August 3, 2008
Elaine Meinel Supkis
Today, we go back, back in the dim mists of history to when the Roman Empire began to lose its democratic character: 133 BC. Long before Caesar's assassination one hundred years later. It was all about who owned the land, who had to fight the eternal imperial wars, the defeat of the Punic empire and the sudden flood of slaves, the first big wave of endless waves of slaves. Cheap labor destroyed free labor. We have to look to history as a guide for modern events for History is a total bitch: She loves to repeat herself. She figures, humans don't learn unless taught by Her whip hand.
First, from my own blog, exactly one year ago: More Market Panic As Stocks Fall From Peak
The great unwinding of quite a few financial illusions continues. Today, the stock market continued to fall ever more rapidly from its peak. And we learn more details about the schemes and plots of the various hedge funds and financial wizards. The function of these funds to make markets safer and less risky have had the exact opposite effect. And of course, the world of magic is all about everything going 'widdershins.' And we see this clearly this week. Every trick is now unwinding in exactly the wrong way.
*snip*
This chart here shows the latest bull boom. As I thought back at the end of February, the bull run was over. But it was re-ignited with tons of banking or equity funds....all fleeing the dying real estate market bonds and shares! So we had this bifurcated market. Anything to do with real estate companies were hammered by investors fleeing them and all other things were suddenly flooded with money but NOT for investment...for TAKE OVERS! So we saw a tsunami of these desperate things. Tsunamis happen because of either earthquakes displace the ocean or land that falls into the ocean, or a volcano erupts by the ocean like Krakatoa and displaces lots of water or a hurricane shoves the ocean ashore as the eye passes over.Note that these triggers are all very violent. The collapse of the US housing bubble is such a displacement event. The adults who are supposed to be in charge of America could clearly see the bubble growing and could see the popping of this bubble but throughout, at EVERY LEVEL they tried to pretend all was normal and swell and the 1% interest rates that created that bubble were ignored or explained away. Even today, it is super-hard for these people who are appearing in Congress to ask for permission to run our banking systems, cannot tell the truth nor explain why these things are happening. How dare our Congress put anyone who can't clearly explain what is going on, in charge?
Last year as armies of liars went to the media and in our government, all lying about the significance of our trade deficits, the dire condition of our state finances, the condition of the entire banking system from top to bottom, the corruption in stock trading due to naked and dressed-up short trading, the take-over/buy-out scams, the pirate coves, everything was lied about especially imperial war victories and spending. Anyone sane could see clearly where we were heading: right down the exact same chute the Roman Empire slid down!
This is of greatest importance! For our own Founding Fathers were very troubled by all this. Indeed, the English Empire which was just beginning to take off despite the loss of the fractious American colonials [many of whom were exiles due to rebellions in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland!]---all were keenly aware of the collapse of Roman democracy by 33 AD. So they were on a collective hunt to set up a system that would not devolve the same way. The idea that holding and breeding slaves and abusing them for free labor would be utterly disastrous did occur to some of the new American governing representatives. But free is free! The Founding Fathers from the South happily enslaved their half brothers and sisters who were the union of slave owning fathers. Then they, in turn, also had sex with their female slaves and kept them for free labor. Slaves were 'valuable' but only to other slave owners who sold their kin to each other. But the cool thing was, they didn't have to pay their own family members who were the sons and daughters of African slaves, a penny.
So spending money on slaves was OK, giving money to slaves, no good. This, in turn devalued the labor of free farmers and over time, the slave holding properties of the lusty, sexually active ruling elites prospered and grew vastly while the small farmholders shrank. They evidently didn't mind this since they could have one or two slaves, most bought female slaves, had sex with them and then either sold these poor children to slave owners with big estates or worked them, themselves. Unlike legal kin, these poor children of slave mistresses could be beaten to death, worked to death and in general, abused mercilessly including incest with the owners having sex with their own daughters to produce more slaves.
This ugly little mess would have ended with a massive, massive slave population as all sexual energy would be aimed at creating as many slave siblings as possible and selling them off to huge estates. This happened in Ancient Rome. The following You Tube presentations from the BBC focuses on the first wave of free slave labor pouring into Rome with the defeat of the Punic People. Like in the US today, soldiers were forced to serve long terms for as long as wars lasted! So they couldn't care for their homes for long stretches. Just like today, they lost their homes to the bankers and big lenders who were often aristocrats.
Increasingly squeezed economically, there was a general uprising against the nobles in the Senate.
BBC Series about the struggle for power in Rome, 168-133 BC: Tiberius Gracchus versus the Senate.
Now for some quick history:
Tiberius was born in 168 BC; he was the son of Tiberius Gracchus Major and Cornelia Africana. The Gracchi were one of the most politically connected families of Rome. His maternal grandparents were Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Aemilia Paula, Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus's sister, and his own sister Sempronia was the wife of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, another important general. Tiberius was raised by his mother, with his sister and his brother Gaius Gracchus. Later he married Claudia Pulchra, daughter of Appius Claudius Pulcher. They had seven children.Tiberius's military career started in the Third Punic War, as military tribune appointed to the staff of his brother in law, Scipio Aemilianus. In 137 BC he was appointed quaestor to consul Gaius Hostilius Mancinus and served his term in Numantia (Hispania province). The campaign was not successful, and Mancinus's army suffered a major defeat. It was Tiberius, as quaestor, who saved the army from destruction by signing a peace treaty with the enemy. Back in Rome, Scipio Aemilianus considered Tiberius's action cowardly and persuaded the Senate to nullify the peace. This was the start of the political enmity between Tiberius and the Senate (and of course, between Tiberius and Scipio Aemilianus).
Rome's internal political situation was not peaceful. In the last hundred years, there had been several wars. Since legionaries were required to serve in a complete campaign, no matter how long it was, soldiers often left their farms in the hands of wives and children. As estates in this situation went steadily into bankruptcy and were bought up by the wealthy upper class, latifundia or large estates, were formed. Furthermore, some lands ended up being taken by the state in war both in provinces in Italy and elsewhere. After the war was over much of the land would then be sold to or rented to various members of the populace. Much of this land was given to only a few farmers who then had large amounts of land that were more profitable than the smaller farms. The farmers with larger farms had their land farmed by slaves and didn't do the work themselves, unlike the farmers with smaller farms.When the soldiers returned from the legions, they had nowhere to go, so they went to Rome to join the mob of thousands of unemployed who roamed the city. Due to this, the number of men with enough assets to qualify for army duty was shrinking as was the military power of Rome. In 133 BC Tiberius was elected tribune of the people. Soon he started to legislate on the matter of the homeless legionaries.
Tiberius noted how much of the land was being concentrated into latifundia, being held by owners of large farms and worked by slaves, rather than small estates owned by small farmers working the land themselves.
In opposition to this, Tiberius proposed the laws called Lex Sempronia Agraria. They recommended that the government should confiscate public land that had previously been taken by the state in earlier wars, and was being held in amounts larger than the 500 iugera, approximately 310 acres (1.3 km²), allowed under previous land laws. Some of this land had been held by large land holders who had bought, settled, or rented the property in much earlier time periods, even several generations back. Sometimes it had been leased, rented, or resold to other holders after the initial sale or rental. In some ways, this was an attempt to implement the Licinian Laws passed in 367 B.C., which had never been repealed and never enforced. This would solve two problems: increase the number of men that could be levied for service and also take care of homeless war veterans.
The Senate and its conservative elements were strongly against the Sempronian agrarian reforms, and were also particularly opposed to Tiberius’s highly unorthodox method of passing the reforms. Because Tiberius clearly knew the Senate wouldn’t approve his reforms, he side stepped the Senate altogether by going straight to the Concilium Plebis (the Popular Assembly) who supported his measures. This was neither against the law or even against tradition (Mos Maiorum), but it was certainly insulting to the Senate and it alienated Senators who otherwise might show support.
However, the Senators had a trick up their sleeves: a tribune who said “No”, or used a veto, always prevailed. So, in an effort to stop Tiberius, the Senate persuaded Octavius, another tribune, to use his veto to prevent the submission of the bills to the Assembly. Gracchus then moved that Octavius, as a tribune who acted contrary to the wishes of his constituents, should be immediately deposed. Octavius remained resolute. The people began to vote to depose Octavius, but the tribune vetoed their actions. Tiberius had him forcefully removed from the meeting place of the Assembly and proceeded with the vote to depose him.
These actions violated Octavius' right of sacrosanctity and worried Tiberius' supporters, and so instead of moving to depose him, Tiberius commenced to use his veto on daily ceremonial rites in which Tribunes were asked if they would allow for key public buildings, for example the Markets and the Temples, to be opened in this way he effectively shut down the entire city of Rome including all businesses, trade, and production, until the Senate and the Assembly passed the laws. The Assembly, fearing for Tiberius's safety, escorted him home.
The Senate gave trivial funds to the agrarian commission that had been appointed to execute Tiberius's laws. However, late in 133 BC, king Attalus III of Pergamum died and left his entire fortune (including the whole kingdom of Pergamum) to Rome. Tiberius saw his chance and immediately used his tribunician powers to allocate the fortune to fund the new law. This was a direct attack on Senatorial power, since it was traditionally responsible for the management of the treasury and for decisions regarding overseas affairs. The opposition of the Senate to Gracchus increased.
The Roman Senate was corrupted by sudden wealth, especially the flood of new slaves. They also lent money to the soldiers who were like the ones stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops were restive, the ones who did manage to get home were homeless...sounds familiar? And there was violence in the streets. They didn't have tasers back then, by the way. The concept of turning soldiers from land owners into mercenaries was right around the corner, after the Gracchi were wiped out, the 'professional' soldier appeared and became slowly, a slave of the state machinery. But also a great way to climb from plebian to ruler! Power grows from wielding the sword in the bitter end!
When the US got rid of the draft, the only way we could have an army that was 'professional' was if we kept out of all colonial and imperial wars. Instead, since Congress and the Presidency was every bit as corrupt as the Romans, this was seen as a great new tool! Bush Sr, in his infamous 'New World Order' speech he gave on 9/11/91, a super-magical day for him and his family, he boasted about how the US could make money selling the bodies of our soldiers to foreign powers unwilling to fight, themselves! Wonderful, I sighed. The trade deficit that year was, for the ONLY time in 35 years, positive! Ergo: doing this was a great idea!
Note how this has evolved: the Republic now is deeper and deeper into debt. Our 'professional' military was totally incompetent to the point of being open to real accusations of complicity in the 9/11/1 attacks which landed on that funky magic number day so dear to the Bushes. Instead of punishing the 'professional' military, it was greatly expanded, vast sums were given to it and now it eats up half a trillion and more a year, this equalling our budget gap. Like in ancient Rome, to keep the plebian mobs happy, the rulers throw out games and bread. The Romans didn't figure out how to make money totally magically. This is no longer a hinderance! Today, it can be made via publishing numbers. That's all it takes. So the debts swell.
Wikipedia:
Tiberius Gracchus' overruling of the tribunician veto was considered illegal, and his opponents were determined to impeach him at the end of his one year term, since he was regarded as having violated the constitution and having used force against a tribune. To protect himself further, Tiberius Gracchus sought re-election to the tribunate in 133 B.C, promising to shorten the term of military service, abolish the exclusive right of senators to act as jurors, and admit allies to Roman citizenship.On election day, Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his impeachment and death. As the voting proceeded, violence broke out on both sides. Tiberius's cousin, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, saying that Tiberius wished to make himself king, led the senators down towards Tiberius. In the resulting confrontation, Tiberius was killed. Several hundred of his followers, who were waiting outside the senate, perished with him. Plutarch says "Tiberius' death in the senate was short and quick although he was armed it did not help him against the many senators of the day."
We are still in the stage of letting in legal and illegal immigrants. We even let people have dual loyalties and let them run our defenses and internal affairs. Aliens also flood Congress with sly bribes funneled in various clever ways. The gap between when the populous desires and what the Senate gives is now so great, Congress has an approval ratings in the low 20's. As does our Tribune, Bush, Cheney and Rice. Yet nothing is done about this. Despite deteriorating conditions, even now, the populous is not showing many signs of fury....YET.
Shortly afterwards, Rome began a war with Jugurtha, the king of Numidia (south of Carthage), in 111 BC. This war, the Jugurthine War, was prosecuted with little enthusiasm and the Roman people grew suspicious of the Senate. So in 107 BC, Gaius Marius (157-86 BC) was elected consul and was assigned the province of Numidia by the assembly. He was a brilliant soldier and quickly defeated Jugurtha; but it was Marius' lieutenant, Sulla (138-78 BC) who defeated Jugurtha for good. Now Sulla was of an old and well-established aristocratic family; although he was relatively poor, he was as blue-blooded as they came in Rome. Marius, on the other hand, was a novus homo , a "new man," who was the first in his family to occupy the consulship. These new men were bitterly resented by the aristocracy, and Sulla felt that Marius was being given credit for work that he, Sulla, had done. The rivalry between these two men would result in civil war in 88 BC.Marius, however, was an innovator and a maverick. He changed the fundamental make-up of his army by enlisting mainly volunteers. These volunteers were drawn from the poorest (and hence most disaffected and angry) classes, still bitter over the killings of the Gracchi. Marius held out the promise of the spoils of war and land-parcels as payment for their service (this on top of the guarantee of food and shelter for the length of their service). Something new had occurred. Poverty now pushed vast numbers of the poor into the military; these soldiers, however, owed their loyalty and gratitutde not to the state, but to their general who served as a kind of patron. This personal loyalty gave Marius, and future generals, access to civilian power that they had never had before.
I am a cynic. Once we got our professional military, the move to privatize all military systems was the next step for our protean Senate. Now, as the entire system is totally corrupt and huge sums are flowing into the private coffers of Senators, many of whom own huge hunks of this new, privatized Daddy Warbucks money machine, they happily vote for more and more to be spent on the military. As unemployment ravages the nation thanks to the Senate's refusal to protect our industries from 'free trade' that both drives down the profits at home, destroys whole industries as work is offshored to alien lands, we also no longer have huge sums flowing to the Treasury from trade. It all has to be either taxes or debt. Since the multimillionaires in the Senate don't want to pay taxes, nor the super-rich running for President or the many billionaires running our cities and states, none want to pay taxes. They can only tax the plebes so far so they opted for accumulating debt.
To do this, they had to keep interest rates super low. As we see clearly with Japan, the best way to do this is to crush the ability of workers at home to get raises so then there is no 'inflation'. If the workers must eat all inflation and move from being free to slave, all the better! Then there is the other force: debt is slavery. If the billionaires ruling America want to enslave people, offer them endless cheap loans! Then raise interest rates!
Sulla's reforms, rather than restoring order to Rome, provoked a violent reaction. After the death of Sulla, the Senate was facing armed rebellion. In 70 BC, two highly ambitious men, Crassus and Pompey, were elected consuls and promptly repealed Sulla's constitution. A new political order was emerging: ambitious generals, such as Pompey and Crassus, allied themselves with the tribunes and the disaffected assembly against the Senate and patricians.Pompey gained the imperium over the entire Mediterranean region in 67 BC for three years, and this imperium was extended several more years so he could prosecute a war in Asia Minor. By the end of this period, Pompey had become the single most popular leader in Rome. Crassus, however, was frightened of Pompey and, since he was unpopular in both the assembly and the Senate, he allied himself with popular leaders, the most popular of which was a brilliant general, Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC). Julius was from an old, noble family, and had served as a brilliant military leader in Spain and in Gaul.
When he returned from Spain, he demanded a triumph, that is, a victory parade, through Rome. Denied this triumph by the Senate (who feared his popularity with the masses), Julius convinced Pompey and Crassus to reconcile and the First Triumvirate was established. This triumvirate ("three men") was the beginning of the end of the Republic, for this alliance between these three politicians, two of whom were generals, had as its end the control of the Roman government for the political advantage of the three men.
And Caesar was assassinated and Augustus won the following civil war and Rome ceased to be a Republic. But the Senate continued as a toy of the Emperors. It ran on and on, a hopeless, useless appendage. For it prevented any attempt at regaining the Republic. It always sided with the Emperor against anyone who dared to defy it. It gave the Emperors authority and dignity. Even as the Emperors became utterly depraved.
Feudalism , form of political and social organization typical of Western Europe from the dissolution of Charlemagne's empire to the rise of the absolute monarchies. The term feudalism is derived from the Latin feodum, for "fief," and ultimately from a Germanic word meaning "cow," generalized to denote valuable movable property. Although analogous social systems have appeared in other civilizations, the feudalism of Europe in the Middle Ages remains the common model of feudal society.*snip* The feudal system rested on the unsettled conditions of the times and thus on the need of the lord for armed warriors and the need of the vassal for protection. The nobility was essentially a military class, with the knight as the typical warrior. Since equipping mounted fighters was expensive, the lord could not create his armed force without the obligation of the vassal to supply a stipulated number of armed men, a number that varied from the service of the vassal himself to the service of hundreds in private armies. The gradations of nobility were, therefore, based on both military service and landholding.
Actually, a free farmholder needed a cow to produce milk and till the land. Those who were so poor, they did this without that fabulous friend of the farmers, were extremely poor and didn't maintain their freedom long. A fief originally was large enough for a family with two cows to run. I used to own oxen. They cooperated with me, voice only, for the most part, happily working, pulling, pushing things. They lived in the tent complex with us. They were very loving and kind. An armed farmer with a horse and ox pair as well as a milk cow was powerful! They became the main sinews of Medieval Europe.
In feudal tenure, lands held without obligation to any suzerain (overlord) were termed held in alod. Alodial lands existed in England and on the Continent. They became less common as landowners sought protection by turning their lands over to more powerful lords and receiving the holdings back as fiefs. In modern times the distinction between fee simple (see tenure ) and alod has vanished.
And they were 'Alod' until the various invasions swept in, especially the Magyar horsemen from the Steppes and then the ferocious Norsemen. Most 'free farmers' were either killed, swept aside or had to flee. Afterwards, this condition pretty much vanished. This is why I tell people, the strongest defense in difficult times is group efforts, organizing and communion, not individualist survivalism.
The term tenure may refer to landholding of any type; it usually implies, however, that the landholder does not have absolute possession but derives the right from some other person. This meaning of the word originates from its sense in feudalism; so used, tenure is the antithesis of alod , absolute ownership without obligation to others.The modern Anglo-American law of land developed out of the institutions of English feudalism established after the Norman Conquest (1066). Theoretically, the monarch was the ultimate owner of all the land; in practice, however, certain land was held according to earlier custom. Those who were feudal tenants always held land of another (the lord or landlord) to whom obligations were owed. The type of tenure essentially established the tenant's social status; the term estate (deriving from status) thus came to be applied to the various types of tenure.
All the people being 'rescued' by the Senate billionaires, the rich President and the bankers are really being turned into helpless tenants. Worse, instead of some landlord being responsible for the condition of the property, they are! But they will not gain value from resale of this property. This is why I much, much prefer the poor saps who went foolishly too deeply into debt thanks to the offer of cheap loans, pay the price, get out of jail via bankruptcy and start over again, hopefully wiser and more sober!
My children bought a house in 2000 for $69,000. Across the street, today, a nearly identical house is for sale for $168,000. The one next door which is exactly the same, went for $180,000 just a year and a half ago! The gap between the prices of these and what we paid is still more than double! And so far, prices have not fallen anywhere near to parity for back then which would be around $85,000 if we factor in inflation and some small profit! Artificially keeping prices so high is absurd!
Why? Well, paying the mortgage, etc, is enough at the level my kids are paying. If they owed more than double, it would be much, much worse! So they would not only be deeper into debt but would have less money to spend! So high, high house prices=eventual collapse in finances as people struggle to buy things by going deeper into debt instead of paying less for the housing and having easy spending money available. This bill makes this situation impossible to regress from, instead, it will be a lead weight on everyone as people struggle to live too deep in debt.
To build defenses, regulate and improve trade, raise taxes, and maintain order, organization of an urban area was necessary. The earliest attempts at united action of the burghers involved the forming of associations in which the burghers swore an oath binding themselves together in a personal bond of mutual support and defense. The communes grew in power and, as autonomous corporate entities, became extremely influential in organizing city government. By the late 12th cent., when cities were well established, all who chose to live in them had to take an oath acknowledging the authority of the communes.Because the town was located on land belonging to a king or emperor (see feudalism ), the town owed allegiance to its lord and paid him tribute and, in wartime, service or money payment. Suzerains often favored the communes as sources of wealth and confirmed their rights in liberal charters. Disputes, nevertheless, frequently arose between communes and their overlords. In the struggle between kings and nobles, the kings usually strengthened the communes and sought alliances with them. However, in the 16th and 17th cent., when European states (notably France and Spain) became centralized, the privileges of the communes were gradually withdrawn.
Communes are strong! My Bardi ancestors came from a powerful, well-armed Lombardy commune, thus the last name of Bardi. The Lombard communes formed a League and successfully fought off emperors, conquerers, alien invasions and the seeds of the Renaissance began in this very place and time! The rediscovery of the history of Rome and the nature of the Republic was a hot topic in Lombardy in the 1500's. Eventually, they lost their freedoms and lost their influence and the era of global Empire opened with the Hispanic kings sailing around Africa and the flood of gold from the New World. Which takes me back to the fractious American rebels and our own revolution.
Thanks for writing this article, Elaine. It has always been my opinion that the US is just another modern day Rome, and the evidence you dug up supports that.
It is sad to think about, but some of us will have to flee in time or stand and die in order to avoid the chains of slavery.
I think most will simply accept them without much thought as to what they are doing. It will eventually dawn on them, but only after it is far too late.
Posted by: DeVaul | August 03, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Avoiding the debt trap and honorable service are the two pillars of a strong republican democracy.
Posted by: Elaine Meinel Supkis | August 03, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Sub soli nihil novi est. There is nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: Christian W | August 03, 2008 at 07:24 PM
I completely agree with avoiding debt. Hard to when you have a central bank that has as its sole purpose to load up the people and government with as much as possible, and no intelligent/compromised life in Congress to fight back like Andrew Jackson in 1832 to banish a previous criminal central bank. Owned by the Rich and Foreigners.
Bank Veto Message, July 10, 1832
http://phoenix.blogtownhall.com/
Andrew Jackson's Veto of the Central Bank, 1832
*** Quote ***
The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders....
The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more....It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars.
Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people....
It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.
Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.
Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/writings/veto.htm
Posted by: GK | August 04, 2008 at 04:39 AM
Yes, he is correct. And he is turning in his grave, big time.
Posted by: Elaine Meinel Supkis | August 04, 2008 at 01:39 PM
I suppose there is hope for you yet, with the Bardi thing and all. Very nice.
Posted by: Chris Q. | August 04, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Much enjoyed your elegant essay. Difficult concepts made clear without too much detail.
Though I enjoy the detail. I find the Gracchi period fascinating, and the Marius - Sulla period pivotal.
Have personal sympathy for Caesar and Octavian, and find Brutus a helpless idealist and fool - the 2nd Battle of Philippi is evidence enough. "Politics (and war, which is a subset of politics) is the art of the possible", as they say.
The Lombard banks and the Lombard double entry book keeping were the beginnings of the Modern World. Too bad for us that we have strayed so far from honest banking and accounting (as Professor Fekete points out clearly).
Posted by: Market Watcher | August 04, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Cheating makes so much wealth, it is hard to resist. Thus, ignoring sound bookkeeping rules.
Posted by: Elaine Meinel Supkis | August 04, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Ceaser died at the hands of a "helpless idealist", and I personally have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
Posted by: DeVaul | August 06, 2008 at 03:09 PM
What does Paul want to make known to these believers? Simply . the Gospel. I used to think that the Gospel was this one time event…it saved me around 5th grade, and I no longer need it, that it belonged on the timeline of events in my life, alone with basketball games and girlfriends. That I need to get into deeper, heavier things. While in a way – yes, that is true . However, we cannot forget or move from the Gospel, the central message of the Bible. Paul clearly wants to teach the Gospel. And he illustrates the necessity for the presence of the Gospel, they heard it (I preached to you), they got saved (you received), they are Christians (stand), their eternal destiny is secure (saved). He shows how dependent our lives are on the Gospel.
Posted by: Biblical Events Timeline | September 14, 2008 at 03:52 PM