Revisionist Reinterpretation

Responding to msg by Jim choate, quoting another:

>> We might also add Shay's Rebellion, Bacon's 
>Rebellion, the Hudson
>> River Renters' Uprising, the Pullman Strike, the 
>Homestead Strike, the
>> Ludlow Massacre, the Lawrence Textile Strikes, etc., 
>etc.  Many of
>> these were full-scale insurrections.  This country's 
>"progress" is
>> really just a series of grudging concessions made by 
>authoritarian
>> power structures to various nearly catastrophic 
>crises.

I have a hard time comparing any of these histricaly 
important but comparatively minor events to the half a 
million dead of the Civil War or the 50,000+ dead of 
Vietnam. Perhaps you have extended the  analogy a 
little too far?...
..........................................................

I think he was talking about the Principle of the deal, Jim -  
about what this means regarding the relationship of the 
citizenry to the big G.
Put all of those insurrections together and what do they spell?

                 F _  _  _       _  _  F


Blanc

> 
> I think he was talking about the Principle of the deal, Jim -  
> about what this means regarding the relationship of the 
> citizenry to the big G.
> Put all of those insurrections together and what do they spell?
> 
>                  F _  _  _       _  _  F
> 
> 
> Blanc
>
The problem I have with this interpretationis that it overlooks, to me, a 
bigger point...

Mainly that these conflicts dealt with disagreements within the 'big G' 
and were not directly about the people - big G dichotomy that you refer to.

Personaly, I still feel that the people of this country are the true government
of this nation. We have representatives who are in a position where they
approach their office as a 'job' and not a sacred duty to every individual
they meet on the street every day. They see their oath to uphold the
Constitution as a minor point and not THE point.

Section 1401 and 1402 of the Crime Bill (aptly named since it is a crime) which
regard the seizure of private property for funding during a criminal
investigation. I go the Constitution and it says that if you take private 
property for public use you have to recompense the private owner. There is
no caveat dealing with whether it is a crime or not or whether it was used
in a crime. From my point of view if a 'official' takes your property and 
does not send you a check (you agreed a priori) for it then they have 
committed a crime that is in direct and clear violation of the Constitution.
All criminal seizure programs are clearly unconstitutional.

> 
> I think he was talking about the Principle of the deal, Jim -  
> about what this means regarding the relationship of the 
> citizenry to the big G.
> Put all of those insurrections together and what do they spell?
> 
>                  F _  _  _       _  _  F
> 
> 
> Blanc
> 
As to putting them all together, you do a diservice in my eyes. They did
not occur together and they certainly did not occur in the same social
milieu that the Civil War or the Vietnam War - Civil Disobedience did.
There were national events that effected every person. The events that
you refer to were local events that eventually effected every person
on a national scale. Slightly different animals.