Quantcast

Ted Nugent, the Civil War, and the GOP’s Anti-Constitutional Fantasies

ProudProgressive 2012/07/09 13:53:52

Ted Nugent, the Civil War, and the GOP’s Anti-Constitutional Fantasies
By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson
July 9th, 2012

More and more it seems the Republican position can be put down to this: the South should have won the Civil War. We would be better off. Or that we should have round 2 since the results of round 1 so disappointed white bigots. We’ve got Confederate History Month in Virginia celebrating the sacrifices of white Southern soldiers while ignoring the sacrifices of the one-third of Virginians who were slaves. We’ve got all that “appeal to Second Amendment rights” talk, we’ve got Tentherism and states acting like the U.S. Constitution had never replaced the Articles of Confederation.

The Tenth Amendment Center makes this clear:

A tenther can be a communist, a liberal, a conservative, a social conservative, or a libertarian. A tenther simply embraces the idea that everyone shouldn’t live under the same political authority. This allows different political positions to exist under the banner of tentherism, as long as each ideological position adheres to the idea that political authority is limited to a small geographic area within the larger society.

Gosh, the only problem, Mr. Tenther, is that the U.S. Constitution, ratified by each state, puts all states under the same political authority of the Federal government it establishes. That doesn’t seem too complicated to me.

But, apparently, it is, at least for conservatives, who care more about some mythical America that never existed than the America we’ve got. We have states acting like the South had won the Civil War, not lost it. And we’ve got conservatives openly saying the South should have won. That’s what Ted Nugent thinks as well, surprising nobody in his July 5 op-ed in the Washington Times. Railing against Justice Roberts’ “traitor vote” he said:

Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead.

Some conservatives say slavery would have eventually died out on its own but there is no evidence that this was happening in the mid-1800s. There is no way of knowing that it would have happened if the war had not been fought. After all, one of slavery’s biggest defenders was the bloc of conservative Southern Christians waving Bibles around and we still have those today who claim biblical slavery is permissible. Slavery will always have its defenders. There is a reason human trafficking has become such a scourage.

What is going on in the Republican mind that the party of Lincoln thinks we’d all be better off if Lincoln had lost? Of course, we’ve got Ron Paul trashing Lincoln back in 2010, Ron Paul the guy who likes to run for President of the United States on a Republican ticket.

The ultimate enemy has become, as it once was, the Federal government. Nugent has coined his own term for them: Fedzillacrats. He claims a swollen federal government proves that “Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead” but ignores the fears of some for those same founders of the excesses of democracy, that local legislatures could be as tyrannical as distant kings.

The U.S. Constitution was not designed as “limited government” – it replaced limited government – the Articles of Confederation. It gave more power to the federal government for a simple reason – it was needed. Even in the 18th century it was seen that that Articles of Confederation were entirely inadequate. What did not work in the 18th century is certainly not going to work today, with each state functioning as a quasi-independent nation with its own immigration and trade policies, making its own treaties and raising its own private armies. We would no longer be states united by a common purpose. If that would have been the idea we would never had had our national motto: Out of many, one.

What Ted Nugent is actually suggesting is setting fire to the words of the Founding Fathers, shredding the Constitution and making a mockery of their labors. But cherry-picked history has long been a favorite of Republicans and Nugent is certainly in keeping with Bartonism – the re-writing events of the past to make them more congenial to your purposes today.

Sure, some rich white folks might be just as happy the South had won – our first black president would be a servant in the White House rather than its occupant – and folks who got uppity notions, including women, could be slapped down and then some.

But the Constitution isn’t only about rich white folks, as Abraham Lincoln recognized. It’s about all folks. All Americans. In all fifty states. And for the vast majority of Americans, a Southern victory would have been a disaster of unimaginable horror and hardship

Because nobody wants to live in a place where the draft-dodging pedophile Ted Nugents of the world can back up their crazy tirades with a 10mm.

Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/ted-nugent-civil-war-g...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Samantha 2012/07/09 14:08:11
    Samantha
    +4
    Ted Nugent proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the very negative impact of heavy illegal drug use.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jackolantyrn356 2012/07/10 01:36:49
    jackolantyrn356
    When you have read the text you will realize the Democrats want to trade the CivilWar atrocities they participated in to the Republicans who sent their White Boys out in Blue Uniforms of Wool on a Summer's day to fight the Confederates and free the millions of Slaves the Democrats held.
  • Zombie Saddam 2012/07/09 15:32:28
    Zombie Saddam
    Neo-Confederates: "You know, I think the Union Victory, the ensuing peace and prosperity, the national unity it brought, the new American power it consolidated, the world wars it won, the moon it got too and the lone super power is established just isn't good enough"
    Confederates sore losers
  • bob 2012/07/09 15:29:05
    bob
    yep go figure
  • R. 2012/07/09 14:37:48
    R.
    " Sure, some rich white folks might be just as happy the South had won – our first black president would be a servant in the White House rather than its occupant..."
    He IS as much white as he is black. How long before you " race DENIERS "
    ( hows that for a new word and it comes from the OTHER side ) and white guilted,
    bleeding hearts recognize this FACT ? Despite where he may or may not have
    been born, who is daddy is or what his religious affiliation may be , the person
    that carried him for nine months and then delivered him, was WHITE. If you
    cannot do the math, you're probably just an average DENIER. Those who
    can do the math but simply CHOOSE to refer to him as the first " black "
    president , you are regarded ( in your own little circles ) as enlightened.
    Those who realize this fact and accept it, you are racist. Wouldn't it be
    more politically correct to call him the first " non-white " president and then
    he could be sold across state and national lines . He could then be the
    WORLD'S favorite community organizer. COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS
  • Schläue~© 2012/07/09 14:23:52
    Schläue~©
    Bottom line..... Lincoln wanted a War, got one and trampled the Constitution by doing so.

    The triangle of trade was already being broken by Europeans abolishing slavery.
    Most of Europe was putting an end to the 800+ year practice that began with the Ivory Coast slave trade by their own people.

    Had Lincoln cooled his jets, the USA would have followed suit and we would have been leaps & bounds beyond where we're at today.
    He knew full well that there would be more than just a few hard feelings after 1/2 million brothers, fathers, and uncles fought against each other and lost their lives.

    What an EPIC mistake.
  • JCD aka... Schläue~© 2012/07/09 16:05:20
    JCD aka "biz"
    +1
    Why don't you buy yourself a history book?

    The slave trade was abolished in the US in 1808.

    Just one example.
  • Schläue~© JCD aka... 2012/07/09 16:23:36
    Schläue~©
    On paper? Oh..... that makes all the difference in the world.

    READ - LISTEN - LEARN

    http://www.sylvianediouf.com/...
  • JCD aka... Schläue~© 2012/07/09 16:36:06
    JCD aka "biz"
    +1
    Market prices for slaves skyrocketed after 1808, one reason was the abolition of the slave trade .
    And the huge market value of slaves in the South made it impossible to hope for gradual, peaceful disappearance of slavery.
    When the Emperor of Brasil abolished slavery decades later, he was overthrown by the rich and powerful coffee farmers.
  • Schläue~© JCD aka... 2012/07/09 16:49:27
    Schläue~©
    Great, and all that has nothing to do with Europe breaking the triangle.

    If the people who have been buying the goods no longer support the means in which they are obtained, they stop purchasing, boycott and the market disintegrates.
    Lincoln chose not to allow that to happen on its own.
  • Cliff 2012/07/09 14:22:20
    Cliff
    +1
    If a liberal ever said anything intelligent, would anybody listen?
  • Samantha 2012/07/09 14:08:11
    Samantha
    +4
    Ted Nugent proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the very negative impact of heavy illegal drug use.
  • Schläue~© Samantha 2012/07/09 14:15:47
    Schläue~©
    +3
    Nugent is, and always has been drug-free...... you're ASSuming again.
  • Guru_T_... Schläue~© 2012/07/09 15:03:04
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +3
    If you actually believe that, I've got some swamp property and a couple of bridges that I'd like to sell you.
  • Schläue~© Guru_T_... 2012/07/09 15:07:32
    Schläue~©
    Cool.... I can farm & harvest crayfish and open a few govt. subsidized Librul housing units.
    Sounds like a boon.
  • Guru_T_... Schläue~© 2012/07/09 16:22:39
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +3
    The problem is that the only people who would ever be stupid enough to take advantage of your deal would be other ignorant conservatives like yourself.
  • Samantha Guru_T_... 2012/07/09 18:51:45
    Samantha
    +1
    Can you believe how conservatives give someone like Nugent a pass?
  • Guru_T_... Samantha 2012/07/10 12:01:54
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Sadly, yes, I can. I see various versions of Ted running around every day and each one is just as hateful and ignorant useless as the next.
  • Samantha Schläue~© 2012/07/09 18:51:09
    Samantha
    +1
    If Nugent wasn't a racist with a gun, you'd be denouncing him.
  • Lady Wh... Samantha 2012/07/09 14:49:25
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    agreed
  • Reichstolz 2012/07/09 13:59:38
    Reichstolz
    +1
    "Republican position can be put down to this: the South should have won the Civil War."- how conveniently the progressives forget, without the republicans we would still have slavery, thanks to the democrats.
  • ProudPr... Reichstolz 2012/07/09 14:05:28
    ProudProgressive
    +3
    Still haven't gotten it, I see. In the 1860s it was the Republicans who WERE the Progressives. Lincoln was (with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson) the greatest Progressive this nation has ever known. The CURRENT Republicans surely would love to see the results of the Civil War reversed so that they wouldn't have to deal with the fact that black people have rights, and it is the CURRENT Republicans who are trying to rewrite our history books to pretend that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery in the first place.
  • Reichstolz ProudPr... 2012/07/09 14:06:38
    Reichstolz
    +1
    You paint with a broad ignorant brush, but I expected as much from you.
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/09 15:07:42
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +2
    And we expected you to try to re-write history to fit your right-wing propaganda. Thanks for not letting us down. You're a real hoot.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/09 15:40:02
    Reichstolz
    So republicans weren't responsible for fighting the civil war to end slavery? I guess your view of Lincoln's actions must be different than what history has explained. Go figure, a liberal who doesn't know history, who woulda thunk it. Is that the reason you progressives want to repeat all the failed societal constructs of the past?
    Thank you for providing another fine example of your inability to articulate a point.
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/09 16:24:10 (edited)
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    No, they weren't actually. It took the entire nation to knock down the South. If you ever once in your life bothered to crack a history book, you'd already know that.. Mr. Inarticulate. I really am starting to think that you;re as stupid as you sound.
  • Samantha Guru_T_... 2012/07/09 18:53:10
    Samantha
    +1
    In other discussions, he's exhibited an appalling lack of knowledge about American history.
  • Guru_T_... Samantha 2012/07/10 12:04:51
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Just as he's doing in this one.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/10 03:06:11
    Reichstolz
    So it wasn't Lincoln who drove this nation to war? Really. please tell me all that signed that declaration then. I have no question about your lack of knowledge and acceptance of facts.
    Also to the inarticulate blocking coward, you don't like to be shown all you don't know, good job you fit the perfect fodder for the dependency party.
    down arrow
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/10 12:04:29
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    No, don't you ever read a real history book? What drove the country to war was the secessionists of the south who promoted slavery among other half-witted policies. Hell, they did everything but outright ask for an ass-whipping from the north. You really need to get yourself an IQ, dim star.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/10 13:13:32
    Reichstolz
    So Lincoln didn't drive this nation to war, because he wouldn't compromise on slavery? OK.
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/10 15:17:58
    Guru_T_Firefly
    No, the secessionists drove this nation to war. Lincoln was just the means to escalate that war. I'm done trying to educate you, moron. You are simply impervious to higher education.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/10 17:08:56
    Reichstolz
    So regardless of Lincoln's actions the nation would have went to war? OK.
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/12 12:39:26
    Guru_T_Firefly
    Yes. It IS a fact.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/12 13:40:02
    Reichstolz
    Prove it
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/12 18:25:36
    Guru_T_Firefly
    Why don't you prove that you're right? I could use a good laugh.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/13 02:22:15
    Reichstolz
    You are making the assertion that Lincoln had nothing to do with the civil war.
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/13 12:04:52
    Guru_T_Firefly
    Not at all, just that it would have happened with or without Lincoln.
  • Reichstolz Guru_T_... 2012/07/13 13:48:03
    Reichstolz
    And as I asked for prior, show me those who would have signed that order.
  • Guru_T_... Reichstolz 2012/07/13 17:31:17
    Guru_T_Firefly
    Sorry, but you still haven't proven that you're right. Feel free to prove that the Civil War would not have happened otherwise.
  • Samantha Guru_T_... 2012/07/09 18:52:32
    Samantha
    +1
    Notice how they try to rewrite history and refuse to acknowledge Lincoln and the 1860s Republicans were the progressives.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/22 00:22:51

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals