I WONDER WHAT THEY MEANT

So often I have difficulty in reading what someone has written. I can with much effort read the words, but as they are put together, I can’t understand them.

Then I wonder what they meant by that?

Language at times is used to create an illusion; where we think we see something, but admittedly, later we realize that it wasn’t what we thought it was, and are not sure if it was anything at all.

During election time the practice of illusionary rhetoric is used rather than simple statements of truth. After hearing some speakers you might confess to your ignorance by admitting; I don't know what he said, but it must have been good.

Many of Lincoln’s statements were interesting;

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861; “While the people retain their virtue, and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government, in the short space of four years."

He might want to revise this statement in light of the present administration.

The Tea Party would probably subscribe to a statement by James Madison;
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787. wrote:

“The issue of rights guaranteed by the constitution is an on-going, losing, struggle for each day the local, county, state and federal governments are diminishing the people’s rights.”

The following is an argument that the Supreme Court would dismiss without consideration:

“Even though unionists have placed great stock in the Preamble, their recitations rarely extend past the first 15 words... The presence in the Preamble of the phrase, "We, the People of the United States" was an accident! It originally read: 'That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.' It was amended, not for the purpose of submitting the constitution to the people in the aggregate, but because the convention could not tell, in advance, which States would ratify it."

James Ostrowski; 'Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession' in Secession, State, and Liberty.

Http://www.apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.HTML

Lincoln's view of the Union as irrevocable and inescapable is both historical and immoral. His notion that the Union created the States. is as absurd as someone claiming a child fathered its own parents. The Federal Government is not a partner in a marriage, but rather the offspring of a marriage between the sovereign States.

The States rights argument is grossly ignored today, its back to Lincoln, for only he knew how to rule.

The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us our first federal conscription law, first progressive income tax, first enormous standing army; it gave us a higher tariff, and greenbacks.

James McPherson writes approvingly: "This astonishing blitz of laws - - Did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal.  This Civil War Legislation - - Created the blueprint for modern America."

Albert Jay Nock was more critical of the war's impact, especially on the Constitution: "Lincoln overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, and in consequence the mode of the State was, until 1865, a monocratic military despotism - - The doctrine of 'reserved powers' was knaved up Ex post facto (Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution) as a justification for his acts, but as far as the intent of the constitution is concerned, it was obviously pure invention.

In fact, a very good case could be made out for the assertion that Lincoln's acts resulted in a permanent radical change in the entire system of constitutional 'interpretation'- - that since his time 'interpretations' have not been interpretations of the constitution, but merely of public policy - - A strict constitutionalist might indeed say that the constitution died in 1861, and one would have to scratch one's head pretty diligently to refute him."

And so it goes, the piece of paper that guarantees any hope of freedom is being changed at will by people who want to enforce “their will” upon the people.