.
Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group and millions in millitary equipment without a vote in Congress.WOW!
Got some documentation for your OxyContinized brainfart above skippy??????
IKE got the USA into NAM after the French pulled out!
IKE did it secretly and covertly with few knowing anything about it!
JFK was first told about it when he went to the White House!
JFK was shocked at this revelation of the USA being in NAM!
This is what REAL History books taught for years.
What bullcrap book did you get your revsions from???....
He was warmaking without a Constitutional declaration of war.
LOL!
Don't go going JAJAesque on us marky and try obfuscating your way out with your smoke & mirrors!
Point is IKE got us into NAM secretly and covertly NOT the DEMS!....
Of course Henry Kssinger is considered by some counties to be a war criminal for his activities during the Vietnam war(in Laos, cambodia as well as Vietnam). And let us not forget that the "gulf of Tonkin attack" was a phoney and used as the justification for a war that caused the lives of 50,000+ Americans . Had the US "won" the war, I have no doubt that the leadership of North Vienam would be called war criminals and executed in the style of Saddam Hussein and his cabinet.
You are ignoring the zeitgeist of the time. Despite whatever hypocritical event in the Parliament you are referencing(was this during the English rape of India??) slavery was accepted during Jefferson's period. It is clear that the founding fathers did nothing to outlaw slavery(or provide the vote to non landowners or women). That is just how the times were and it is a blot on our history. The Catholic church did nothing to prevent slavery and was actually complicit in the (almost) extermination of the heathens we now call native Americans. Similar to their attitude towards the Nazis. Should we spit on the steps of cathedrals(... I pause to consider the answer)
I agree that some of the tactics used in Vietnam are highly questionable, but that doesn't alter my answer to markvee. From an ethical perspective it's possible that SOME war needed to be fought there, and could have been fought in a law abiding way, and might have required conscripts to fight. That the leaders were wrong about needing to fight the war is not criminal--you're allowed to be wrong. That they actually fought it in a sometimes criminal way does not alter the ethical point about conscripts.
From a pragmatic perspective plainly we lack the time machine necessary to go back and prosecute those responsible for such crimes in the past.
From a historians perspective in understanding how and why things happened plainly it's best to analyze events in the context of the zeitgeist of their time.
But when a historical figure is brought forward into a modern debate and his or her statements used to justify a position we should take today then it's appropriate to bring modern current analysis to bear, and appropriate to ask whether there is anything that a slave owner can add to a modern discussion on freedom.
Certainly logical arguments remain logical arguments and a case that was made back then might still hold up under present analysis, but it needs to be looked at whether it still holds up, and it can't be accepted simply on the authority of someone who by modern standards is a reprehensible individual.
So really whether you consider the zeitgeist of the time depends on your purpose: For historical analysis sure, but not in the context of a modern political debate meant to inform policy today.
