John Fielding

John Fielding 2 days, 18 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

And that is the greatest aspect of our national government, the protection of the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

0

John Fielding 2 days, 19 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

The question of a states right to secede had to be decided someday. The threat, quite credible, had been made by South Carolina a generation earlier. It was not acted upon because President Andrew Jackson made an even more convincing response to it that he would crush it with Federal troops.

States rights against Federal overreach are protected under the constitution by their ability to convene a constitutional convention without the consent of the Feds. Any amendments passed therein and ratified by the prescribed majority of states become the new supreme law of the land without the consent of the federal government, and are applicable to all states whether they like it or not, subject to enforcement by Federal force.

It could include an amendment allowing states to secede without consent of the other states or the Feds, but that is improbable. More likely, the other states would decide to protect the rights of (a minority) citizens of the seceding state from being forced to lose their United States citizenship.

0

John Fielding 2 days, 19 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

I identify Joe's composition as revisionist because it minimizes or dismisses some indisputable historic facts (that the issue of slavery was a major factor leading to secession) while giving tremendous significance to other facts that do not carry that weight easily (that there were regionally based disputes over taxation and other economic issues), while maintaining that the publicly stated and widely supported goals (preserving the Union, arresting the spread of slavery) were mere cover for concealed malignant motives (destroying states rights and liberty to support special interests).

That fits one of the the definitions below quite completely.

"Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record". (Wikipdia)

The other clue is the vehement, vituperative quality of the rhetoric, typical of a writer with an agenda to promote regardless of evidence to the contrary. The tone is bitter to the point of being hateful. That alone calls all claims made into question.

0

John Fielding 3 days ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

Funny Scott should refer to a "right wing", my view of the article is that it supports left wing criticisms of America as a corrupt capitalist racist empire, our misdeeds of the past never to be mitigated by our (theoretical?) commitment to advancing human dignity and self determination. Once again the fringes meet in the middle, in their condemnation of Federal overreach. Sadly, they are both right in that regard, governmental power has grown exponentially every generation, just as the founders warned it would, despite efforts from concerned citizens in all generations to resist it.

0

John Fielding 3 days, 1 hour ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

Ken, The first of those questions has two parts, each of which requires a different answer.

First ,while it seems evident that Lincoln had significant moral opposition to slavery from many of his speeches and private letters, he recognized that under the Constitution it was not illegal. His public opposition to it mainly encompassed political ramifications, recognizing that allowing it to spread and protecting the "property rights" of slaveholders, including their right to bring their slaves into free territories and even into free states could only result in the nation eventually becoming all slave states, that the prohibition of slavery by the various free states would be found unconstitutional. eg "A House Divided".If he, like so many others in free states did not want the institution in their midst when they could benefit financially by embracing it then it seems the opposition must have had a moral aspect. So to the first part my answer is no, that assertion is not accurate, but that his moral opposition was not his policy position.

To the second part of the first question: He did not fight the war exclusively for the benefit of the slaves, but ultimately his intent became a determination to eliminate the institution, and recognized that would be a benefit to the slaves. The war was fought for the benefit of the nation as a whole, again referring to the "House Divided", recognizing that the nation must eventually be either all slave or all free. His intent was not so clear at the beginning of the war, some compromise that contained slavery and recognized the rights of states and territories to permanently prohibit it could possibly have been effected, again leaving the issue to the next generation. So to that question is my answer is that in its very narrow construction, it is not historically accurate, especially by the end of the war an objective was to benefit the slaves.

To the second question, one has to agree on a definition of "war". In the general usage, of course it was war, and not declared by congress. But in the legal definition, which Lincoln used, as was his prerogative, it was a defense against attacks on Federal institutions by rebellious citizens. That was, as Scott pointed out, his intent. The issue is examined is great detail, (and in a manner not particularly sympathetic to Lincoln's position), in Lincoln: The Decision for War, by Russell McClintock. So the answer is yes, factually correct in a general sense but not a legal one.

It really is not a subject that can be greatly simplified without significant distortion.

0

John Fielding 3 days, 5 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

This is a very interesting composition, as neat a piece of revisionist history as one could wish for, perfectly adapted to its purpose of exposing the American experiment as a ruse of capitalist imperialists, the liberation and empowerment of the common man merely a means of providing a more easily exploited proletariat.

Joe is to be commended for the fortitude to attack so formidable an icon as Lincoln. The misguided but widely held notion that he intended the nation be freed from the curse of slavery can now be seen for what it really was, a necessary measure to impoverish the South.

It is also interesting that the Pilot chose to feature this so prominently. Was it in the interest of giving free speech a platform, telling both sides of the story? Is there an element of the mea culpa, sins of the father here? Was it just to create controversy, increase reader hits on the forum? Can we please have a nice piece denying the holocaust, exposing it as all a capitalist plot to manufacture arms and bandages?

Anyone who is familiar with American history knows the story of the Civil War began long before the secession of the South, that the expansion of slavery into western states, even those which it had previously been agreed would remain free, was the most profound influence in the formation of Lincolns position. But revisionist history does not seek to influence the well informed.

Sadly, the publication of this piece will result in some people believing it, further polarizing this nation, much like the portrayal of LBJ as opposed to civil rights in the recent movie "Selma" will be regarded by the easily misled masses as having finally dared to expose the truth.

0

John Fielding 3 days, 13 hours ago on Book Review: 'Secret Six' for those fascinated with the Revolutionary War

We have not forgotten to ask how they want to be governed, we hold it to be a self evident truth that they too will want the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's god entitle them, with security in the rights they were endowed by their Creator.

They are being deprived of their lives and liberty by ISIS, pursuit of happiness is only a dream.

0

John Fielding 3 days, 23 hours ago on As rental market tightens, Steamboat's defunct hotels become affordable workforce housing

So, is there a lodging tax being charged for the rentals at the Alpiner?

I know of many transient construction workers who have stayed at the Western, paying their monthly rate, who have paid the lodging tax. IMO they should be exempted from it. Maybe it has been construed as a weekly rate available to those who stay 4 weeks or some such accounting device, pay 2 1/2 weeks get another 1 1/2 free. Apparently going over that 30 day term triggers a different level of regulation.

(According to the DMV, you may not reside in Colorado longer than 30 days before you have to obtain a CO drivers license. Stay a month and you are a citizen of this state, subject to fines for failure to register properly.)

Affordable housing can be a motel, especially in the off seasons. Lets be sure we don't impose the lodging tax on guest workers.

0