Is a second American revolution necessary? And if so, could it succeed?

[Cyrano]

Few Dems would disagree that we are at the total mercy of the madmen in the White House who don't give a damn what anyone else on the face of the planet thinks. They can launch wars or nukes, drain our treasury dry, or commit any other crime they want to. (How many people can shoot someone in the face with a shotgun and tell the police to come back tomorrow?)

The Dem controlled congress is arguing about non-binding resolutions. But even if their resolutions were binding, it would never get past the senate thanks to the 50/50 split. (I'm counting Lieberman as voting with the Republicans.)

The courts are stacked with wingnut judges whose appointments started with Reagan and continue today under Bush/Cheney.

"We The People," are bystanders who can only watch the rape and decay of what used to be our country.

So my answer to my first question, "Is a second American revolution necessary?" is a heartfelt, YES.

The problem is that my answer to my second question, "Could it succeed?" is a heart breaking, NO.

When the founding fathers revolted against the British Crown, they were fighting on their own soil against a distant power with limited resources. None of todays technology existed. There were no phones to tap, satellites that can read a license plate from space, microphones that could pick up a conversation from half a mile away, credit cards, ATMs, or any of the other technology that makes personal anonymity virtually impossible.

So what's my point? I have heard people say "It's time we took matters into our own hands," or similar statements indicating that it's time for "We The People" to act. And while I agree with the principle, it just can't be done, IMO.

So what other options are open to us? The only one I can think of is a Republican revolution against their representatives in congress. A united Democratic/Republican congress could stop the lunatics who rule, but are unanswerable to us. However this isn't a solution for which I'm going to hold my breath.

Okay, I've had my rant (which might get me on the no-fly list). But I'd like to hear your opinions on whether a revolution is needed. And if so, could it succeed?

[villager]

1. A general strike, perhaps?

In America, that would be revolutionary. But "plain folks" would have to be even less comfortable to have one, I think...

[Selatius]

2. I operate under the assumption that nations have a lifespan.

They are born. They grow up. They live. They decay, and they finally die.

I think the days of the US as an empire in the world are rapidly coming to an end. Living standards are declining now. The US is finding itself overextended both militarily and politically in the world. It does not ensure the well-being of its citizens. Its borders are unsecured. Its treasury is empty.

[itsmesgd]

6. everything that is born will die

[Cyrano]

30. Selatius, I have to agree with you.

Every empire in the history of the world has had their day and then fallen.

Britain had a run of 400 years. Ours has been some 200 years plus and it looks like our time is up.

The tragedy is that we actually had the chance to change the world. But then along came the McCarthy years in the 50s, the Nixon years in the late 60s and early 70s, the Reagan years in the 80s, and now the Bush/Cheney years.

I believe our greatest moment was the Marshall Plan after WWII. Had we continued down that path of generosity and decency, who knows what the world would look like today?

But we took the wrong fork in the road and we are now the greatest threat to the world that has ever existed. And there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Yes, it is needed. Why it likely would not succeed -

too many people are way too comfortable - they sit and watch their big screen TVs - they watch our men and women die in Iraq as if it is a voluntary videogame that they can just turn off - then they get into their big SUVs and head for an expensive dinner. Or they are immersed in American Idol.

Many in this country are truly hurting - and they would proudly contribute. But it is not enough, sadly.

[spoony]

4. The first one was bad enough.

Yes, I know, it's a sacred cow in America, and few educated here get much besides the glorified summary, but it was a messy civil war in addition to a bloody revolution that ended in a country drenched in blood and strife that would have, like Canada and Australia, become independent anyway.

So no, more war is not the answer.

If proper diplomacy is in place, it never has to be.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Would it not actually be a civil war?

Yes, I believe it is warranted and yes I believe we would succeed. Conservative interlopers who are instructing their blind lemming supporters by lying about founding fathers intent have been trying to destroy our constitution for years. The goal would be to keep them from stealing our country, not us taking it back. If they don't want to live under our constitution then the conservative trash in this country can go elsewhere.

The constitution is a liberal document originated by men who wanted a strong separation of church and state. Something conservatives abhor. Fuck em, and don't let the border hit em on the ass.

[Selatius]

9. It likely would more resemble the Civil War instead of the Revolution

There are no foreign empires dominating the land but ourselves. We would have ourselves to fight. I believe such a conflict would likely result in the dissolution of the US permanently.

"A House divided against itself cannot stand" and so on and so forth.

[originalpckelly]

7. It could secede.

Bad, bad, bad pun. :spank:

[Skink]

8. More like another depression making way for FDR.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spoony]

11. Why are people against the war in Iraq

so merrily ready to murder their countrymen in the streets?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Miss Chybil]

14. I spent nine years in the Army myself. I took the same oath you

did and if you notice the part that talks about "enemies, foreign or domestic" - domestic are Americans who would start a war in our own backyard against our own people.

Your post is weird.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spoony]

15. Yeah and it looks like you're raring to go

However I do wonder whom you'll be shooting at. Random members of the Republican party? Contributors? Media?

How about a nice reign of terror? You can round up anyone who's ever voted for a Rep (or Nader!) and behead them.

This entire conversation is unnecessary and disturbing.

[Cyrano]

17. I agree with you that the conversation is disturbing, but it's not unnecessary.

Your answer to the Rambo posting is right on. But it still doesn't make the original question go away. And to restate the basic question in a different words, do we just sit on the sidelines and watch our country disintegrate?

[spoony]

29. That's quite a different question

I'd say. That question, I think, is at the heart of DU--stopping and reversing the damage done to this country and this world.

To me that's wholly separable from the idea of civil war.

[itsmesgd]

19. I'm not raring to go anywhere

I would not go nuts and shoot at the media or random republicans. You are missing the gist of the hyperbole. I am saying that those currently in power are not acting in the best interest of the country. I also suggest that they have acted in violation of the constitution, thereby violating their own oath. I also suggest that there are many like me who do stand ready to defend this country if it were attacked. My original post was questioned because I am against the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.
I am a peacenik, but I also am a defender of this country.
Sorry for the confusion

[Miss Chybil]

13. Good question. I've wondered that many times myself.

I think it's that they don't understand war anymore than the people who started the war in Iraq do. That's just my opinion.

[Demeter]

16. 2 More Years, and We'll Have Reverted to Colonial Times

One if by land, two if by sea, fire when you see the whites of their eyes, give e liberty or give me death, we must hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately, and of course:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

[onenote]

20. No (with a caveat)

Is a second revolution necessary? I'd say no, if by revolution you mean the violent overthrow of the government and its replacement by some new form of government operating pursuant to some new articles of confederation or constitution etc. The system of government established by the Constitution is not the problem. The problem is that a considerable portion of the population,for various reasons ranging from apathy, to greed, to disinterest, to a feeling of powerlessness, etc., do not demand that the government represent their interests. Not everyone has the same interests, so there always will be need for concessions, compromises, etc. However, those in power in recent times have not felt the need to make those concessions, compromises etc. because a significant portion of the population has, effectively, checked out of the process.

So, a new revolution is necessary in the sense of getting those who are, or who believe that they are disenfranchised to participate in the the system to make themselves heard and push government to serve their interests.

As for whether a revolution could succeed. If you're talking about the violent overthrow version of revolution -- the answer unquestionably is no. Whether the more limited "revolution" that I describe is possible, the answer is yes, but its hard to figure out what will trigger it (a galvanizing event?) or whether it can be accomplished through a slower, more gradual process.

[Cyrano]

25. I believe that I made it clear in my original post that a violent overthrow of the government

is a virtual impossibility. Further, I don't believe that the vast majority of Americans would want to see this.

But I do agree with you that some galvanizing event would be necessary to make virtually all Americans finally say, "Enough." Unfortunately, I just can't see what circumstance would cause this to come about. (Given the past six years, this should have come about long ago.)

Further, as long as we still have Fox News, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al. peddling lies, hatred and unmitigated propaganda, it seems that there will always be, perhaps a third of the population, that will keep drinking the Kool-aid that is drowning the rest of us.

[blues90]

21. I can't imagine another civil war

First off how does one identify the enemy we don;t have uniforms .

It would have to be some sort of revolution of the people against the corporations , good luck there , what do we do form a military to destroy wal-marts . People are never going to quit buyer crap .

I don't see anyway to over throw this government either .

Perhaps it will be another great depression before things change since it will bring everything down but then this is how WW II brought us back with the money made by war .

I feel we are screwed no matter what we try to do , not to seem futile but realistic . Elections don't do it either .

Or other countries will band together and blast the US to bits and this will change things forever , who knows , we keep pushing and it could happen .

I don;t feel americans are the fighter they once were , we have been fattened and modernized into so many slugs how are the worker ants all looking the same . Although we don;t see ourselves this way .

[Holly_Hobby]

22. Well....

Considering what we the people told our elected officials in the Nov. election, we now have taxation without representation. Our elected leaders are not doing the will of the people.

[bryant69]

23. We can revolt every two years - hell we had a revolution just last November

I admit the results aren't always what one would wish for, but still, better than nothing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BluePatriot]

24. People are too comfortable

For the vast majority of people today, despite the discomfort of living under BushCo, it does not outweigh the discomfort of revolutionary turmoil and all that would entail (job loss/chaos/etc) They are cool with their cable TV. And I know, KNOW BushCo could be getting away with more, and they gradually are. These guys are smart and know it's sudden changes people notice, not gradual ones. All we can do is stay informed and connected and try to shed light on what's going on to build a critical mass of some kind.

[Edweird]

26. Better a "revolt" from within than "containment" from the outside.

I believe the policies and actions of the current administration put our country at odds with international law and the interests and wishes of the international community. We have become a powerful rogue nation that is a danger to the world at large, and we may soon be facing sanctions,embargoes, and possible occupation. All in the name of "containment". The other big dogs on the world stage aren't going to tolerate our crap for much longer. So do we reign these jerk offs in, or does someone else need to do it? We would be much happier doing ourselves.

[shield20]

27. Yes - necessary, but not "violent"

When the people ratified the Constitution, it allowed for such a thing, but it also tried to put up guards against revolt being necessary; despite the efforts, many warned what would happen.

Though many here may not want to admit it, or might not agree, the people are born with the right of defense, and derived from this is the right to keep and bear arms. Beside protecting this individual right, the constitution provided for a miltia that was well-trained, made up of the people, and that was THE safeguard against tyranny. It was supposed to make standing armies less of a necessity.

The ability of the people to vote for the lower house of the legislature every 2 years was the next step.

Since then the citizen militia has been obsoleted, replaced by a HUGE standing army, and the federal National Guard (and the people let it happen - it was easy to let the govt do it).

Of course the people, the majority who choose to be unarmed and untrained, could no longer win a revolution - at least not IF faced with a substantial number of our forces turned against us who actually do what the CIC tells them. Not when the president can call out the troops and the NG for ANY reason HE thinks necessary..."the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent..."

(This is why ANYONE who would think that only the gov't & police (& criminals) should have guns is beyond me. Why anyone would trust the likes of Bush, those who run FEMA, those who run the detention centers, those who start illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. with all that power, while leaving the people with none, is beyond me. Do you really need, or want, GW, or any other politician, to provide/control your PERSONAL security?)


Anyway, we are left with elections, and rightly so. SO many in Washington stopped answering to us a looong time ago. When it is estimated that the next president will have spent 500 MILLION dollars to get elected, who do YOU think they answer to? Almost all of them need to be replaced, with normal every day citizens who really know and really care about the people.

[cascadiance]

28. Recall Arnold, then do a California secession proposition...

Which is kind of what my online moniker is about. If California were to challenge the country as perhaps the sixth biggest economy in the world as being a separate country that might lead other blue states to join in and do the same thing. If NY were to join too and suddenly the feds didn't get either California's or New York's tax revenues (which they only pay back around 77 cents on the dollar back to them now), it would help California's economy grow and the feds to suffer that much more with a lot less money to send to the "welfare" states or spend on Iraq.

Of course there would still be jurisdiction of federal property here (like U.S. military installations, etc. here and the like). I don't know if possession being 9/10's of the law could be used in this instance. To help clear up having some form of military force, I think we should first start up a resolution to have a state militia that would be purely state owned that could evolve to replace the duties of the national guard here, which has evolved into Bush's reserve military force anyway. The militia for now would just be used what the national guard is SUPPOSED to be used for, without the risk of being called up to serve in Iraq or other similar misadventures, and then if the time came to have to defend a newer seceded California, it would become it's military force then. If California documented all of it's money that it's given to the feds and how much was spent on military hardware/base construction, etc., then it could perhaps come up with a way of measuring how much of the military resources here it owned itself.

Might also help if the Canadians had one of their liberal parties take back majority control again from the Tories, so that perhaps we could join with them too at some point if there was a contiguous coastline of seceded states (Oregon and Washington) with them.