5 ms·

When, during the Wilson-Palmer saturnalia of oppressions [1918-1920], specialists in liberty began protesting that the Declaration plainly gave the people the r

When, during the Wilson-Palmer saturnalia of oppressions [1918-1920], specialists in liberty began protesting that the Declaration plainly gave the people the right to alter the government under which they lived and even to abolish it altogether, they encountered the utmost incredulity. I find this true today as well. A lot of people just can't seem to accept the idea that the founding fathers of the USA wanted to allow their descendants the same right to start over that they were exercising at the time. I must admit that even given an appreciation of that I am hard pressed to imagine what a popular uprising and establishment of a new government would look like in today's America.

throwawaysocks 10y ago
> I find this true today as well. It has literally always been true, since the very beginning of the country.
themartorana 10y ago
I don't think that can happen. I don't know, obviously, but despite our support for popular uprisings in other countries, I can't imagine the federal government not engaging in battle with the "traitors" knocking at their gates. I don't know what it looks like for the US military to engage its citizens en masse, but I'm guessing that happens before capitulation. Other speculations? Edit: I mean, the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service are all built up around protecting the government from its people, right? The US government had been setting up a firewall between itself and its people for decades. (The NSA ostensibly not, but we know they were spying on Americans since at least 1945 [0]). [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23/how-the-nsa-spied-on-americans-before-the-internet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23...
Swizec 10y ago
A civil war in the US would be brutal. On the US and on global economy. The devastation of modern western society would be absolute. I can't even begin to imagine what the outcome would be. Mind you, the US government has the largest military force in the world by far. Bigger than the next 3 or 4 biggest militaries combined. Does anyone really want to fight that? The answer is probably No.
- nfoz 10y ago
  Or we can just allow secession without a civil war.
  - matheweis 10y ago
    The last Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was fought over this premise, and the outcome effectively gauranteed it will never happen.
    - afarrell 10y ago
      But what was the cause of secession? Well, if you believe the various southern legislatures, the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...
  - Swizec 10y ago
    Let's say California wants to secede. Do you really think the government will part calmly with its largest economy?
    - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
      Let's say Britain wants to leave the EU. Do you really think Europe will part calmly with its second-largest economy?
      - chillacy 10y ago
        Very different. The EU has a legal method of succession (article 50), the US was brought together under a strict constitution, creating a single federal government. Compared to the original Articles of Confederation: > In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence
juk9 10y ago
Well...in history nobody has ever needed a document to start an uprising. And we aren't going to see one (atleast in the US) today cause most people have better things to do with their lives.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  We may well be heading towards a future where some large fraction of the populace doesn't have anything better to do with their lives.
- khm 10y ago
  Martin Luther disagrees.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    For a minute I assumed you were referring to King, Jr. He used some writing, but relied much more on oration and protests. But yes, the Protestant theologian is a great example. The short time delay from the printing press to the Reformation, I think, highlights the immense power of the written word. In modern America, I suspect the medium is more likely to be television than text.
chiph 10y ago
There is the possibility of calling a Constitutional Convention. But most people have the heebie-jeebies over that, as everything then comes up for grabs. Women's voting rights, separation of powers, two-term limit for presidents -- having a president at all. You name it.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  Or the second amendment, which a growing number of Americans feel no needed for, unfortunately. As of disarming the populace works well long term for citizens.
  - psychometry 10y ago
    It's worked pretty well for citizens of other first-world countries who have practically zero chance of dying from gun violence. So, yeah, I'd say it works great long-term.
- GregBuchholz 10y ago
  Article V is the part of the Constitution that governs conventions. It is just for recommending amendments that get approved in the usual way. So there really shouldn't be any more concern about it than normal. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_content.html&title=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.htm...
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    It's worth pointing out that the Constitutional Convention started out as a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    You say that, but look at what happened last time they held a convention.

throwawaysocks 10y ago

> I find this true today as well. It has literally always been true, since the very beginning of the country.

themartorana 10y ago

I don't think that can happen. I don't know, obviously, but despite our support for popular uprisings in other countries, I can't imagine the federal government not engaging in battle with the "traitors" knocking at their gates. I don't know what it looks like for the US military to engage its citizens en masse, but I'm guessing that happens before capitulation. Other speculations? Edit: I mean, the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service are all built up around protecting the government from its people, right? The US government had been setting up a firewall between itself and its people for decades. (The NSA ostensibly not, but we know they were spying on Americans since at least 1945 [0]). [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23/how-the-nsa-spied-on-americans-before-the-internet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23...

Swizec 10y ago

A civil war in the US would be brutal. On the US and on global economy. The devastation of modern western society would be absolute. I can't even begin to imagine what the outcome would be. Mind you, the US government has the largest military force in the world by far. Bigger than the next 3 or 4 biggest militaries combined. Does anyone really want to fight that? The answer is probably No.

nfoz 10y ago
Or we can just allow secession without a civil war.
- matheweis 10y ago
  The last Civil War, contrary to popular belief, was fought over this premise, and the outcome effectively gauranteed it will never happen.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    But what was the cause of secession? Well, if you believe the various southern legislatures, the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...
- Swizec 10y ago
  Let's say California wants to secede. Do you really think the government will part calmly with its largest economy?
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    Let's say Britain wants to leave the EU. Do you really think Europe will part calmly with its second-largest economy?
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Very different. The EU has a legal method of succession (article 50), the US was brought together under a strict constitution, creating a single federal government. Compared to the original Articles of Confederation: > In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence

juk9 10y ago

Well...in history nobody has ever needed a document to start an uprising. And we aren't going to see one (atleast in the US) today cause most people have better things to do with their lives.

stcredzero 10y ago
We may well be heading towards a future where some large fraction of the populace doesn't have anything better to do with their lives.
khm 10y ago
Martin Luther disagrees.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  For a minute I assumed you were referring to King, Jr. He used some writing, but relied much more on oration and protests. But yes, the Protestant theologian is a great example. The short time delay from the printing press to the Reformation, I think, highlights the immense power of the written word. In modern America, I suspect the medium is more likely to be television than text.

chiph 10y ago

There is the possibility of calling a Constitutional Convention. But most people have the heebie-jeebies over that, as everything then comes up for grabs. Women's voting rights, separation of powers, two-term limit for presidents -- having a president at all. You name it.

unethical_ban 10y ago
Or the second amendment, which a growing number of Americans feel no needed for, unfortunately. As of disarming the populace works well long term for citizens.
- psychometry 10y ago
  It's worked pretty well for citizens of other first-world countries who have practically zero chance of dying from gun violence. So, yeah, I'd say it works great long-term.
GregBuchholz 10y ago
Article V is the part of the Constitution that governs conventions. It is just for recommending amendments that get approved in the usual way. So there really shouldn't be any more concern about it than normal. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_content.html&title=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.htm...
- humanrebar 10y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the Constitutional Convention started out as a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  You say that, but look at what happened last time they held a convention.