The Death of the American Empire by Patrick Foy

[Paranoid Pessimist]

Interesting revisionist version of American history that takes down poltical icons such as Abraham Lincoln and F.D.R. I'm not sure I agree with everything the article says, but it's interesting to see the sweep of 20th Century U.S. History from this perspective.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_death_of_american_empire/

"The truth is, the U.S. Constitution no longer exists. It is long gone, and nobody is particularly concerned. That optimistic framework of self-governance and independence was rendered irrelevant by the Civil War (a.k.a. The War of Northern Aggression) which lasted from 1861 to 1865. The legitimate issue of slavery aside, when half the country invades, pillages, ransacks and subjugates the other half, that event can in no way be indicative of the rule of law, and was certainly not authorized by the Constitution. The Civil War marked the end of the American Republic of 1789. We live in the aftermath, a postscript; we are making it up as we go along...

"For starters, take the Cold War. It was a response to the actual threat posed by the Soviet Union, its surrogates and satellites. But the Soviet Union as a “Superpower” entity was itself the creation of American interventionism. The cause of Soviet communism was hugely advanced when Washington, in the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, intervened in the internal affairs of Europe in the late 1930’s. This meddling by Washington culminated in a fratricidal war on the continent of Europe, which ended with Stalin and the Red Army in full control of half of it."

[Demeter]

1. So, Patrick Foy Just Called Us a Bunch of Nobodies!

No wonder he doesn't miss the Constitution. Yet. Wait until he finds out HE'S a Nobody, too!


Everybody is a nobody, except for the famous dead--until some other nobody rewrites history for political purposes.....

[bemildred]

2. Not buying all of it.

He is correct however about the pivotal effect of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and McKinley's first forays into foreign adventurism in the creation of the current political dispensation in the USA. That is when the current two-party duopoly originated and consolidated it's control of US political life.

And he is also correct that the Neocons and the Bushites are not some sort of abberation in American political life, however much we might wish it so. They are mostly unusual in their stunning incompetence, which has proved remarkable even by American standards.

[Rydz777]

7. Well said. There is indeed a history behind where we are today,

and you are absolutely right that Bush has invented nothing new except the stunning incompetence.

Often forgotten in the elevation of Lincoln is how he ran roughshod over civil liberties - suspending Habeas Corpus and suppressing and imprisoning those who got in his way. Like the War on Terror, it was justified as being in the national interest. Maybe it was, but it is easier to read about it than to have been subjected to it. History is so often much more fun to read than to live.

[bemildred]

8. Thank you.

Lincoln is an interesting figure, but his sudden demise makes a final assessment difficult, one can only speculate about what he might have done later, although all you say of him is true.

[glowing]

3. I've actually thought about the "Civil War", too, as the first degredation

of the constitution. Its a strage subject. Do the states have a right to seceed, or does the United States have a right to protect its citizens to its fullest benefits. I think this had more to do with state vs. federal rights. The states clearly lost. I'm not sure that it was an erosion of the constitution. They should have remained within the boundaries of civil discourse and allowed for popular dissent or assent to deal with the issues. But men being men, pound their fists and go to war, leaving behind the innocent to defend themselves and their land.

I think had the south not gone north, they would have won. It was up to the north to meet them in their land to bring them back into the Union, not the south to go to the north and fight their. It was a strategic folly on the part of the south. They should have just suceeded and let the north come to them.

But I don't think this war errodes the constitution. I think it errodes state's rights.

I clearly think that the next revolution will not be had with weapons, but will be of words and peaceful action. Overall, most women don't want to see more deaths for peace and justice, and I think there are enough men who will agree. (which I'll digress a bit here and say, is the reason I won't vote for Hillary--she doesn't get it--I'll actually abstain from voting than vote for her).

[Fovea]

5. I think the Aliens and Sedition acts

are a better candidate for the first challenge to the constitution.
Their repeal just another reason to respect Jefferson.

[Fovea]

4. Just two paragraphs convinces me

that the rest of it is probably just as full of astounding bullshit.

[Felix Mala]

6. Up until a few months ago, I'd have thought this stuff quaint...

...quaint mutterings by a pseudo-intellectual trying to scare up a "cause." Then I spent an evening with a soldier returning from Iraq. He planned to stay in the army although he thought Iraq sucked and the mission was blown years ago. He was still sticking with the army, though, because as a Virginian he knew that south was going to rise again to refight the civil war and this time the southerners would have the superior armed forces and they planned to separate themselves from the north and establish a new confederacy that was truly "free." This guy was friendly and articulate, but his mood grew dim when this topic came up. He convinced me that at some point, perhaps in the roiling upheval following a lost war, some group of idiots might try to raise the south again.