Monday, January 16, 2017

Correlation between the Civil War and the Convention of States Project

I am a nostalgic person.  I enjoy watching things that relate to our history.  This past weekend, I watched Gettysburg just to remind myself of the pain and suffering our country went through to truly be free and united.
As I watched this time, having been heavily involved in the Convention of States Project for two and a half years, certain precepts and principles became abundantly clear.  We are entering a conflict that is similar ideologically to the Civil War.  It became clear to me that there were two principles in conflict during that war.  First, the conflict of Federalism versus Anti-Federalism (the perspective of the Southern States), and Second, the right of all men to enjoy their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (the Northern States perspective).
At present, the Convention of States (COS) is working to perpetuate the position of the North, that is, that the Union should remain united with all men being free, while at the same time advocating the principles of state sovereignty espoused by the South.  The COS holds a position which allow the States to operate as sovereign entities with equal responsibility for their citizen’s rights to life, liberty, and property as declared inalienable by the Declaration of Independence, while allowing the Federal Government its responsibility for protecting the Nation from foreign subjugation and political influence, as well as dissolution of the Union by interstate rivalries.
As with the Civil War, there are two sides to this conflict.  Those who want to remain subjugated to the Federal Will and those who feel the burden of an overbearing Federal Government.  The dissimilarity comes from the fact that today, those who want one central government are largely those enslaved by indebtedness to a Federal Government that supports their lives, dictates their liberty and defines their happiness, while those supporting State’s rights are those seeking freedom from that overbearing Federal Government so that they can be free to choose their “lives, liberties and to pursue happiness by their own will.
This is where the old saying comes in, “they can’t see the forest for the trees”.  Those involved in national politics have come to feel that to do their duty, they must control more than the Constitution allows them to do.  They have become accustomed to maintaining their “careers” by perpetuating their control using the “carrot and stick” method of governance.  They first take money from all those who can pay taxes. Then they offer a federal program with funding attached “to improve the way of life at the local level”.  However, with that funding comes strings dictating how the program should be run putting the federal agencies in charge of the entity accepting the funding. 
In the name of “compassion” the Federal Government redistributes the wealth of the nation by taxing those that work and providing food, lodging, and many times, entertainment to those who don’t work.  An example of this is the “war on poverty” started by President Johnson.  When it was instituted, there were approximately 14% of the population that were considered below the poverty line in the United States.  The war on poverty was to decrease substantially the number of individuals that were below the poverty level.  Today, with the number of citizens in this country increased to over 300 million, the percentage of individuals living below the poverty line has remained virtually the same, around 14%.  To use a modern phrase, “How’s that working for us?” 
There are many other programs that have empowered the Federal Government while decreasing the responsibility and ability of the States to function as sovereigns over their own people.  COS is working to restore the balance between the State and Federal Governments.  By returning the responsibility and competition back to the states, each state will strive to do more for their citizens and attract more people to the state and increase their prosperity.  (As a side note, where there is no competition, there is no progress.)  States need to have control of their lands and resources to perpetuate their prosperity.  Any misuse of these commodities reduces the state’s ability to maintain their population.  People will migrate to those states where they have the best chance of prospering, (just look at the exodus from California to surrounding states and Texas).

Having a Convention of States wherein amendments will be proposed that will restore the balance between the State and Federal Governments is the only way to remedy this imbalance without civil unrest or Civil War.  My plea to all, is that we can open our eyes to the inevitability of such a conflict if we don’t use the remedy provided us by Article V of the Constitution and when 34 States have applied, call a Convention of States and propose the amendments equal to the task of restoring the required balance.