taking it back

 One hundred and sixty-three years ago today confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter beginning the civil war. It wasn't unexpected as tensions had been building. The Democratic party was in shambles at that time, divided mostly on the issue of slavery. Today we hear it was about states' rights. That is what the Democrats would have history record as the cause, but that isn't the true cause at all. No, it was the holding of slaves that divided that party. The only rights some were concerned with was the right to own another human being! They all agreed that they should be able to do that, it was just the acquisition, trading, sale and treatment of those individuals was that being questioned. Their position was that each state had a right to decide upon that. The argument centering around the fact that the constitution doesn't say they can't, so that means they can. The same argument being used today in many cases. The Democrats were concerned with rights, their rights, not the rights of slaves or republicans! The southern states had in fact violated the rights of other states on a regular basis. It wasn't about rights; it was about property.

 The southern states seceded after Lincoln won the election. There reasoning was that they had agreed to the ratification of the constitution in 1789 and could therefore rescind that approval as well. They figured they could just take it back. A common tactic still employed today. The southern aristocrats and politicians were concerned with the abolishment of slavery. Interesting to note is that Lincoln never said he was going to do that. Lincoln was anti-slavery no doubt about that, he called the practice immoral, and he worked to abolish it altogether, but his official stance was to simply prevent the spread of slavery to other states. He knew the outright abolishment of slavery would lead to civil war. He felt that slavery, as an institution would collapse on its' own. We will never know because the southern states decided to start that civil war. 

 Today the Democrats are working diligently to remove rights granted by the constitution. They are using the same logic they have always used, if it doesn't say I can't, that means I can. Now as for the things that it says I can do, that I have a guaranteed right to, they have an explanation for that as well. I only had that right guaranteed to me two hundred and thirty-four years ago, they don't count today! The Democrats simply want to take that part back, write something new. Same thing they tried to do in 1860. States rights? No, it is about individual rights in the democrat's playbook. In the beginning of the democratic party, what was called Democratic-Republicans, they believed the constitution was to be strictly adhered too. Government must only do what the constitution allows. Unless the constitution specifically gave that power to the Congress, congress can do nothing. The Federalists on the other hand felt quite differently. The big argument was, as it still is, about money and the economy. The Federalists believed the economy should be based in trade and merchants where the Democratic-Republicans favored an agricultural society. It was the wealthy vs the middle class. It still is. 

 Slavery was central to agriculture at that time. We all know that. Machinery was just starting to replace laborers. I believe Lincoln was correct that slavery would be abolished at some point, once the profitability had been removed. We are seeing that today with Kiosks replacing workers. When it is no longer profitable for the retailer to hire a cashier, the cashier is no longer needed. Funny how today it is the Democrats that are insisting upon supporting those that contribute the least to the economy. What they are really trying to support is their control over a population, just as they did in 1860. Some ideologies never change all that much. It has been said that the parties flip-flopped. 

 Well, the Democrats certainly did. Now always wanting to give a new meaning to the constitution, rewrite it, and trample on the rights guaranteed in that document. Control is slipping away, and they are getting desperate. It happens when those you wish to control get freedom. All you can do at that point is convince those that are free that they can't make it on their own. That and bring in as many supporters as you can by whatever means necessary. Yeah, they aren't slaves exactly, but they can be controlled with promises. They will accept dependence for the promise of something better. It is the same playbook, just with different rules. We'll rewrite whatever rules get in the way! We'll say it is for the children, that always gets people worked up. The method of control isn't as important as having that control. It's about what I want. I will trample everyone else underfoot to get my way. The only rights to be concerned about are my rights! Guaranteed rights? Only for as long as I decide that guarantee applies. I can always take it back. Yeah, I know, I promised, but that was yesterday.