#because they insisted that slavery was not a thing when the declaration of independence was written... ❤️

[philosophicalconservatism]

Interesting blog.

I’ve got a question for you seeing as you seem to be American (and American conservatism is different from conservative movements in Europe etc).

Basically, do you agree that the only value in conservatism is preserving the existing order? Because now I’m seeing many of you claim that you just want equality (of opportunity) for everyone but if we went back in time when some of these conversations about equal rights were taking place, many people who were conservative in those times didn’t support these movements for equal rights. So do you think it’s a big disingenuous to claim that equality is a conservative principle? It seems like defending the status quo is and I don’t even mean that in a derogatory way - it’s just what I’ve noticed. For example, when there was a push to have equality of opportunity in education so that women and black people could equally be admitted and partake, the traditional minded men didn’t support this. When gay people were fighting to have equality of opportunity when it came to marriage, it was the conservative side that said no.

It’s only now that women and minorities have rights and more access/efforts being made to address inequalities that conservatives are talking about equality of opportunity. They had no problem stipulating that only white men could access many positions and schemes for a long time.

Having read the complete version of your question (it of course would not fit within a single post) I would say that your concept of American Conservatism seems to be a caricature of it created by its American ideological opponents.

The first thing that must be noted is that an American conservatism will necessarily differ from a European conservatism in at least one crucial respect. European nationhood is based upon ethnic identity, while the American nation is based upon a particular set of abstract political ideals. What this means is that logically an American political Conservatism will consist of an impulse to preserve that specific set of ideals. One of the most important of those ideals is individual liberty, and so that is where the American conservative commitment to that principle originates. Conservatives do not believe in identity politics or group rights. They do not believe in "women's rights" or "Black rights" or "gay rights". They believe only in individual rights. Therefore If someone wishes to advocate a particular right they must clearly demonstrate that it naturally extends from the notion of individual liberty itself. This goes for the purported right to a state sanctioned "same-sex marriage" which you mention in the full version of your comment.

Now the American president Abraham Lincoln contended in his famous Coopers Union Address that recognizing the universal right of slave holders was not actually a Conservative position. Lincoln stated the following in addressing the pro-slavery side of the country.

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by 'our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;' while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. "

The problem with the stance that support for slavery was the "Conservative" position is that slavery was a contested issue from the very beginning of the American republic. The original American Declaration of Independence contained a condemnation of the institution of slavery, but it was removed due to opposition from the Southern states (and the U.S. required the support of every state to prevail in the Revolution). Every single one of America's major founding fathers is on record as condemning the institution of slavery and its morality (including those who owned slaves such as Jefferson and Washington). Here is John Quincy Adams (sixth president and son of founding father John Adams) on the issue.

"The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the patriots of the revolution, by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself....Never, from their lips, was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country; and they saw that, before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. ." (1837)

Now racial equality was another matter. Not even Abraham Lincoln believed in that, because the men of this era were genuinely ignorant on this topic. They falsley believed that certain races of men were naturally superior to others, so they were doubtful about whether the supposedly inferior races could fully function as citizens in society. This belief was not really unique to one side or the other. When we fast forward to the era of the American Civil Rights movement in the late 20th century we find Liberals who championed the cause of the working class and of labor unions fighting for racial segregation. In fact the labor unions themselves crafted rules explicitly for the purpose of racial exclusion.

Some on the American Left respond to these observations by still trying to insist that these were Conservatives rather than Liberals, exclaiming that the Conservatives of this particular time were just different from the Conservatives of today. But it means nothing to argue that the Conservatives were the racists of that day if the only evidence you provide for the claim that they were Conservatives is the fact that they were racist. Most of the country (other than the radicalized youth of the counterculture) was what we would today classify as socially conservative. The notion of same sex marriage was of course inconceivable to them, most households were traditional, and pro-life (anti-abortion) candidates like president John F Kennedy flourished within the Democratic party itself (only 5% of the public supported abortion for married couples who merely did not want another child). So this cannot be what one means by calling them "Conservative".

The last thing I should mention on this subject is the Southern Strategy/party switch argument (an idea in American politics which you can Google if you're interested). It is an argument that has been decisively debunked by research that has shown that the American South continued to vote for Democrats with no less frequency than Republicans long after the fight for segregation was lost. The South did not in fact begin to consistently vote Republican until the beginning of the "culture wars" in the early 90's.

As for women's rights, neither party seemed enthusiastic about granting women the vote at first as many feminists concede. The women had to go at it alone for a while, the indifference was not purely a product of ideology. But (as is well known) the Republican party played a significant role in finally getting it done. About two times as many Republicans voted for the 19th Amendment as Democrats, but it was done under a Democratic president. And so again, it isn't clear where the ideological line is here unless you just assume that all those that did not lend enthusiastic support were Conservative by definition (in which case your question about why Conservatives always support these positions is tautological).

Finally, the connection between the idea of Conservatism and political freedom is not entirely a consequence of its American incarnation. Political liberty is a central theme in the writings of the Irish [which is to say European] statesman and author Edmund Burke, the founder of modern Western Conservatism. The idea that Conservatism is the preservation of the status quo whatever it happens to be, leads to a certain paradox. It is a paradox which specifically emerges when we consider the case of the totalitarian state. The head of a totalitarian state is the law. He can dissolve any tradition and nullify any precedent; nothing is sacred. Thus a totalitarian state is in a sense a perpetual revolution. It is actually anti-Conservative. Only a superficial definition of Conservatism would contend otherwise. The first principle of Conservatism is limited government, for without it there can be no grounding social traditions. Burke understood this.

Conservatism does not entirely reject progress, but it is suspicious of the pseudo-progress of utopian ideologies. In Burke's day this was the French Revolution. In ours it is Socialism/Marxism. Conservatives believe that true progress emerges organically within a society, it is not artificially imposed by ideology.

[disaster-fruit]

and I know it's unfair because I haven't answered the ask yet but you're Brazilian so you know way more than me but I'd love to hear your thoughts about Imperial Brazil?? I'm really struggling with him bc i know about him in this era more from a portuguese perspective.....

YOU THOUGHT I WOULDN’T ANSWER THIS HUH 

Sorry for taking so damn long audshdf I was saving this ask to do a real deep dive into the whole empire with a lot of historical explanation and a lot of detail buuuut I was having some trouble coherently organizing my thoughts about Pedro II’s reign so instead I’m gonna use this ask to more loosely talk abt the first half of the empire. You’ve seen my basic thoughts on the second half on that other post, so now I’m gonna ramble mostly about 1808-1840.

Also, hm, this is LONG. It’s embarrassingly long. I hope you have time. 

And yes 1808-1822 is not part of the empire, but Brazil was no longer a colony in practice during those years, and I think they were crucial to his development as a person. 

Before 1808, Brazil pretty much grew up alone. His mother was around less and less, and he had no friends. Portugal was, as we already know, a shitty dad. Up to that point, he was not only absent but also very controlling. He never allowed Brazil or his people to learn how to read, Brazil wasn’t allowed to have libraries or universities or newspapers or even print. Portugal alienated Brazil both from his mother and from Port himself. He was forcefully kept from developing his own ideas, and his growth was stagnant – even physically. The way I see it, after 300 years he was still a small child, while the others around him were already growing into teenagers even though they were younger in actual numbers. Portugal literally kept him from developing as a person, by force. 

But suddenly, Portugal needed him. Suddenly, he showed up at his shore, with hundreds of people, and objects, and books. And though Portugal desperately needed Brazil at that time, his king couldn’t be there with Brazil being like that. That land with no cities and no libraries and no economy no nothing because he was forced to have nothing. 

He starts growing really, really fast, and forcefully again. And it was a painful process – his people were being kicked out of their houses so that the people that arrived from Portugal had where to live. In a few years, he grew almost as fast as humans did. But it was still an incomplete growth – most of his people were still living in misery, but now he had a structured state that allowed him to more firmly fit into what a nation means. But it all happened so fast he was… dizzy. 

And that was all combined with what was happening in his relationship with his father. They had both gotten much closer now that Portugal was physically there more often. I think Portugal is considerably less shitty to Brazil during these years, both because he needs him and because he is a relief from everything going on in Europe. But that doesn’t mean he became a good dad, but also Brazil was a lot smarter now, a lot freer, and quick to realize something that had always been true – Portugal needed Brazil more than Brazil needed Portugal. Much more. 

The fact that he wasn’t a colony anymore but wasn’t quite independent, and thus still had to obey Portugal to some degree, started to annoy him. This has quite a bit of teenage rebellion element into it, but that doesn’t mean it came from unjustified anger. Not at all. His pride and ego were starting to really develop. The king of Portugal liked him better than he liked port himself, Brazil was heaven on earth, Brazil was rich, Brazil was full of potential, Brazil was great, Brazil was paradise, Brazil was not his own.  

And that just keeps building.

And when Portugal starts talking about making him a colony again. After all that shit about the being a united kingdom, about Portugal being his father and trying to get close to him, of seeing him as a refuge and a relief, after all of that connection I think Portugal genuinely tried to build with him, the ugly truth is bare again – Portugal never saw him as worthy of equal footing, never saw that united kingdom as anything but temporary, never saw brazil as anything more than a colony. 

And Brazil is mad. 

When he found out the plans of Pedro I to declare independence, he’s more than happy. He’s been thinking of it for a while, and I think maybe deep down he didn’t love the idea of another Portuguese man being his boss, but Pedro had grown up in brazil, dude was carioca at heart, his wife was wonderful, Brazil could work with that. He declared independence, fought against Portugal, won, still had to pay for his independence, but, at last, he got it. 

I think in a way Brazil’s anger, as righteous as it was, did blind him to what was going on. He wanted so bad to get rid of Portugal and avoid going back to how it was when he was a colony, that he waved away or even approved things that really just kept him stuck in the same place. Very little actually changed for most people, and as someone who literally represented all the people, he knew that and could feel that, but he was still so euphoric personally about it that he… ignored it. 

Pedro I’s reign was… messy. He needed a constitution, he got into a war with Argentina, everyone was talking about who Pedro was fucking, it was just a whole mess. For that reason, I think despite declaring his independence, brazil remembers Pedro as being mostly an irresponsible asshole who couldn’t keep it in his pants and was too busy being a playboy to rule this country yet still managed to be authoritarian and also made him lose Uruguay. And when it came time for him to choose Brazil or Portugal, just like his father, he chooses Portugal. 

That was a blow on his ego. Brazil at this point was still just a teenager, who had in two decades grown insanely fast for a nation, has been told by each king his land was heaven on earth and so much richer than Portugal, yet no one was willing to choose him. Ever. He was still an afterthought. Like a colony, that still had a metropolis. Pedro left him with a 4-year-old, with a government disorganized, and no money. 

And then the Provinces start to rise up. 

So, hm, a quick background on how I see the provinces: Some of them existed since around 1530, some were younger and some weren't around yet, and if Brazil first appeared representing the people that were born in this new colony, the provinces were much more… administrative and political. Yet many of the ones that were around grew much faster than Brazil – they were already teenagers or even adults by independence. They had always responded directly to Portugal and for a long time saw no connection between themselves or between them and Brazil. The idea of “Brazil” was only like… 100 years old, even less than that. And some of them were not loving being attached to those two kids – Brazil and the baby emperor. They saw the weak government of the regency as a chance to rise up and declare their own independence, as many who started as provinces around them had – like Uruguay.

The regency lasted 9 years, but I think those few years were also crucial to form Brazil as a person, due to how stressful they were. Think about it, he saw what was happening around him, with Spain’s former colonies. And I think he for the first time had to grapple with the very human existential fear of death. 

If each of his provinces became their own country, would he still be around? Would he just become… Rio? But Rio existed as a province too. Would he just… be a lot of different countries? Probably not.  He would probably disappear. He had only just started to be allowed to live, but that could be taken away at any moment. Uruguay and Rio Grande do Sul succeeded in getting their independence. How long until the others? It was quite terrifying. And I think that experience not only made him averse to the idea of being a republic in general at the time, but also created a lot of emotional and psychological problems for him, a lot of insecurity, as well as it made him realize he was nothing. There was nothing to justify his existence. He couldn’t say he existed because he wanted freedom or republic, he had none of these, plus it was something the provinces too could have. What united that land? What made him him? Those were all questions that would haunt him for the rest of the empire, and he would soon be more than willing to go after and accept easy answers. That’s how he gets to that whole indianismo think I talked about some time ago.

He fights his own provinces, on people, countless times. Revolts that really were like civil wars kept popping, and he, who was just a teenager, had to fight to oppress his provinces and force them into being a part of him, for a reason he himself didn’t know. He couldn’t explain why they should be a part of him, except that they were and he wanted them to be and he wanted to live. And he didn’t know why.

In summary, this whole period was one of fear, and insecurity, and doubt. It shook him profoundly as a person more than as a country. Because once Pedrinho was in power, things were quick to stabilize and it was, in some ways, as if those revolts had never happened, but Brazil remembered them, he lived through them, and never really forgot that fear. 

If the regency was marked by external peace and internal turmoil, Pedrinho’s reign was one of relatively internal peace and external turmoil. Pedro II was… a complicated figure. Most Brazilians today regard him as an excellent ruler and a wise man, but I at least can’t be this optimistic about the man who insisted on the Paraguayan war, refused to abolish slavery for decades, and basically laid ground to a lot of the problems we still have today, like bad distribution of land and late industrialization. He didn’t do all that by himself, of course, a lot can be blamed on the senate, but he was the most powerful man on the country, and he receives way too much credit for his personal beliefs of being an abolitionist and a pacifist. Maybe he really was both these things, but that doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t use his power to end slavery and avoid war, quite the opposite. And why is that important here? Because I think brazil, the tan, was also fooled by it. He quickly bought into the narrative that Pedro II was this wise incredible man, and overlooked all the ways he kept the worst structures of the country untouched in order to not upset the elite that kept him in power. Brazil wanted nothing but stability and power, and Pedro, looking like the opposite of his father at the surface, brought that. There were no more separatist movements or civil wars once he rose to power, Rio Grande do Sul was reabsorbed, and the years that followed were ones of relative prosperity, and all of that really made brazil more and more attached to the whole concept of the empire. I think just like he was willing to ignore a lot of things during independence for the sake of it, here too he ignored all the ways Pedro II held him back so that he could fully feel the pride of being a powerful empire.

Brazil really did like being an empire during that time. The narrative of the empire was one that answered the question that haunted him for so long – what justified his existence. Justifying it, in the 19th century, is what I believe to be the main motivation underlying everything he did and thought. And the narrative was that the empire guaranteed stability and avoided civil wars and fragmentation, allowing Brazil to be, to quote José Bonifacio, “This majestic and solid piece of social architecture from the Prata to the Amazonas”, and again, all that in comparison to his neighbors that were constantly drowning in civil wars and fragmenting. For stability and that justification, he was willing to turn a blind eye to anything else.

So he rose from the regency feeling stronger than ever. Pedrinho had put everything into place, he was growing, he had a Brazilian in power for the first time, his coffee was going well, and he had survived. Many of his neighbors hadn’t, or at least not in the sense of managing to keep their territories intact. He did. His neighbors were unstable, with wars and coups and wars (like he hadn’t just had exactly that), he was stable and growing and he was the strongest. Once free of the fear of being destroyed from the inside, his ego grew once again, and he felt good. He felt pride in being a big strong and centralized empire, and to look down on the other Latin Americans and even on his father. He was ready now to make his power and influence spread, as an Empire. 

That's it, sorry if this is both ridiculously long and also a mess, I have way too many thoughts about imperial brazil and I could've probably written ten more pages of it and still have something to say. Also I'd still love to hear your thoughts on the empire for a Portuguese perspective, because I genuinely have no clue what that would look like. But anyway hmm I hope this was fun? 

[questionsonislam]

What are the fundamental or human rights in Islam that had been granted by God?

It should be first looked at the pre-Islamic era to fully understand the human rights that Islam had granted on humans.

1. All of the cultures, nations, and countries during the pre-Islamic era were monarchies. They were ruled by kings, crowns, or emperors. They held absolute authority over their people; hanged, exiled whomever they wanted, and they were responsible to no one.

2. People were divided into various castes. Close relatives of the ruler were considered nobles. They were privileged. The vast majority of people were excluded from the rights of those nobles, they were treated contemptuously. There were great gaps between the classes.

3. Slavery was in use with the utmost savagery. Human dignity was trampled.

4. People were subject to discriminative treatments according to their race, and the color of their skin. Line of descent implied a certain excellence of origin. People were divided up and separated on the basis of their families; abilities, knowledge, morality, virtues did not mean anything.

5. There were no fundamental rights and freedoms. Fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion and conscience, right of property, latitude of thought were no in use. People had unprecedented tortures because of their beliefs and thoughts.

6. The essential principle of law was trampled. Equality before the law was the last thing that could come to the minds. There was no such a thing as fair and impartial trial. Rights in law were not absolute, personal wishes and interests did for law. Different castes members who committed the same crime were imposed different penalties.

While the world was in such a situation, the religion Islam came and implemented the greatest development of the history of the human kind. If it is examined fairly, long before the declaration of the human rights in Western Cultures, it will be seen that the ultimate humane objectives were ascertained both in the holy Quran and in the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In fact, the Prophet Muhammads farewell sermon during the farewell pilgrimage has distinctive principles on the basis of Human rights.

This sermon, in the year 632, was given to more than a hundred thousand Muslims. That is to say, one thousand one hundred and seven years before the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen in 1789 in France, which is considered the first written text about human rights. Islams new principles about human rights has great impact on the development of Wests human rights struggle.

Humans have distinctive value from other creations. This value increases with believing in God and obeying His rules. By this way, human becomes the most dignified guest of the universe.

Valuableness, because of being a human encircles everyone. Woman or man, young or old, white or black, weak or strong, poor or rich, whichever the religion or race he or she belongs to, this shadow of clemency encircles them all.

Islam, by this way, prevented people from shedding blood unlawfully, protected peoples chastities, properties, and protected them from being exposed to such assaults like breaking into their houses, and moral pressure. Human dignity and honor and the right to have their dignity and honor respected and protected by Islam in the literal sense than ever before.

The principle rights and freedoms that Islam brought are:

1- Any discrimination based on any ground such as race and color has abated by Islam. All men are descendants of Hazrath Adam. No one can choose his race or the color of his skin. It all happens with Gods decision. Discriminating people based on race, skin color and seeing some superior to others is wrong and harmful according to both Islam and Humane reasons. God, in the Quran states, O humankind! Surely We have created you from a single (pair of) male and female, and made you into tribes and families so that you may know one another (and so build mutuality and co-operative relationships, not so that you may take pride in your differences of race or social rank, and breed enmities). (Al-Hujurat Surah, 49:13) as it is clearly seen from the verse, being different should not be simulated as a means of superiority but for building mutuality and co-operative relationships. The following hadith sheds light on the matter. Abu Zarr Ghifari, when, once in a rage called Bilal O son of a Negress, the Prophet did not tolerate this much of intemperance on his part, admonished him and said, "You still smack of the evil traits of Jahiliyah, (that you tried to disgrace him by lowering the dignity of his mother on the basis of color)". Abu Zarr regretted and asked forgiveness from Bilal.

2- Islam has abated the claims of superiority based on descent

3- Islam has given the right to control the administrators to the public. It aimed at abating arbitrary managements, and unjust, unlawful acts of the administrators. Abu Bakr, when he was elected as the first Caliph, did not claim any privileges. In fact, clearly refuted any special status in the opening words (after the pre-amble) of his inauguration sermon, I was assigned to rule you, and I am not the best amongst you. He also went on asking that people would obey him as long as he does his duty properly and that if he does not then he commands not obedience from the people. One day, Omar was giving a sermon in the Mosque and he told the crowd that he was elected as their leader but he was not the best among them. He said that he would try to rule according to the teachings of God and His prophet, but that if he made a mistake, they should correct him. One person rose from the crowd and told Omar that if he deviated from the book, they would correct him with the edge of the sword. He became delighted with the answer.

4- Freedom of thoughts and conscience are the second most important rights of humans after having right to live. Not avowing this right of individuals means decreasing his rank to that of animals. It advocates both freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. With the principle of there is no compulsion in Religion, it does not allow coercing anybody into the Islam.

5- Islam has given great importance to the institution of slavery. And, thus, has given legal status to it. Before Islam, slavery was in use with the utmost savagery. There was no reason to anticipate that slavery would be abated completely, which was widespread in every corner of the world. For this reason, Islam did not abrogated slavery completely but improved it in the most civilized and humane way. On the other hand, made possible the transition from slavery to freedom. Thus, developed such efficient systems to abate slavery completely.

6- Freedom of having property: As well as all the other feelings, God gave us the feeling of ownership and it is a part of our human nature. The Holy Quran states its meaning clear. Islam let individuals to have possessions and laid the groundwork for having possessions lawfully. The right of individual property that Islam acknowledges cannot be intervened without the permission of the owner.

7- Equality before the law: All people are equal before the law (regardless of their ethnicity, belief etc.) as equal as the teeth of a comb. The rule of law is an essential principle in Islam. A state leader or a commoner are both equal before the law. Even if the felon is a state leader he receives punishment. Sultan Mehmed II the conqueror with a Greek architect, Hazrath Ali with a Jew, Salaaddin Ayyubi with an Armenian, all came before the judge. A woman from Banu Makhzum Clan committed theft during Prophet Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, and she was brought to him. the clan of Banu Mahkzum attempted to intercede for her. They sent Usama to God's Messenger (pbuh). Usama, was the son Zayd, and , like Zayd, very dear to him. Unable to resist the insistent pressure from the Banu Makhzum, Usama pleaded with the Prophet for the woman to be excused. Prophet's face turned red with anger and he rebuked the intercessor. And he gave this historic sermon: 'O people! Know of a certainty that the Almighty ruined many of the peoples before you because they did not observe justice. When an influential person among them who had powerful backing committed a crime, they ignored it, but if the same crime was committed by a weak one, they applied the necessary punishment. I swear by God, that if my daughter Fatima steals, I will not hesitate to cut off her hand.' (Bukhari 8:6800; Muslim 3:4187 and 4188) Abu Bakr

8- In Islam, there is no unlawful punishment. No one is responsible for another persons crime. This principle is stated in the Quran as follows, Say: "Am I, then, to seek after someone other than God as Lord when He is the Lord of everything?" Every soul earns only to its own account; and no soul, as bearer of burden, bears and is made to bear the burden of another. Then, to your Lord is the return of all of you, and He will then make you understand (the truth) concerning all that on which you have differed. (Al-Anam Surah, 6:164)

9- Impartiality and independence of the courts principle: Judicial authority in Islam is impartial and independent. Courts are the judicial authority in Islamic countries. Like commoners, the ruler of the states came before the court and punished if seen guilty of a crime.

10- Domiciliar inviolability and privacy of the individual: In Islam, no one or no authority has right to intervene the privacy of the individual. No one has right to enter any ones private property. Inquiring private lives of individuals are strictly impermissible.

11- Freedom of Travel: In Islam, it is stated that traveling is an act both exemplary and healthful, so always prompted.

12- Right to live; protection of the life, property, and chastity: This matter has put forward in the farewell sermon of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the most perfect sense. O people: your lives and your property, until the very day you meet your Lord, are as inviolable to each other as the inviolability of this day you are now in, and the month you are now in. Have I given the message? -- O God, be my witness. So let whoever has been given something for safekeeping give it back to him who gave him it.

13- Social Insurance: The Religion Islam provided for the needy in view of the facts such as elderness, sickness, calamities, disasters, and accidents; secured their futures by institutions like Zakat (Almsgiving), and social foundations.

14- Freedom to Work, Wage Equality and Justice: In Islam, working and making an effort for livelihood are valued and encouraged; begging, not working are always seen as In fact, working for the livelihood of ones family is regarded as a prayer with the condition of fulfilling the obligatory prayers. The verse, depicts the importance of working that Islam gives. In addition, Prophet Muhammad has instructed people to pay the wages of their workers before their sweat dry out .Workers, on the other hand, should be honest and sincere in their work for the best of the income.

15- Protecting the Children: In Islam, from the very moment of birth, it is given help to the parents for raising the child, and is granted an allowance from the treasury. Today, in most of the wealthy countries, child support enforcement services help the needy families.

16- Basic Education is free and obligatory. The hadith, To seek knowledge is obligatory unto every Muslim both man and woman, makes Basic Education necessary. Besides, religious, moral, and literary education, professional education should be given, too.

[maulusque]

here’s an idea

some of the jedi actually have their shit together re: the morality of a slave army.

Namely Aayla Secura and Plo Koon. From the start of the war, they both voiced opposition to taking part, specifically citing the clones’ situation. The Council convinced them to take part as generals anyway, on the basis that at least they could do some good for the clones as generals, whereas if they sat out and let another take their place, they wouldn’t be able to do anything. They feel like hypocrites, like slave owners, but they both vow to do everything in their power to see the clones freed. After the war. And the war just keeps, happening, you know? It seems like there’s always somewhere where they and their troops are needed, innocent civilians to save, and they can prioritize civilian lives over the clones’ lives, right? I mean, at least the clones are trained for this. They both care as much as they can for the men they have, but they still lead them to battle, lead them to their deaths, requisition more troops from Kamino with the same forms they requisition more blasters with.

 Eventually, as the war drags on and on and on, and their best intentions for the clones are stymied by exhaustion, death, and bureaucracy, both Plo and Aayla realize, independently, that they need to take drastic action if they want to be able to consider themselves Jedi, or even good people. Because they haven’t done right by the clones. Whatever their intentions, they have been complicit in slavery, in child abuse, in murder and torture. Making the clones wait until the end of the war for their freedom is cruel and inhumane, and unless they prioritize freedom and justice for their men now, then they are no better than the slave lords of the outer rim, who sit in their massive palaces with fortunes built on slavery. So, they reach out. They talk to their Commanders. Bly and Wolffe put them in touch with Cody, and with each other. Cody and the other Commanders have been talking, in secret. They, too, have realized that the war isn’t going to end anytime soon, and even if it does, what happens to them? 

Cody is reluctant to trust Aayla and Plo, but Bly and Wolffe vouch for them. He asks them, if you are truly willing to help us, you have to realize that this might mean quitting the Jedi Order. This might mean turning against your fellow Jedi. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to, say, kill Mace Windu, or Depa Billaba, or Ahsoka Tano, if it means our freedom? Aayla and Plo say yes, they are. And they are. This had been one of the toughest choices they’ve had to make in their lives, when it should have been one of the easiest. They are Jedi, and they will fight against injustice and slavery wherever it may be, no matter who is perpetrating it. 

So Cody sets them to work. Aayla reaches out to her old master, Quinlan Vos. In this universe, instead of being a racist dickhead, his anti-clone sentiment is born from the fact that he utterly disagrees with the idea of Jedi waging war, and has transformed that into resenting the clones. He’s spent the entire war being literally as far away from it as possible, ignoring the Council as much as he can. Eventually, though, he undergoes a mr. darcy-like transformation, realizes what an asshole he’s been, and when Aayla comes knocking, he’s already been smuggling troopers slated for decomissioning to safe planets.

Plo Koon reaches out to Ahsoka. In the time since she’s left the order, she’s done a lot of growing up. Outside of the stress of constant war, and the influence of the Council and Anakin, she’s done a lot of thinking and also undergone Character Growth, realizing how unfair the clones’ situation is, and how she contributed to it, how she ignored the power differential between them. She jumps at the chance to help. (it does take her a bit to get used to the idea that she’s not a leader here, not a commander- she’s a useful agent, and her input is appreciated, but she and the Jedi with her are not in charge). Ahsoka approaches Rex, he tells her what happened to Fives. Ahsoka does some digging, and uncovers the chips. She takes the info straight to Rex, who, with the other Commanders and the medics, coordinate a massive, secret de-chipping operation under the guise of every trooper needing a vaccine to combat some new disease making the rounds.

Once Cody and the others are fairly sure that the majority of the army has been dechipped, the Commanders make their move, and the entire GAR goes on strike. Every Commander has passed down orders to their captains, and the captains have passed it down to their men, so everyone is briefed on what to do and how to behave. Any troops currently engaged in battle abandon whatever objective they had, fighting only to their extraction point. GAR ships abandon contested space, re-centering around Republic planets and bases. Troopers are ordered to only perform the duties necessary to keep the ships running and keep everyone alive. Food, sanitation, medical, and defense if they are attacked. Many battalions are essentially dead in space, or on whatever planet they were on, because their Jedi leaders won’t relinquish the bridges of their ships, but their troops refuse to fight. So Aayla, Plo, and the other allied Jedi are able to take their troops to these stranded groups, giving them supplies, taking the wounded, helping them defend against separatist forces if they need it.

Cody and the other Commanders have put together a document, and they send two copies. One to the Senate, and one to the Jedi Council. It is a list of grievances, followed by a list of demands.

Needless to say, the Jedi Council are forced into a negotiation pretty damn quick. The Commanders insist that a representative of the Senate, someone with the authority to speak for them, be present too. The clones refuse to send their representatives to Coruscant, because they don’t trust the Jedi Council or the Senate not to execute them. Anakin Skywalker volunteers his ship as a neutral place- sure, the 501st is on strike, but it’s a Jedi ship, so both parties should feel about as equally uncomfortable.

At the negotiations, representing the Clone Troopers: Commander Cody, Commander Wolffe, Commander Bly, and Captain Rex. Plo Koon, Aayla Secura, Quinlan Vos, and Ahsoka Tano are there to, mostly to say what the clones say, but louder and with a Jedi voice, so the council might actually listen. Present on behalf of the Jedi: Yoda, Mace Windu, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Ki-Adi-Mundi, and, ironically enough, Plo Koon, who volunteered when Yoda asked for Council members willing to participate in the negotiations. Present on behalf of the Senate: Senator Bail Organa, Senator Halle Burtoni of Kamino, and Chancellor Palpatine. Anakin is there, too, of course. It’s his ship, after all. Cody starts off by re-listing their grievances, the crimes committed against the Clone Troopers (he’s left the chips off the list- they’re still not 100% sure who’s behind it and don’t want to endanger the troops still chipped). Yoda and Mace try to interrupt him many times, but Cody just keeps talking over them, and Plo Koon keeps going “no let him finish this sounds interesting”. 

When Cody finishes, Halle Burtoni erupts into a rant about “traitors” and “defective products”. Senator Organa thinks Cody has a point. A good one. A lot of good ones, actually. Palpatine is quiet, silently calculating how he can turn this to his advantage. Yoda spouts off with a bunch of Jedi platitudes about perspective, the greater good, blah blah blah. Cody just looks at him and says “sir, you’re full of shit.” Before anyone can get on his case for it, Rex stands and starts reading off their demands. Obi-Wan keeps interrupting, with things like “surely, we can negotiate” or “I agree that you and your men have a right to these things, but in war, certain sacrifices must be made” and “can’t this wait until after we defeat the separatists?” Rex tells him to shut the hell up and listen for once in his goddamn life (quote). Obi-Wan turns to Anakin and says “Anakin, I thought you taught your men more respect than that!” but Anakin says “Actually, Master, I agree with Rex.” Before THAT can blow up, Yoda tries to calm things down with “discuss your requests, we must” but Wolffe’s like “Not requests. Demands. We are not here to negotiate, we are here to tell you what you must do if you want to keep your army.” There’s arguing. There’s yelling. Aayla makes an impassioned speech about freedom. Anakin and Ahsoka have a quick hushed aside, in which it takes Anakin about 30 seconds to decide he’s quitting the Order, too. Yoda and Mace ask Plo to back them up, but he just points at Wolffe and goes “my son”. Cody, Rex, Bly, and Wolffe are doing an excellent job of looking like the only professionals in the room. 

Eventually, Bail Organa asks everyone to calm down. “Commanders, I hear your grievances, and I understand that you have been treated wrongly. I propose that I introduce a bill in the Senate, to legally grant your demands-by the way, can I have a copy of that list?- We might have to do some arm-twisting to get the votes, but if you and your brothers hold steadfast in your strike, I’m sure it won’t take too long for the Senators to come around- especially those whose planets are close to Separatist activity.” Yoda mumbles something about needing to meditate before taking any action. Bail turns to Palpatine, who hasn’t said a word so far. “What do you think, Chancellor? Such a bill would move through the Senate much faster with your backing.” 

Palpatine has been watching the proceedings, and thinking. This could totally work out for him. Anakin and Obi-Wan are on opposite sides of this debate, and he didn’t even have to do anything to drive this wedge between them. Anakin is primed to declare against the Jedi Order. If he plays his ace card soon, the Clone Troopers massacre the Jedi, and, combined with their current strike, is more than enough justification for him to declare them all defective traitors and have them all killed via the chips, leaving Anakin with no one and nothing. Then, it’s a simple matter of unleashing him on the Separatists, having him commit more and more atrocities in the name of victory... unless, of course, Anakin decides to help the clones and participate in Order 66 himself, in which case, his job is done! And he might not even need to kill Padme to do it! At least, not until after the children are born and he can assess whether he wants one of them as an apprentice instead of their father. So Palpatine stands, walks over to Cody, and says, “Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66.”

And Cody says “Fuck you, Chancellor.” and punches him in the face. In the ensuing shitstorm, a lot of stuff is revealed. Palpatine is a sith lord- the angry Force lightning kind of made it obvious. Anakin has good reflexes, jumping in front of the lightning and absorbing the blast to protect Cody (he’s the most powerful Force-sensitive in a thousand years at least, he’ll be fine). Rex has good aim and good priorities- his pistols are drawn and Palpatine has two smoking holes where his eyes were before Anakin has finished screaming and collapsing dramatically. “Oh my fucking god,” Mace Windu says, realizing that they’ve been living in the pocket of a Sith Lord for a good decade and that he is an idiot. Wolffe is trying to get past Plo Koon, who jumped in front of him the moment Cody punched Palpatine. Aayla and Bly both tried to jump in front of each other (Bly won, because Aayla may be a Jedi but she’s shorter than he is), and Ahsoka, who didn’t get the chance to jump in front of anybody, just goes “yikes”. Obi-Wan, who is currently evaluating all of his life choices and also just how well he really knows his Commander, goes “agreed”. 

Anyway Bail gets the bill passed and is elected chancellor, and immediately enters into negotiations with the Separatists (dooku mysteriously vanished, high-tailing it out of there when his master died, and suddenly the separatist forces are much less blood-thirsty and sentient-rights violating when he’s not leading them). Yoda retires to a swamp planet, Mace decides to de-centralize the Jedi Order, re-write a lot of rules and Jedi philosophy, and moves to a new Temple being built on Hoth or something.

The clones are freed, given citizenship, backpay, and reparations, funded mostly by the Senate taxing the shit out of the Banking Clans and the Trade Federation. They objected strenuously, but couldn’t really do much about it with an entire clone army breathing down their necks. There’s a big search for a home for the clones, and a planet that will agree to host them. This is when the clan leaders of the Mandalorian Houses come forward- not the New Mandalorians, but the Mandalorians of the traditional, warrior culture, kicked out of Mandalore by the new government, living as a diaspora all over the galaxy. They say they will claim the Clones as theirs, accept them as their own clan. Their motives are manifold- one, the Clones were trained by Mandalorians, including Jango Fett, and clone culture borrows a lot from the Mandalorians. Secondly, it’ll really piss off Satine Kryze’s government, Thirdly, the promises made to the clones in Organa’s bill could be leveraged into a win-win for the Mandalorian Clans and the Clones. The Clones get their citizenship, and the Mandalorian Clans get recognized as an independent political entity, separate from New Mandalore, and as such, not subject to their laws, and entitled to a Senator of their own, as well as protection and recognition for their citizens spread throughout the Galaxy. 

Additionally, many planets offer citizenship programs to the clones, especially those whose populations had been decimated by the war. Governments are desperate for able-bodied people to come in and fill in the economic gap left by the war to stave off economic collapse. The Senate further creates programs to make it easier for clones to gain citizenship on planets that might not be so eager for them to live there, and for clones who are disabled and unable to work. So many clones end up with dual citizenship- Mandalorian Clans, and their home planet of choice.

Many choose to stay in the army- it’s familiar, it’s easier than trying to find a job and pay rent (especially when you’ve never heard of a job, salary, or rent growing up), it’s where their brothers are, and hey, they’re getting paid now. Anakin talks to Rex, and together, they take the 501st to the Outer Rim and wreck shit on the Hutts and their slave empire. After fulfilling his childhood dream of liberating Tattooine, Anakin retires to raise his children with his wife. Wolffe spends a few years traveling the galaxy alone, seeing new places and meeting new people. Eventually he returns to Coruscant, and when he leaves, a newly retired Plo Koon goes with him, and together they see as much of the galaxy as they can. Cody and Rex spend a while helping to settle their vod’e, taking the cadets and babies from Kamino and setting up home bases all over the galaxy, where they are raised by their older brothers. Cody discovers that he loves teaching. Rex finds out that he really likes kids. Eventually, Cody and Rex retire, but they still spend a lot of time with the clone children, and with their brothers. Ahsoka drops by every once in a while. Bail spends his career rooting out corruption and establishing requirements that Republic planets must elect their senators by popular vote. Everyone is reasonably content, oh and also Fives didn’t really die, he was wearing a blaster-proof vest and went into hiding, he rescued Echo and they both live the rest of their lives happily together.

[buttsoclock]

https://thatfeministmom.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/91/

So, uh…happy Fourth of July.

Honestly I don’t even know where to start today.

It’s the Fourth of July, and a lot of people are going to be spending the weekend barbecuing/grilling, watching fireworks, and waving flags and sparklers. They’re celebrating our independence as a country, our break away from oppressive tyranny to start our whole new history as our own nation.

That history has always been fraught with complications, and when I say complications I mean outright racism. And I’m already losing readers, I’m sure, because no one wants to acknowledge that. America has done racist things in the past, sure, but that’s not what defines us, right?

I mean, it kind of is. Much of America was built through slavery and genocide.

We can’t change the past. We can’t change how America was built. And anyway, that’s a story for another blog—or, you know, for a whole series of history books, which you should definitely read—that I’m not prepared to write right now.

What we can and should change is the present.

It’s so hard for me to get into a patriotic mood, knowing that there are people literally held in concentration camps right now. (No, not death camps—people seem to think it’s all okay as long as it’s not death camps—but they are definitely concentration camps, with conditions that can easily lead to death.)

I don’t want to wave sparklers around and sing God Bless the USA knowing that there are people being denied toothpaste, soap, etc. I refuse to wave tiny American flags and declare my pride in a country that is making so many suffer through emotional and physical abuse, including holding them without adequate food or water, and leaving them sick and overcrowded.

You can’t tell me it’s about cost, because a lot of the abuses taking place there have no money-saving effect, and they were even turning away donations of needed supplies. Not to mention they’ve admitted it would be more cost effective to just keep kids with their parents. No, it’s become pretty clear that these camps are less about protecting the US economy from threats undocumented immigrants allegedly pose, and all about dehumanization of people we can paint as “other.”

You definitely can’t tell me it’s about morality, because there is no world in which this can be said to be moral.

Sure, you can tell me it’s about the law. But we’ve heard that argument in history so many times, to defend rampant abuse of human rights in response to people breaking unjust laws. Law and morality are two very different things, mind you, and when you tell me that not just general punishment, but abuses to this degree, are morally justifiable because of the law, it is clear you and I have very different ideas on what it means to be moral.

I’m sorry, but to hell with the Fourth of July this year. To hell with patriotism. To hell with anyone proud of the way the US is behaving right now. We have things we need to fix. I can’t, in good conscience, celebrate this country’s accomplishment while turning a blind eye to its abhorrent treatment of people anywhere.

And no, I don’t care that they’re not US citizens, or that they came here “illegally” (in many cases to seek asylum which is NOT illegal). They’re human beings. And the moment you decide that some humans’ lives matter less because of their geographic origins or skin color, you put yourself on the wrong side. There is no argument, there is no “agree to disagree.” You are on the wrong side if you support abuse of human beings—men, women, and children, especially children—to this extent for any reason.

I’m sure many will say it’s in poor taste for me to be discussing this now, today, on our nation’s celebration of its independence. I think this is the best time to discuss it. I think we need to see the juxtaposition of blind performative patriotism alongside the very real and disturbing aspects of America. We have to shake ourselves from this delusion that America is perfect and we should celebrate it in its present perfection.

Please pay attention. I’m honestly begging you. Please watch what’s happening, be willing to acknowledge that maybe our country’s guiding principles aren’t perfect, be willing to actually see what’s happening for what it is. This is terrifying, and sickening, and I cannot wrap my head around the number of people who are willing to justify and excuse it. I say this today because today is when we’re all so aware of our country and its history, and we desperately need to shift the perspective of that awareness.

“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” –James Baldwin

Criticize America. Criticize it as harshly as you criticize those who seek to change it.  Especially today.

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

March 21, 2022 (Monday)Today is the anniversary of Georgia Senator Alexander Stephens’s Cornerstone Speech, given in 1861 just after he became the provisional vice president of the Confederacy. All these years later, the themes of that speech are still with us.

Stephens spoke in Savannah, Georgia, to explain the difference between the United States and the fledgling Confederacy. That difference, he said, was slavery. The American Constitution was defective because it based the government on the principle that all men were created equal. Confederate leaders had corrected the Founding Fathers’ error by basing the Confederate government on the idea that some people were better than others.

In contrast to the government the Founding Fathers had created, the Confederacy rested on the “great truth” that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Their determination to promote their new philosophy meant that the southern states insisted on states’ rights. The majority of Americans, speaking through the federal government, insisted on reining enslavement in, restricting it to the southern states where it already existed, while southern enslavers wanted to expand their “peculiar institution” to the nation’s newly acquired western lands. In white southerners’ view, federal oversight was tyranny, and true democracy meant that state legislatures should be able to do as their voters wished. 

So long as a majority of voters in the southern states voted for human enslavement, democracy had been served. Those same states, of course, limited voting to a few wealthy white men. 

The Republican Party had organized in the mid-1850s to stand against this version of American democracy. Those who joined the new party recognized that if enslavers were able to take control of new western states, they would use their votes in Congress and in the Electoral College to take over the federal government and make slavery national. 

The government, Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln warned, could not “endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided,” he told an audience in June 1858. “It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.”

For his part, Lincoln insisted on basing the nation on the idea that “all men are created equal,” as the Founders stated—however hypocritically—in the Declaration of Independence. I should like to know,” Lincoln said in July 1858, “if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop…. If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it!”

Less than a month after Stephens gave the Cornerstone Speech, the Confederates fired on a federal fort in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. When it ended, almost exactly four years later, southern state legislatures again tried to circumscribe the lives of the Black Americans who lived within their state lines. The 1865 Black Codes said that Black people couldn��t own firearms, for example, or congregate. They had to treat their white neighbors with deference and were required  to sign yearlong work contracts every January or be judged vagrants, punishable by arrest and imprisonment. White employers could get them out of jail by paying their fines, but then they would have to work off their debt.  

To make the principle that all men are created equal and entitled to equality before the law a reality, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and sent it off to the states for ratification. The states added it to the Constitution in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

That’s quite a sentence. It guarantees that no state can discriminate against any of its citizens. And then the amendment goes on to say that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

This is what is at stake today, both in the Senate hearings on the confirmation of the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, and more generally. Is our democratic system served so long as state legislatures can do what they wish without federal interference? Or should the federal government protect equality among all its citizens?

Ideally, of course, states would write fair laws without federal interference, and to create those circumstances after the Civil War, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, permitting Black men to vote, and then passed and sent off to the states for ratification the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to vote to Black men. When the Fifteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1870, the system had been fixed, most American men believed: the right to vote should protect all interests in the states.

Quickly, though, southern states took away the vote of the Black voters they insisted were trying to redistribute wealth from hardworking white taxpayers into public works projects to benefit the states’ poorer inhabitants. With Black voters cut out of the system, state legislatures enacted harshly discriminatory laws, and law enforcement looked the other way when white people violated the rights of Black and Brown citizens.

After World War II, the Supreme Court used the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to overrule state laws that favored certain citizens over others, and Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act to give Black and Brown Americans a say in the state governments under which they lived.

Now, the Republicans, at this point to a person, are echoing the pre–Civil War Democrats to say that democracy means that states should be able to do what they wish without interference from the federal government. So, for example, Texas—and now other states—should be able to ban abortion regardless of the fact that abortion is a constitutional right. States should be able to stop public school teachers from covering certain “divisive” topics: Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked an apparently nonplussed Judge Jackson, “Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate Critical Race Theory into our legal system?” And states should be able to restrict the vote, much as southern states did after the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and as 19 Republican-dominated states have done since the 2020 election.

Members of the new Republican Party in the 1850s recognized that, in that era, the doctrine of states’ rights meant not only the continued enslavement of Black Americans in the South, but also the spread of enslavement across the nation as southern enslavers moved west to create new states that would overawe the free states in Congress and the Electoral College. The spread of their system was exactly what Stephens called for 161 years ago today.

Now, in 2022, as Republican-dominated states lock down into one-party systems, their electoral votes threaten to give them the presidency in 2024 regardless of what a majority of Americans want. At that point, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection before the law will be vitally important, if only the Supreme Court will enforce it.

And that’s a key reason why, 161 years to the day after enslaver Alexander Stephens gave the Cornerstone Speech, the confirmation hearing of a Black woman, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the Supreme Court matters.

[beesandwasps]

Just off the top of my head, here’s some things centrists have done in the US since 2000:

Introduced and passed a bankruptcy bill written by banks which not only made it much harder to escape debt but also made it impossible to escape student loan debt via bankruptcy, which literally created the student loan debt crisis we now have. (The person who introduced the bill? Joe Biden.)

Refused, despite running two election campaigns based on doing exactly that, to either end the Iraq war in 2007 or 2009, or to hold the Bush administration responsible for it.

Sponsored a Nazi coup in 2014 in Ukraine (and yes, it is now admitted even by the Biden administration that it was a Nazi coup). When the EU complained, literally (we know from leaks) said “fuck the Europeans”.

Refused even to discuss ending the Iraq war or prosecuting the Too-Big-To-Fail Banks/Wall Street traders — both of them major parts of the 2008 platform, to the point of almost being the 2008 platform — until passing the Affordable Care Act — which was not a blip on most people’s radar in 2008. Ran out the clock on the latter and did not act on either of the former.

Passed the Affordable Care Act, which was based on Mitt Romney’s plan from Massachusetts, which was proposed by a right-wing think tank as a way to avoid universal healthcare. The ACA mandated private insurance for anybody who could afford it, did not cap premiums (which was already known to be a major problem with the Massachusetts law), and deliberately avoided having any not-for-profit public plan — it later came out that Obama had personally promised representatives from the insurance industry that he would make sure there was no public plan or talk about single-payer.

Did nothing to bail out homeowners who had extortionate mortgages, but bailed out the banks which were in danger after having issued extortionate mortgages which were obviously never going to be paid off.

Despite having the example of Iraq to learn from, started another war based on lies in Libya, which likewise ended in disaster and resulted in both massive gains for ISIS and the reappearance of chattel slavery in the region, which the Libyan government had wiped out. (Incidentally, Congress actually refused to declare that war, so they dishonestly used NATO to make it happen.)

Took GWB’s super-authoritarian “Total Information Awareness” proposal, involving things like unlimited warrantless domestic spying — which he had abandoned after quite justly being roasted by everybody over it — and quietly implemented essentially all of it under other names.

Backed Joe Manchin over his primary opponent for reelection even though Manchin had already proven to ignore conflicts of interest. (He has a daughter who was a Big Pharma CEO, and in his first senatorial term prevented any bills to control drug prices from making it out of committee, and also sabotaged environmental laws to protect his own fossil fuel company.) Then used Manchin’s presence in the Senate to excuse a total lack of effort to pass responsible environmental and fiscal policy.

In the previous two years, approved a record amount of fossil fuel drilling on public land and offshore, completely independent of any considerations of Manchin or Congress.

Run most of the city and state governments where all the high-profile police violence is going on, and continue to refuse to cut police budgets or eliminate qualified immunity or insist on firing cops who kill unarmed unresisting people. (Baltimore? Democratic. Chicago? Democratic. Los Angeles? Democratic. New York? Democratic. Minnesota? Democratic. etc. etc. etc.)

Continued and expanded the drone bombing program even after being warned by both an independent academic study and the CIA’s own study (the CIA being, naturally, the agency which began the program) that the program was killing vastly more innocents than enemies and was absolutely counterproductive because it caused more people to want to harm the US than it could possibly stop.

Actively asked the press to boost Donald Trump in the 2016 primary elections because they felt he would be easier to beat than somebody reasonable, then ran a joke of a candidate who was actively hated by a majority of the country.

Not content with the previous point, are repeating this strategy in Congressional elections around the country.

That’s all right-wing shit. And it’s all from centrists. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the public consistently polls to the left of the Democratic party — a majority want single-payer health insurance, an end to drone bombing, taxes on the rich, immediate action on climate change, and more — but centrists continue to use any excuse to avoid doing any of that.

You know what I've realized? I don't think I've ever in my life seen a think-piece warning the Republicans that a controversial position that they take might lose them votes from swing voters.

Has there been one? There must be at least one, surely, but it seems like people basically never go, "With increased acceptance of homosexuality in the country, the Texas Republicans should re-think their stances against homosexuality lest they start to lose their grip on moderate voters who are tired of radical slogans and culture war distractions."

[paxtontrnp395-blog]

7 And A Half Very Simple Things You Can Do To Save Legal Services

SHOULD CONGRESS BE TRUSTED? WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT THROUGH HISTORY? Implications and Expected results for a Non-proactive Electorate " inside the fight for Rights"

VOTING RIGHTS BATTLE BACKGROUND IN THE UNITED STATES: The debate around the right to Vote dates made use of in 1789, a period when the United States Constitution was implemented. The "Slave Owning States" insisted that this to certainly vote should basically be granted to "white men" at the same time demanded the black slaves in households be counted and relied on in the determination of congressional representation. Due to disagreements on voting rights, the Federal Government only retained authority to find out USA Citizenship while independent states took over the right to set standards on who could vote, when and just how the voting ended up being to be conducted. At that time in history, most Southern States were known as" Slave States" because of wide-spread acceptance of slave ownership. It's not surprising that most states for countless years granted the right to vote simply to "white men" and quite often setting additional limitations based on property ownership for someone to exercise that right.

It's not surprising that this 1790 Naturalization Act recognized only "free white males" because only people susceptible to naturalized inside the United States. Native Americans were excluded from citizenship along with the to vote inside the United States. The law presumed "Native Americans were citizens of these sovereign "Indian Nations" and so cannot be citizens from the United States. The women and slaves were the only nonvoters legally at the time. At the conclusion in the Mexican-American Revolution beneath the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Mexicans who had remained inside newly conquered territories were for being USA citizens legally. Although legally acknowledged as citizens, the 1850 Union of states i.e. Texas and California led for the enactment of laws geared towards denying Mexicans in conquered territories the authority to vote.

The 1861-1865 Civil War led towards the death of 360,000 Union antislave supporters "blacks and whites" Thus leading to the end of legalized slavery. The legal death of slavery was enacted in 1863 proclamation and 13th Constitution Amendment of 1865 from the Federal Government. Though the determination of voting rights still lay within reach of independent states. In 1867 the 14th amendment extended citizenship to everyone black men for that first time in History although women of most races were still denied citizenship.

The to vote for black men was theoretically legalized in 1867 through the 15th Amendment although nearly all Southern States still had very unfavorable voting laws against black men and practically none in support for women's directly to vote.

The Republicans and Democratic Party compromises in politics manifesting itself today are deeply rooted in undisclosed agreements between elected leaders with the two political parties purposed for private benefits for the cost with the minorities or underrepresented. In the 1876 disputed presidential elections between Hayes, a Republican candidate and Tilden a Democratic candidate led to your congressional compromise, later referred to as "Compromise of 1877". In the undisputed facts, the Republicans consented to retain the White House while white racists " at the time mostly democrats" gained political support to oppress and persecute non-whites through very unjust laws adopted during that time.

States completely disregarded in the 15th Amendment, a factor that generated, many working blacks with the time getting expelled from office jobs as a result of exercising their voting right, many were evicted from your home and crippling laws enacted to deter blacks or another races from voting. These Laws included, the literacy test laws deterring anyone who couldn't read or write from voting, the grandfather clause limiting voting to merely people with grandfathers with eligibility to vote, poll tax laws that limited voting to only folks who could afford to spend that tax "the rich" along with the separation Laws under "Jim Crow".

Asians inside 1870 Naturalization Amendment Act were specifically denied citizenship. Citizenship was limited by white people the ones of African descent. All women, Asian, Chinese, Mexican and Native - Americans were denied citizenship along with the right to vote in nearly all Southern States. Between 1890 - 1920, several states granted women the right to vote as well as the consequent adoption from the 19th Amendment generated recognitions of the female's right vote within the United States.

WHY REVIEW HISTORY: I believe life is the best teacher for anyone prepared to learn. The need to suppress the minority for the selfish desires from the majority "RICH" has persistently manifested itself in USA politics.

On December 4th, 2012 Congress didn't pass the UN Treaty around the Rights of People with Disability. 61 Democrats voted for your agreement (Treaty) while 38 Republicans voted up against the agreement thus ratification on a two-third majority failed. Senators who voted against, mostly Republicans alleged these folks were fighting for the sovereignty with the United States against UN control or broadening of the legal principles. For any person with legal knowledge inside the supremacy of laws inside United States, You are aware that International Laws usually do not automatically become law inside the United States constantly. There exceptions on the general rule in every principles in Law.

Also, the fact that the United States adopted the "Americans with Disabilities Act as amended" of 1990, a law that's substantially the same as the rejected UN Disability Agreement baffles my head currently. In addition, the USA enacted laws in support of individuals with disabilities include, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.

It's not surprising that old tricks trusted by Congress to sustain selfish interests of "the funders" on the cost of creating the best decision on the expense of the minority "people who have disabilities" remains to be at play thus far.

Also the applicability and availability inside International Law of principles like "the Non-self-executing treaties" make it inconceivable that no congressional representative highlighted the above-mentioned principle in support of or against ratification. The Senators against the treaty failed to even elaborate or identify specific grounds for voting against ratification. All focus was about the presumptive comes from ratification how the UN treaty would attain supremacy from the USA enacted law. To me, explanations made available from congress against ratifying the treaty were all "just a big cry for further power" against UN governance.

All Lawyers are aware that ratifying countries in international law possess a directly to deliver for the United Nations committee declarations or reservations held against adopted treaties. This can vary from, declaring that the ratified treaty won't become self-executing in adopting state automatically to modifying specific provisions of the treaty as regards declaring country. The legal implications would include, amendment of that treaty with the declaring state in regards to identified provision or reservation, and limited application with the said treaty against another country. Usually, inside the United States, the application of an non-self-executing treaty would require additional consent from congress ahead of the court would apply treaty provisions in the court. The United States has relied on similar declarations before i.e. through the ratification from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The public must rise against senators who violate public trust with the worth of self-imposed conditions or pledges on the "RICH FUNDERS " a huge price for your underrepresented "people who have disabilities". Not only does the USA possess a reputation to protect within the International community, but rejection of these UN Agreement also undermines our role as part with the five permanent members inside United Nations.

Congress's breach of trust for United States citizens is undeniable specifically in light of yet again didn't pass the Aid Relief Package for Sandy victims. The Electorate has to require a pro-active role in demanding answers. The elected representative seems clueless about the needs in the people they represented. I think representatives seeking election to congress has to be subjected with a test called "a humanistic co relational experience and contact with people not inside your social circles". The test must entail real-life experience and exposure. From recent experience, it's similar to most Republicans haven't lost homes, never gone hungry or been helpless and dependant on government for support in any way in their lives.

The representative must be made accountable for their actions while in congress. The electorate must join hands to halt congress madness and disregard of people's basic needs.

[audlaq]

An Open Letter to My Fellow Citizens, entitled Our Money Should Say “We Disagree But Blend Together”

I am a human American who happens to have liberal political views. I believe that any non-criminal who desires to live in this country should be free to do so in the style of his or her choosing, that all citizens should be engaged in the political process and that the role of our government is to work in good faith on behalf of all types of Americans to facilitate our free, peaceful and productive coexistence.

The above is simply an introduction and not an attempt to get everyone to agree with my particular point of view on American values. I don’t believe we’d be living in America if we all agreed. But I do believe that, as citizens, we need to stop drawing the lines of R & D between us and stop judging one another using only our political affiliation. In my experience, most of us don’t fit neatly into those party boxes; and that is a good thing.

Disagreement is not the reason why America is so divided. Nor could it ever be. America exists because humans disagree. The Founders did not believe that one person or religion or way of life should rule free people. They declared independence because they believed it was self-evident that all Men are created equal. They wanted all Americans to be free to peacefully disagree as equals while pursuing whatever individual dreams, beliefs and lifestyles they could imagine.

Disagreement is why there are checks and balances built into our government. It is why the First Amendment exists. It is why slavery and the denial of slaves’ rights were not enshrined into the Constitution. Disagreement is the given, America is the attempt at a solution.

What is dividing us today is a bastardization of disagreement, based not in a respectful acknowledgement of differences, but in competition, mistrust and division. You know it as Blind Party Loyalty; aka Party First; aka Party Over Country; aka Believe only those who agree with you always.

Blind Party Loyalty (BPL) is toxic because it perpetuates the misguided idea that politics is a sport and that this country is made up of two distinct teams, who are mortal enemies. According to BPL, the political parties are not in place to check and balance each other, but to obstruct and defeat one another by any means necessary. BPL ignores that the parties could never be two distinct teams because they need to be two sides of one team, the offense and defense of Team USA; working together to blend rather than exploit our divergent cultures and needs. Check and balance ensures our democracy endures. Obstruct and defeat makes no such promise.

But BPL does not allow for bipartisan teamwork or balancing of any kind. BPL means that the other side’s ideas, agendas and candidates can never be acceptable. Nothing the other side says or does is reasonable or correct, in all instances regardless of context or circumstance or evidence, yet everything your side says or does is reasonable and correct, in all instances regardless of context or circumstance or evidence. BPL demands that you will fit neatly into that party box. It insists that it’s possible for America to succeed if one side is more concerned with crushing the other side than with governing both sides. In short, BPL guarantees Team USA failure and prevents unity.

There is only one way that I can think of to combat the Blind Party Loyalty epidemic. It may sound radical, but as private citizens we need to forget about the labels of Republican vs Democrat; Red vs Blue; Conservative vs Liberal; Us vs Them; Team vs Team; forget there are sides. Citizens who think of each other in only those terms do not serve this country in any positive way. Average Americans have no need to compete with each other on that level.

Let’s leave the sides & the party boxes to the elected officials. Private citizens don’t need to check and balance each other; our votes do that for us. But we do need to start thinking of ourselves as one united body. Not united in our political views, but united in our commitment to check and balance our public servants and our entire government. Not just when it comes to the rival “team”, but all the time with all the public servants.

We are meant to disagree, but blend together. To me, what makes America exceptional is that our Founding Documents implore us to accept all types of humans as equals and live peacefully beside them as neighbors. Acceptance of all and respect for all is the price we pay for our own true freedom. In the words of MLK, Jr., “No is free until we are all free.” If we are not always striving toward the self-evident truth of equality, what was the point of declaring it along with our independence?

We all have access to the same information. We have to be willing to look outside of our own worldview, gather different perspectives, engage respectfully with fellow citizens, accept each other’s differences and everyone’s right to have them, listen and understand and finally use all of that to form and evolve your own opinions. We have to be willing to have informed opinions.

idea that it’s taboo to speak publicly about politics is outdated and a large part of the reason we had the candidates we did in 2016. When we close ourselves off from any information that disagrees with our personal worldview, we disagree with American democracy. In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it is the responsibility of all of the people to remain informed and engaged. We can’t just expect the government to run smoothly and benevolently without us, when the government is us.

[phaylenfairchild]

Kanye, Flat Earthers and the Rise of Free Thinkers

That’s a fancy term, isn’t it? It’s actually a dangerous trend. Here’s why.

People who self-identify as “Free Thinkers” are growing in numbers at an alarming rate. From the perspective of a casual observer, these individuals parade themselves as an elite collective that have taken the proverbial red pill. To them, we live in a complex machination, a Matrix like world where all of us who possess a conscience- but not an elevated consciousness- are merely drones. We’re tendrils acting with uniform behaviors and our thoughts are not independent, but instead a reflection of some great hive mind that they, themselves, have managed to unshackle themselves from.

Everything is a lie, if you ask a Free thinker. The moon landing never happened, the Earth is flat, global mind control is plaguing society, wealthy lizard people are influencing the political direction of the Nation. To be fair, not every Free Thinker subscribes to all of these campfire conspiracy theories. Some adopt a decidedly different tactic and attempt to legitimize their attempt to swing away from reality using faux science and pack mentality. They find pockets of people who claim the Free-Thinker badge and spoon feed each other misinformation, propaganda and radical hyperbole as they enable each other’s further untethering from logic.

Throughout the decades, Free Thinkers came in various forms; Some were simply anarchists, interested in mostly in rebuking power and authority figures. Some were social rebels fighting against man-made traditions, cultural constructs and heavily embedded world views we accepted without resistance. They regarded themselves as uniquely informed and inarguably correct. With that gift of awareness that eluded most others, they perceive themselves as superior to the rest of us simpletons; Us worker ants trapped in a never-ending mechanism of primal habit and indoctrination, effectively blind to our own slavery of automated responses and thought.

There is something disturbing about today’s emergence of those who dub themselves Free Thinkers and that lies in the fact that they are functioning based on emotion, not thought, not logic, not facts. Science is abandoned, truths are a burden and reality, as it irrefutably exists doesn’t anymore thus is open to debate. This deviation from reason; This departure from the tangible world and its myriad of functions- they shirking of these things they embrace as a form of liberation.

It’s not liberation. It’s a wanton desire so impermeable that they have accepted a grotesque distortion of a fantasy in order to cope with adversity or appear as if they’ve been delivered some vast insight into the secrets of the universe that science has somehow missed altogether. They know things that even the most intelligent of our species clearly missed as we are prisoners of a singular structure. We do what we are allowed. We think within the boundaries of the thought police. We fear being detached from some make-shift mother organism and developing our own self governance or manifesting an unaided perspective or untainted opinion.

Many times we dismiss those who self-identify as “free Thinkers” as wild haired neurotics living in houses of tin foil. Some might say that Einstein was free-thinker, or Benjamin Franklin who went out into a lightening storm with a kite connected to a conductive wire. Bystanders surely though that was indisputably crazy. Maybe you could argue that Da Vinci whose genius allowed him access to experimentation and the development of new concepts. None of them dismissed reality, but by their very acceptance of it, they maneuvered to re-shape it.

These are not the Free-Thinkers of today. Today, free thinkers are, in fact, eager to place themselves in the shackles of control while convincing themselves that they’re actually absolving themselves of them. Kanye West, for example, a black man who has often defined himself as a free-thinker, aligned himself with his own oppressor. He deliberately omitted all cogniscence of social conditions in an effort to appear rebellious and exalted when he was actually handing his own fate to a man who, historically, would have refused him basic human rights. He expressed absolute disinterest in was was unquestionably bad for him- and all black Americans, with the intent of appearing separated from those of us who sat in disbelief.

“You wouldn’t do this, but look at me, everyone is telling me not to, but I am! I don’t do what everyone else does! I’m not a sheep! I’m a free thinker!”

No. You’ve been radicalized enough to declare yourself your own enemy. That’s not being a free thinker or indicative of any heightened awareness; That’s self sabotage. That’s intentionally wounding yourself while the world watches, hoping that we’ll believe your proclaimed divinity will keep you alive as you bleed out in front of a man who would have happily done that on your behalf. Abandoning common sense, refuting what we know to be true or false to aggrandize yourself isn’t free thinking… that’s one letting their own ego obstruct their judgement. It’s not innovating new concepts or ideas. It’s not pioneering new paths or demonstrating things we have never before seen or considered.

Gay or Trans Republicans, black people joining groups of white nationalists, people insisting the Earth is flat just to feel they’ve gone against the grain and that somehow makes them special. Listening to flat-Earthers attempt to provide evidence that the planet is disc-shaped and the shocking confidence they have in their presentation of a shared delusion is not only bizarre, but deeply disturbing.

The fact they have developed their own organization to legitimize their ostentatious ignorance and people have subscribed to it is only evidence of an inherent need some humans have to be, not just informed, but specially informed, like Moses standing atop Mount Sinai receiving a Godly message. They want to be recognized as a people set apart from the rest of us… just because it provides them a message or a purpose. It turns an otherwise ordinary life experience into an extraordinary mission of delivering what we now call alternative facts.

Many who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election viewed themselves as free-thinkers. That superhero-like free thought gave them the courage to rebuff their responsibility to their fellow Americans, to break the establishment, which they accept as bad, and turn it on its head. It was all about the ego of influencing change via the power they recklessly wielded at the polls. Vote for the reality television star, they thought, he’ll destroy the system and set us all free from ruin. Trump brilliantly played to that demographic; Those whose ego inevitably hamstrings their discernment. They operated under the impression that they were Trump’s chosen. The promises he made appealed directly to their prejudices and fears. He represented everything that went against what we know to be good; Equality, due process, freedom of the press and he conjured up a monolithic adult version of a boy’s club in a tree house. The red hat grants you access. It is the equivalent of the white hood, but they don’t see it that way. Falling into ranks behind a chest thumping tribal chieftain of the Republican party wasn’t flipping the middle finger to the system or executing free thought… it was, despite what they’ll tell you, an abandonment of civility and refusal to co-exist peacefully with others as they see themselves as superior. Because Free-Thinkers all see themselves as operating on a different plane of wisdom and expanded knowledge… in this case, we’re all left to pay the consequences for the mass hysteria the ensues.

There is an undeniable confusion that free-thinkers suffer from, and that is their inability to tell the difference between being an individual and being a revolutionary. Revolutionaries were the true free thinkers. Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, the Wright brothers, Rosa Parks, Sylvia Rivera, the people who changed the world by changing minds and expanding our scope of appreciating the experiences of those who are not like us. They weren’t peddling conspiracies or burning down their own houses to demonstrate on behalf of those who would have done it for them. They did express free thought by shedding dismissing knowledge and suppressing their awareness of social evolution to give credibility to those who hoped to thwart it. They fought for a better world and an improved quality of life. They were not these absent-minded, hate motivated rebellious teenagers who balked at things like research, hard-line evidence and preached against a common good, they were indeed revolutionaries who challenged social injustices they knew were corrupt and removed them of their self sovereignty.

Free thinkers want to set themselves on fire to push back against those they deem controllers. Revolutionaries simply want to empower and inspire the rest of the world to make it a better place. They were devoted to a cause, as where free thinkers are mere followers of a mythical design and devoted only to self interest.

In the end, they only hurt themselves. We must rely on the revolutionaries to save us from the self appointed free thinkers.

Powered by WPeMatico

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2F5tCKd via IFTTT

[hollywoodjuliorivas]

But the problem is not the Russians — it’s us. We’re getting played because too many Americans are ill equipped to perform the basic functions of citizenship. If the point of the Russian campaign, aided domestically by right-wing media, was to get people to think there is no such thing as knowable truth, the bad guys have won. As we crossed the 300-day mark of Donald Trump’s presidency on Thursday, fact-checkers noted that he has made more than 1,600 false or misleading claims. Good God. At least five times a day, on average, this president says something that isn’t true. We have a White House of lies because a huge percentage of the population can’t tell fact from fiction. But a huge percentage is also clueless about the basic laws of the land. In a democracy, we the people are supposed to understand our role in this power-sharing thing. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Nearly one in three Americans cannot name a single branch of government. When NPR tweeted out sections of the Declaration of Independence last year, many people were outraged. They mistook Thomas Jefferson’s fighting words for anti-Trump propaganda. Fake news is a real thing produced by active disseminators of falsehoods. Trump uses the term to describe anything he doesn’t like, a habit now picked up by political liars everywhere. But Trump is a symptom; the breakdown in this democracy goes beyond the liar in chief. For that you have to blame all of us: we have allowed the educational system to become negligent in teaching the owner’s manual of citizenship. Lost in the news grind over Roy Moore, the lawbreaking Senate candidate from Alabama, is how often he has tried to violate the Constitution. As a judge, he was removed from the bench — twice — for lawless acts that follow his theocratic view of governance. Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME Shariah law has been justifiably criticized as a dangerous injection of religion into the public space. Now imagine if a judge insisted on keeping a monument to the Quran in a state judicial building. Or that he said “homosexual conduct” should be illegal because his sacred book tells him so. That is exactly what Moore has done, though he substitutes the Bible for the Quran. I don’t blame Moore. I blame his followers, and the press, which doesn’t seem to know that the First Amendment specifically aims to keep government from siding with one religion — the so-called establishment clause. My colleagues at the opinion shop on Sunday used a full page to print the Bill of Rights, and urge President Trump to “Please Read the Constitution.” Yes, it’s come to this. On press freedom, due process, exercise of religion and other areas, Trump has repeatedly gone into Roy Moore territory — dismissing the principles he has sworn to uphold. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Suppose we treated citizenship like getting a driver’s license. People would have to pass a simple test on American values, history and geography before they were allowed to have a say in the system. We do that for immigrants, and 97 percent of them pass, according to one study. Yet one in three Americans fail the immigrant citizenship test. This is not an elitist barrier. The test includes questions like, “What major event happened on 9/11?” and “What ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?” One reason that public schools were established across the land was to produce an informed citizenry. And up until the 1960s, it was common for students to take three separate courses in civics and government before they got out of high school. Now only a handful of states require proficiency in civics as a condition of high school graduation. Students are hungry, in this turbulent era, for discussion of politics and government. But the educators are failing them. Civics has fallen to the side, in part because of the standardized test mania. A related concern is historical ignorance. By a 48 percent to 38 percent margin Americans think states’ rights, rather than slavery, caused the Civil War. So Trump’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, can say something demonstrably false about the war, because most people are just as clueless as he is. There’s hope — and there are many ways — to shed light on the cave of American democracy. More than a dozen states now require high school students to pass the immigrant citizenship test. We should also teach kids how to tell fake news from real, as some schools in Europe are doing. 712 COMMENTS But those initiatives will mean little if people still insist on believing what they want to believe, living in digital safe spaces closed off from anything that intrudes on their worldview.

[ebvbechvkwv-blog]

DEBT! THE NEW SLAVERY!

I have and will always love and look up to Thomas Sankara because of how much of a visionary he was. His forward thinking ideologies made him capable of foreseeing many of the issues that plague the African society and community today. These same ideologies are what got him killed but exactly what we need today to deal with these same issues that plague Africa in this case very specifically debt. This article by Paula Akugizibwe on thisisafrica.me explores Sankara’s ideologies on debt and financial slavery.

Thomas Sankara, former leader of Burkina Faso, was the apparent opposite of everything we are often told that success should look like. Mansions? Cars? Who? What? Get out of here. As Prime Minister and later as President, Sankara rode a bicycle to work before he upgraded, at his Cabinet’s insistence, to a Renault 5 – one of the cheapest cars available in Burkina Faso at the time. He lived in a small brick house and wore only cotton that was produced, weaved and sewn in Burkina Faso.

Going by his lifestyle, Sankara was the antithesis of success, but it is this very distinction that enabled him to become the most successful president Africa has ever seen, in terms of what he accomplished for and with his people. Sankara would not have chopped P-Square’s money given twice a chance – in fact, he might have sat him down and taught him a thing or two about the creeping menace of pop culture patriarchy – because Thomas Sankara, “The Upright Man”, was a feminist. In this and many other ways, Sankara was the African dream come true, the only living proof that hopes of African independence are not dead on arrival.

His life ended with a bullet which, according to the testimony of some involved in his assassination, was ordered by former Liberian president Charles Taylor with the support of the French and American governments, and delivered via Blaise Compaoré – Sankara’s long-time friend and colleague, and the current president of Burkina Faso. Four years prior, when Compaoré and Sankara had jointly staged the popular coup of 1983 that made Sankara president, Burkina Faso was one of the poorest countries in the world. Under Compaoré it still is – so much so that the dire circumstances led to a series of violent protests last year.

During the years of Sankara’s administration, things were turning around, especially in the areas of health, education and the environment. Mass vaccination campaigns were rolled out with a level of rapidity and success that was unprecedented for an African country at that time. Infant mortality rates dropped. School attendance rates doubled. Millions of trees were planted in a far-sighted effort to counter deforestation. Feminism was a core element of political ideology, manifested through improved access to education for girls, and inclusion of women in leadership roles. Sankara introduced a day of solidarity in which men switched traditional gender roles – going to the market, running the household – so as to better empathise with what women handle on a daily basis. It was Africa’s greatest success story.

Members of a crowd hold a placard written ‘Thomas Sankara, look at your sons. We carry on your fight’. Photo: Gardens of Freedom/Twitter

How was this achieved? In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Sankara reflected on the state of Burkina Faso at the time that he had come to power, stating that “The diagnosis was clearly sombre. The root of the disease was political. The treatment could only be political.” And Sankara did not hold back with the treatment. As soon as he came into power, he set about razing the conventional structures of power and inequality.

Gone were the days of politicians living lavish lives sponsored by taxpayers’ money – Sankara issued salary cuts across the board, including for himself. The fleet of Mercedes Benzes for high-ranking officials was done away with, and the cars replaced by Renault 5s. Land and oil wealth were nationalised. While the masses celebrated, the country’s elite was enraged as decades of class inequality, which had previously favoured them, suddenly came into jeopardy.

The international community, whose interests were vested in the status quo, were also disturbed by Sankara’s radicalism, not least when he started calling for African countries to reject debt repayments. From the 1970s onwards, newly-independent African governments had begun to rapidly accumulate huge amounts of debt from rich countries and the Bretton Woods institutions: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As the Cold War intensified, such loans were increasingly used as a tool for securing political support from key countries – even governments that were patently corrupt and would inevitably default on repayment, such as Mobutu’s in the DRC, were readily provided with billions of dollars in credit.

In one of his most famous speeches [above], delivered at the summit of the Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union) in Addis Ababa in 1987, Sankara issued a passionate call for a United Front Against Debt. “We think that debt has to be seen from the standpoint of its origins. Debt’s origins come from colonialism’s origins. Those who lend us money are those who had colonized us before,” he declared. “Under its current form, that is imperialism-controlled, debt is a cleverly managed re-conquest of Africa, aiming at subjugating its growth and development through foreign rules. Thus, each one of us becomes the financial slave, which is to say a true slave…”

At the time of his speech it was clear, just a couple of decades into independence, that African countries were quickly becoming financial slaves. Interest rates rose sharply in the 1980s, but governments continued to borrow more and more. Between 1982 and 1990, African debt doubled from US$140 billion to US$270 billion. Sankara rightly predicted that this would cripple African development for generations to come. Despite debt relief programs, which have resulted in increased spending on health and education in African countries, Jubilee Debt Campaign estimates that in 2008, low income countries paid over US $20 million a day to rich countries.

Their decision-making power is also constrained within the limits of orders given by the institutions and countries to which they are indebted. Strangely enough, while these orders demand decreased public spending for example on health, they don’t seem to have made a dent on the perpetual rise of Africa’s waBenzi clan: politicians rolling in flashy Mercedes Benzes bought with taxpayers’ money. And to make matters worse, with access to new creditors – especially China – many African governments are once again sinking into the vicious cycle of debt dependency that Sankara foresaw.

His Foreign Policy Advisor, Fidèle Kientega, explains how this foresight was shared with ordinary people. “Sankara did not dictate to people or force them to work. He told them about the mechanisms of getting loans…He said that they could relax at home and ask him to borrow money from the neo-colonialists, but that they would have to bear in mind that they and their children would have to pay back the loans with interests. Consequently, his government would find it difficult to provide universal education and health care because he would have to spend a greater chunk of the meagre tax revenues in servicing the debt. They could also beg for aid but then they would remain beggars forever. The people got the message and were motivated into working harder.”

Stories of Sankara tend to focus on his radical policies, but it is this approach that was probably the most radical of all – his efforts to bring discussions and decisions, “the apparatus of democracy” as Kientega puts it, to ordinary people. He was able to do this not only because he had political commitment to the proverbial grassroots – as many leaders claim to do – but because, through the choices he made, he positioned himself as their equal. Sankara made personal sacrifices that no other president has ever made, and did not view them as sacrifices, but as an act of solidarity, of African pride. In his view it was only through collective commitment to such sacrifices, which he hoped would one day be viewed as “normal and simple” actions, that Africans could begin to work their way towards self-reliance.

Despite Sankara’s incredible oratorical gift, the message came across even more eloquently through his actions: it is better to live a simple life in freedom, than a fabulous lifestyle in economic chains. Unfortunately, despite his best efforts, most African governments did not share his philosophy. In a recent series of debates on democracy organised by TIA, people from Ghana, Kenya and South Africa all expressed a lack of faith in their countries’ democratic systems. Why? Because, they said, existing political systems across the world don’t answer to ordinary people – they answer to money. African governments are first accountable to rich countries, then to their own local elites; and finally, if convenient, to the people.

Africa’s heavily indebted poor countries. Graphic: World Bank

In a world that only answers to money, everything is for sale – democracy, freedom, dignity, integrity. Thomas Sankara bucked this trend, and in so doing struck at the very core of the international system of control – because for once, the world was faced with an African leader it could neither buy nor co-opt.

And because he was not for sale, Sankara had to be eliminated, buried in an unmarked grave whose whereabouts are still unknown. To this day, Sankara’s family and supporters in Burkina Faso and around the world are still fighting for justice, some in the face of death threats. Meanwhile, despite the fact that some of the fastest growing economies in the world are now African, and the fact that poverty rates are falling, so much of our energy now and for the foreseeable future will have to be devoted to further reducing poverty levels relating to decades of political selling out. And the selling out continues, even as our economies are bouncing back. Why do our leaders keep selling us out? Same reason we all sell out – for nice things. “Where does this debt come from anyway?” Sankara asked. “Did we need to build mansions…or foster the mentality of overpaid men among our officers?” This last question, in particular, has become more relevant as we learn of just how much money Africa’s elite have been salting away in foreign accounts even as their countries’ foreign debts mount: ‘Capgemini and Merrill Lynch estimate in their latest World Wealth Report that Africa has about 100,000 “high net worth individuals” with a total of $1.2 trillion in liquid assets. The debts, on the other hand, are owed by the African people as a whole through their governments.’

Of all the holy cows in the world today, materialism is probably the deepest and most universally entrenched – from home to school to pop culture. This entrenchment is necessary to preserve the current system of inequality, because it opens us all up to compromise, to co-option. How much would you sell your values for? How much do you sell your values for? Sankara demonstrated that the make-or-break of freedom is not so much about heroes and politics as it is about the very personal struggle between principles and cash-money.

A week before he died, Sankara said, “revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, but you cannot kill ideas”. And so, for us today, the final challenge rests not in finding more Sankaras, but in becoming them – in bringing these ideas to life. “You have to dare to look reality in the face and take a whack at some of the long-standing privileges,” Sankara said, “so long-standing in fact that they seem to have become normal, unquestionable.” And that’s the most daunting thing of all, because it requires a struggle with the person in the mirror.

https://thisisafrica.me/debt-cleverly-managed-reconquest-africa-thomas-sankara/

[peopleoftexas]

The Congressional Globe, 1844

Page 3: The undersigned assures the honorable Secretary of State of the disposition of his government to fulfill all her obligations to Texas, and of the deep interest felt both by the government and the people of the United States in whatever concerns her welfare; to which he will add his own anxious wish to preserve the most perfect faith towards both the government and the people of Texas. But he is not able to perceive that an assurance given that the military power should be used, so far as it constitutionally might, to repel invasion during the pendency of the treaty, (to which alone both Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Van Zandt seem to have had reference,) would raise an obligation on the President of the United States to interpose, by affording military aid to Texas in the present emergency.

Page 32: To that branch of this proposition that charges that, because those who figured as principals in the declaration of independence, and who conquered in the battle of San Jacinto, were natives of the United States, therefore the declaration of independence and the demand for annexation the work, the work of the government of the United States, it is enough to reply that, although they were natives of the United States, they had been invited to Texas, as is admitted by Mr. Rejon himself, first, by the government of Spain, next by Mexico, and then by the State of Coahuila and Texas, competently authorized to do so, that Mr. Rejon knows,, or ought to know, that the government of the United States contributed in nowise whatsoever to induce the governments of Spain, or of Mexico, or of Coahuila and Texas to give that invitation; and that he also knows that the declaration of independence and the application by the people of Texas to be annexed to the United States was the consequence of measures adopted by the government of Mexico, over which the government of the Untied States exercised no control, and in which it had no agency whatever.

Page 33: For further proof that the declaration of the independence of Texas was the work of the government of Mexico and not of the government of the United States, the undersigned refers to the admission made by Mr. Rejon himself, that the revolt, as he terms it, in Texas, was occasioned by the refusal of the Mexican government to approve of the constitution adopted by the people of Texas for the purpose of becoming one of the confederated Mexican States, and by the decree abolishing slavery and the measures adopted by the Mexican government to compel them “to comply with laws which they despised.” ……. His excellency Mr. Rejon also states that the people of Texas were bound to submit to the form of government adopted by the other States; and inasmuch as they did not do so, he claims the right in Mexico to treat them as rebels, and to wage a war of extermination against them. The undersigned is by no means willing to concede the proposition of his excellency Mr. Rejon, and much less to agree to his conclusion. It must be recollected that the Spanish provinces embraced in Mexico declared and achieved their independence of the Spanish crown, and in 1824 established a confederation of States, similar, in all respects, to the United States. Coahuila and Texas formed one of the confederated Mexican States, and was sovereign and independent, except so far as she had deliberated to the general government a portion of her sovereign powers. she was entitled to and enjoyed her own local legislature, and was only bound to the general government according to the express terms of the constitution of 1824. When the army, therefore, destroyed that constitution, the State of Coahuila and Texas was remitted to its original sovereignty, and the constitution of 1824 which bound the States together being destroyed, and consequently, Texas owing no allegiance to that which had no existence, was left free to choose and adopt her own form of government of which she did not approve, and much less had the army, without consulting the will of the people, the right to do so. It follows, therefore, that as Texas never agreed to the present government of Mexico, which was erected by the army on the ruins of the constitution of 1824, the present government of Mexico, in working to subjugate Texas, is now, and has been from the first, the aggressor.

Page 79: We have the same power to pass a bill authorizing the people of Great Britain to organize themselves into a State government, and be admitted into this Union, that we have to extend this privilege to the people of Texas. The doctrine that Congress possesses such a power is of modern origin. It has been produced by the extreme anxiety which exists in a portion of the Union to acquire possession of Texas. ….. An acknowledged state of war exists between the two countries, prosecuted on the part of Mexico for the purpose of reestablishing her authority over Texas. No matter what may be our feelings in reference to this contest—no matter how strong may be our sympathies with the people of Texas—we cannot, without a violation of the treaty subsisting between our government and Mexico, interfere, either to terminate the contest or to appropriate Texas to ourselves. The battle of San Jacinto, by which it is claimed that Texas rendered herself independent of Mexico, was won by citizens of the United States, who, in violation of the obligations of our government to Mexico, went to Texas to aid her citizens in their struggle. Many of those who aided in defeating the Mexican army in that battle, have since returned to the United States, and are now living among us. It was a portion of our own citizens who achieved the victory by which Texas was rendered temporarily independent. Their interference in the contest was unjust to Mexico, and a gross violation of the good faith which the American people should have observed. Yet it is now insisted that, as one of the fruits of that victory, we shall take possession of Texas and appropriate the country to our own use, in utter disregard of the wishes or remonstrances of Mexico.

Page 82: So far from having complied with this solemn obligation, in February, 1821 we transferred the people and a portion of the territory to a foreign government. Instead of “prosecuting the liberty and religion” of the people, we sold them to the Spanish government; and thus made them, against their wishes, against our treaty obligations, the subjects of a despotic ruler! Now, when the people of Texas, standing upon the treaty of 1803, ask admission into our Union, the treaty of 1821, it is said, deprived them of all their rights and immunities, and that we are under no obligations, legal or moral, to receive them! It may well be doubted whether the treaty of 1821 is binding, so far as this cession is involved. …… Efforts have been made by every administration since 1820 to obtain the possession of Texas by negotiation. This is admitted by all; but the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. C.B. Smith,] tells us this is the first effort made to rob Mexico of her possessions! What claim has Mexico upon this territory? Mexico, a revolted province of Spain, established a constitution in 1824, guaranteeing to each of the 19 States the full enjoyment of their liberty and property; Texas was one of these States; under the inducements presented by a free constitution similar in the main to ours, the people of the United States migrated to Texas, and commenced the cultivation of its rich and productive lands. But in a short time, Santa Anna, instead of administering the government according to the free constitution of 1824, seized upon the imperial purple, declared himself military dictator, and trampled the constitution under his unhallowed feet. Then it was that the people of Texas raised the flag of resistance, and upon the bloody field of San Jacinto, in 1836, achieved their independence, and vanquished the relentless tyrant. They showed themselves worthy of their illustrious ancestry. They proved to the world that “Freedom’s battle once begun, Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son, though baffled oft is ever won.”

Page 91: And now he would present a few remarks on a point on which, according to his apprehension, this whole question rested. 1st. Did Texas desire to be admitted into the Union? He asked this, because, to listen to the gloomy forebodings and constitutional fears of gentleman on the other side, one would suppose that she was to be dragged into a union which she did not desire; and that the progressive democracy of this country proposed to rob Mexico and steal Texas. Now, if the people of Texas did not desire a union with us, Mr. M. was against it. For one, he considered such a connexion the highest boon which could be offered to any nation on earth. But how stood the fact? During a whole year, Texas, by her minister here, had been actively and seriously engaged in accomplishing a treaty of annexation; not because he held that to be the only mode in which annexation could be effected, but because it seemed to present the most expeditious method of accomplishing it. ……. And now came the great constitutional objection. It has been ably handled, but the opponents of the measure, instead of arguing, had called upon the friends of the measure to furnish reasons in its behalf. On this constitutional question, Mr. M. should present a view which, to many gentlemen, might appear novel and extraordinary. He contended that there had been at least a dozen precedents of the annexation of foreign territory simply by acts of Congress. He did not refer to the annexation of Louisiana and Florida; he referred to the acquisition of foreign territory by purchase; and, after all that could be said, the resolution before them simply amounted to a purchase; it involved a consent of parties—a thing to be sold, and the price to be paid for it. The parties here were the people of Texas and of the United States; the thing to be sold was the territory of Texas; and the price agreed to be paid was the assumption of her debt. He would state, for the information of the committee, that the treaty of 1803 included a certain portion of Louisiana which was not added with the residue, save in a very vague and general way. When Louisiana was admitted into the United States, this portion of her territory, commonly called the Period, wes not held to be included, and the flag of Spain continued to float over it from 1803 till 1811. The Spaniards de jure, but Americans de facto, then declared themselves independent, and in 1811 they conquered the garrison and took possession of the town of Baton Rouge, and presented to this House a petition to be admitted into the Union as a part of Louisiana. A constitutional question was raised then, as now, and the admission of Baton Rouge met with strenuous opposition. It was contended that this was a foreign country, and that we had no right to receive it. Yet the measure passed the Senate with great unanimity—there being but five votes against it. [Here Mr. M. quoted from the journal of the Senate to show that the people of this foreign country were annexed in 1812 to the State of Louisiana, Louisiana consenting to the Union.] Those people, when received, were independent de facto, and that consideration always had governed the action of this government in all our relations with foreign powers.

Page 111: Mr. T. said it seemed to him that these facts and opinions clearly established the position that Texas never was geographically considered as composing any part or portion of New Spain, or Mexico, or New Mexico, but was a distinct country, separated from them by the Rio del Norte. He thought he would be able to establish as clearly that Texas was not now, and never had been, an integral part under the dominion of Mexico, under the form of government now existing, or which ever had existed in that country; but that Texas never had submitted to the jurisdiction of any power whatever, but always, from the time of the cession to Spain, and asserted and maintained her independence of Spain, of Mexico, and of all the world. On the reception of the news in Texas of the cession of that country to Spain, by the treaty of 1819, the people of Texas met in convention at Nacogdoches, and solemnly protested against being transferred, like slaves, to a foreign despot, and declared themselves a free and independent people by the following manifesto …… From the hour in which that declaration of independence was made, the people of Texas have never submitted to the yoke or dominion of any other nations on earth; but, true to the spirit and character of their ancestors, they have, through various vicissitudes and reverses, battled on for freedom, and successfully maintained their independence….

Page 112: In October, 1832, Texas held a separate convention from Coahuila to form a State constitution for herself, and a second convention on the 1st April, 1833, accepting to the guaranty of the constitutional act of the constituent Congress of Mexico of the 7th May, 1824; this latter convention framed and adopted a constitution for the State of Texas as a separate and distinct and independent member of the Mexican federation, to be submitted to the national government, with a memorial praying for the admission of Texas into the Mexican Union, in conformity with the terms of the federal compact; but their messenger, Mr. Austin, on his arrival in Mexico, was imprisoned. Texas nevertheless, in conjunction with Coahuila, continued as an independent State in the Mexican confederation, until 1834 and 1835, when the rights of the republic of Mexico were violated, and the republic overthrown, and a military central consolidation erected on the 5th October, 1835, by Santa Anna, upon its ruins. The people of Texas refused to enter into this new government. They ere opposed by the Mexican power and their local legislature abolished. …… War was made upon the people of Texas. They resisted; and, by a council of deputies of the people, established a provisional government; which, on the 7th November, 1835, issued the following manifesto:

“Whereas General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and other military chieftains, have, by force of arms, overthrown the federal constitution of Mexico, and dissolved the social compact which existed between Texas and the other members of the confederacy, now the good people of Texas, availing themselves of their natural right, solemnly declare— …… Their country was invaded by the order of the usurper Santa Anna; the invasion was successfully resisted by the people of Texas; the Mexican army, together with their leader, General Cos, was captured; and, in the articles of capitulation of the 11th December, 1835, it was stipulated—“That General Cos and his officers retire, with their arms and private property, into the interior of the republic, under parole of humor that they will not, in any way, oppose the reestablishment of the federal constitution of 1824.”

On the 2d March, 1836, the people of Texas, by their delegates assembled in convention at Washington, declared their independence, as follows:

“We, therefore, the delegates, with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resole and declare that our political connexion with the Mexican nation has forever ended; and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign, and independent republic; and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently submit the issue to the supreme arbiter of the doctrines of nations.’

Page 113: Thus did Mr. Clay oppose the transfer of that country, and he never lost sight of the regaining of it. But he (Mr. T.) contended that the cession of Texas to Spain, was not only a breach of faith with France, but a violation of the rights of the people of Texas, and absolutely null and void so far as the people of Texas were concerned, upon another ground.— …….. He [Mr. T.] did not, so far as he knew himself, and was capable of judging of his own feelings and opinions, give to the slave question, which had been raised here, the weight of one feather in influencing his mind in favor of the reanimation of Texas. He lived on the very line of demarcation between the free and slave interests of this Union, and he was able to look upon this subject with calmness; and he would say that he did not give that weight to the question of slavery that he should be induced to vote for this re-annexation with the view of extending the bounds of that institution. Many of his constituents were the owners of slaves; they were their property, acknowledged as such, and secured to them by the constitution of the Union; and so long as he had the honor of a seal on this floor, he would not submit to any invasion of, or interference with, their constitutional rights or domestic institutions upon this or any other subject, by this or any other government or people. But if the people of Texas desired it, and proposed themselves to be annexed as a free State, he would give his vote as freely for it as he would if it were to be annexed as a slave State; that was a question for the people of Texas to settle themselves. …… “The people of Texas have a perfect right to demand of the United States the fulfillment of the stipulation of the third article of the treaty of the 30th April, 180?, with France. The Texians have just claim against the United States for indemnity for the expenditures and charges they were compelled to incur in defending themselves against the invasion of Santa Anna, and in providing for themselves, by their own means, that protection and security which the United States were in good faith bound to have afforded.

Page 125: It is thus shown that we are capable of acquiring Texas, and Texas of uniting with us. Is it desirable that we shall do so? This is the next question. Texas is a fine country, as everybody admits; it is as large as France, and is peopled by our race—by bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. Prima facie, its acquisition is desirable. Let us, therefore, look to the objections to it. But, before I do that, I must be excused for interrupting the course of my argument for a moment, to notice a remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Winthrop.] I consider this due to the duties of private friendship and the memory of the dead. The gentleman was pleased to say:

“He could not help feeling some sympathy with the people of Texas under the precise circumstances in which they were now placed, betrayed, as they had been, in so humiliating a posture, by false pretenses and false promises. Where has been the fulfillment of that promise which a President of the United States, speaking through his Secretary of State, had dared to hold out to them? ‘Measures have been taken to ascertain the opinions and views of senators upon the subject, and it is found that a clear constitutional majority of two-thirds are in favor of the measure.’ Mr. W. began to entertain some hope that the people of Texas would awake to some respect for themselves under the treatment they had received, and would no longer suffer themselves to be duped and trifled with either by Presidents of Congress.”

Page 147: After the adoption of the constitution of 1824 by the Mexican States, we look to her history in vain for that prosperity, peace, and order, which every lover of liberty would hope for. Mexico still continued the theatre of ambitious intrigues for power, of intestine violence and domestic wars. In the very infancy of the republic there was little but the forms of the constitution left to the people. The substance and spirit of that instrument had yielded to the power of military usurpation. The overthrow of one usurper only made room for the rapid succession of another, more daring and contemptuous of the constitutional rights of the people. Still these wrongs were borne as well as they could be, under the hope that they would ultimately cease, and that the States might yet enjoy the blessings promised by the establishment of a free confederated government. In June, 1832, the people of Texas were harassed by bodies of armed troops stationed at different points within their borders by the tyrant Bustamante, under the pretense of aiding the revenue officers. the real object of this outrage was to harass the citizens, and subdue that indomitable love of liberty in the Texians, which resisted and denounced the usurpation of the tyrant, and the danger that was threatened to the constitution.

Page 148: Still Santa Anna persisted in his determination to conquer Texas, and early in the year 1836 the tyrant himself, at the head of 8,000 men, entered Texas, openly avowing his determination to subject to indiscriminate slaughter all who should resist his authority. In the meantime the people of Texas, on the 2d of March, 1836, by their delegates assembled in convention at Washington, declared their independence. How sublime is the spectacle which the young State of Texas presents to the world at this trying period of her history! On the one hand an invading army, powerful, disciplined, and well provided with all the sinews of war; commanded by an experienced general, whom his flatterers had called the Napoleon of America, rampant with victory and burning for conquest; on the other, an infant State, thinly populated, without money, arms, or soldiery—with nothing to stay the ruthless invader, and protect their freedom, except the indomitable will, the unconquerable purpose not to be enslaved.

It was at a period like this, when hostile bayonets were bristling within her borders, and the deep-tones roar of the enemy’s cannon proclaimed the approach of Santa Anna at the head of his victorious and relentless army, that the people of Texas, nerved by the justice of their cause, unterrified, calm, and self-poised, proclaimed their glorious declaration of independence and appealed to the Supreme Arbiter of the destiny of nations. The following is an extract from that declaration:

“We, therefore, the delegates, with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully involved with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently submit the issue to the supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.”

Page 170: The soil of Texas equals in fertility the soil of the State of Mississippi; and the agricultural products of the former would doubtless equal per head those of the latter. By reference to the returns of the last census, we find that the agricultural products in Mississippi amount to $100 per head. If Texas should produce an equal amount, that country, when populated, and judiciously cultivated, will produce in agriculture $500 million per annum; and let it be remembered that this enormous aggregate will be composed almost exclusively of sugar, cotton, rice, and other tropical productions; two-thirds of which will be exchanged for the productions and manufactures of other States, and consumed by the people of Texas; leaving one-third (that is, $166,666,666) to be sent abroad per annum, and exchanged for new values; which, when brought into our market, would probably be worth $200 million. What an immense increase of nation wealth per annum! Is not the ten millions of dollars a pitiful consideration for such vast advantages! …… The benefits resulting to the shipping interest of New England are not less important. The five millions of persons which must ultimately inhabit Texas will (if their agricultural products equal per head this of Mississippi) produce not less than $500 million per annum. This vast amount of products will be chiefly sugar, cotton, and rice; a very small amount of which can be consumed by the producer. That being the case, this cotton, sugar, and rice, must necessarily be exchanged for other articles of necessity, taste, and luxury, required by the people of Texas. The value of transportation, in the exchange of those commodities, I have no means of estimating; but all agree with me in the opinion that it must be very considerable, and vastly important to those who transport them. If Texas be annexed to the United States, New England reaps the fruits of this carrying trade abroad, as well as coastwise; but if not, she loses it. Will the wisdom and patriotism of New England reject a measure beneficial alike to herself and all other sections of the Union?

Page 185: The proposition upon the point now under consideration proposes:

“That the Congress doth consent that the territory rightfully included within the limits of Texas be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of Texas, with the consent of the existing government, upon the following conditions and guaranties, which, when adopted, as aforesaid, shall be obligatory as well upon the people of Texas as upon the United States.”

Page 200: Now let gentlemen apply these principles to the case in hand. Suppose Texas to present herself for admission. She brings in her hand the constitution of government adopted by her citizens. She submitted this to the inspection of Congress, and Congress, having examined it, declared it to be “a republican form of government.” There its power terminated. Mr. C. cared not whether such State constitution did or did not contain a clause establishing or regulating slavery. So soon as the State was admitted, and became a constituent member of the confederacy, she stood on the same platform with New York, with Georgia, and all the rest of the States. How was Congress to prevent the exercise of her sovereign power in altering her constitution at pleasure, provided only that it continued to be “a republican form of government.” Would gentlemen reply that slavery was incompatible with the republican form of government? Then they must be prepared to cast Georgia out of the Union, and, with her, al the other slave States. Mr. C. called upon the friends of the Rhode Island report to stand by their own avowed principles, and to allow all new States admitted into the Union to act as the other States acted, on their own sense and conviction of justice and propriety. Why must we set ourselves up to be the conscience keepers of the people of Texas? let some reason be given. new York adopted just such a government as she pleased; so did Rhode Island; so did every other State. Why must Texas, after having thrown aside her existing government for the sake of joining our Union, be deprived of enjoying the same right as all the rest of us enjoyed? Gentlemen might lay on as many restrictions as they pleased; their restrictions were all null and void, and could have no binding effect at all, except by the voluntary acquiescence of the Texas people, just so long their people would be bound by them, and no longer. He would put to the gentleman from new York this question. Supposing Texas to be admitted, and her people should immediately after choose to meet in convention and alter their constitution, and, among other amendments, should resolve to establish slavery, our congressional restrictions notwithstanding; where would be the gentleman’s remedy? Provided Texas retained a republican government, there was none, and could be none. Would the gentleman expel her? Mr. C. denied his power.

Page 223: “Up to the year 1830, this people of Texas had taken but little concern in the series of political conversations which had so closely followed one another in the interior of Mexico. So long as they were left unmolested in the enjoyment of their own rights, their natural disposition for peace restrained them from participating in the internal commotions of the other States. But their rapidly growing strength, and steady adherence to republican principles, began now to attract the notice and excite the jealousy of the supreme government. this was plainly evinced by the passage of the arbitrary law of the 6th of April, 1830, by which the further introduction or immigration of American settlers into Texas was expressly and totally prohibited for the future. Military posts were established over the province, the civil authorities were trampled underfoot; and the people of Texas, for a time, were subjected to the capricious tyranny of unrestrained military misrule. …… “1833. Texas, now conscious of her integral strength, and anxious to be erected in a separate State, in conformity with the decree of the 7th of May, 1824, which had promised and secured to her a separate constitution, so soon as she was in possession of the necessary elements of self-government, assembled a general convention at San Felipe, for the purpose of drafting an instrument suited to the wants and peculiar character and habits of her people. Accordingly, in the spring of the same year, Stephen F. Austin was commissioned to present the constitution agreed upon, with a petition for the fulfillment of the said decree of the 7th of May. The respectful petition of the people of Texas was treated with disdain, and their commissioner incarcerated in a dungeon. ……. “There was no alternative left them, and the people of Texas plunged into the contest for the protection of their liberties. On the 28th of September, 183?, they defeated a detachment of Mexicans at Gonzales. On the 9th of October, they stormed and took the strong fortress of Goliad. In the same month they invested the city of San Antonio de Bexar. On the 28th, they fought the battle of Conception, and with 92 men obtained a signal victory over 400 Mexican regulars. On the 3d of November, they captured the garrison at Sepantillan. Shortly after, they defeated the enemy at San Patricio. On the 8th, the Mexicans were again discomfited in the vicinity of San Antonio. On the 26th, they were once more routed, with very considerable loss. On the 5th of December, the town of San Antonio was stormed by 300 Americans, under the gallant Milam, and, after five days’ incessant fighting, General Cos was forced to capitulate, and 1300 Mexicans were set at liberty, on their parole of honor ‘that they would not, in any way, (thereafter,) oppose the reestablishment of the federal constitution of 1824.” Thus ended the first campaign, and the ti-colored flag of the constitution still continued to wave in Texas—but of all Mexico, in Texas alone.

Page 253: If, after the treaty of 1819, by which Texas was ceded to Spain, that government had relinquished the country to the United States, had had yielded all the rights to it which had been derived from the treaty, could we not have extended our jurisdiction without any violation of the constitution? Would not our right and our power have been as ample and complete as they were before the treaty? Suppose we had paid Spain for the relinquishment of the right: would not her acquiescence have removed the only obstacle to our legislation? Suppose the people of Texas, while they were uttering their remonstrances against being transferred to a despotic government, had made terms with Spain, inducing her to yield the rights to this government, which she had acquired by virtue of the treaty: would Congress have been fettered by any constitutional restriction from affording them the protection of our law? I think not; and therefore conclude, that the extension of our jurisdiction, and the embracing new States, is limited only by the rites which may be infracted, and not from the want of delegated power in the constitution.

Page 254: By the resolutions which passed the House of Representatives, and await now the concurrence of the Senate, instead of violating any of the rights of the government of Texas, those rights are fully acknowledge and duly respected. It is a matter of no consequence, either as to the powers of Congress or the rights of Texas, whether those rights are first acquired, and then legislate; or legislate first, but subject to the consent and acquiescence of that government. Legislation, in either form, does not transcend the powers of Congress, or violate any right of the people of Texas. ……. The Christian nations of the earth must recognize this system of indiscriminate plunder and relentless murder as civilized warfare! Who can read the loathsome chronicles of Goliad and Alamo, and note the conduct of Santa Anna, doubly steeped in baseness, fraud, and blood, and, for one moment, admit that there ever was a war, entitled to be called such, between Mexico and Texas? But call it war! It terminated gloriously on the plains of San Jacinto, favorable to justice, to liberty, and to Texas. Tyranny and the tyrant together fell; and when the bloody head of the unfeeling assassin might have made some partial atonement for the hecatombs of freemen he had slaughtered, the people of Texas, who had fed, in childhood, upon woman’s generous bosom, gave him time for repentance, and the tyrant went free. Texas has today a more stable, independent, and abiding government than Mexico; and yet gentlemen speak of our violating rational faith when we treat its government as sovereign and independent.

Page 256: How important is this acquisition to the West—how deeply interesting to the great valley of Mississippi! Who can count the innumerable benefits and blessings that will flow into the bosom of our growing population in half a century? How important to people our continent with kindred spirits, who worship at the same altars of freedom and religion—to press farther and farther the territory upon which a hostile foot can tread, and to secure forever natural ramparts that would guaranty the nation’s safety and peace. But, sir, devoted as I am to my own country, I am not so selfish but that I feel a deep and abiding interest in the destiny of the people of Texas.

Ah, sir, I know no difference; the people of Texas are our countrymen; they have been reared in our midst; many of them have been the companions of our childhood, and the trusty friends of riper years. They have fed around the same board, played in infancy around the same knees, caught the lessons of patriotism from the same lips, and their hearts have been fired by the same love of freedom and independence. Texas is not a foreign country, but a discovered member from our own confederacy. Her people are not strangers; they have helped to defend our own soil, and bear upon their persons the scars received in sustaining the “stripes and stars” of our own country. Bit them welcome, as brethren, to share with us a common heritage; and by passing the resolution on your table, paint another star on our flag, under the wings of that proud bird which is the emblem of the nation’s glory. I have too much confidence in the Senate to despair of success, and will close my remarks by tendering to you, sir, and to this body, my sincere thanks for the polite attention that has been shown me in the debate.

Page 291: And if, sir, the power to admit new States into the Union is to be restricted to the mere ceremony of passing an act embodying the assent of Congress to such admission, can gentlemen fail to perceive that some of the resolutions, if not all, proposing the admission of Texas as a State, merely embody the terms, and pledge the consent of Congress for its admission, but do not, in fact, admit Texas into the Union? It does seem, Mr. Chairman, with all due deference to others, that if we will not indulge in a course of reasoning like that which characterized the scholastic disputations of the middle ages, but, looking at the objects which words are used to denote, and as wells the words themselves, will consider the end to be accomplished by the admission of a State into the Union, it will not be difficult to perceive that this mode of admission is clearly in part performance of, and warranted by, the power to admit new States. The new State of Texas is the object upon which the power is to operate, and the work to be done, or end to be accomplished, is to admit or make it a State of this Union. That is, the people of Texas are to be admitted to the same relation to the federal government, and to have the same rights and privileges of self-government and participation in the federal administration, which exist among the people of the several States of the Union. This twofold poetical relation is not necessarily to be accomplished at one and the same time….

Page 322: The military despotism continuing to bear sway, in March, 1836, the people of Texas, being goaded beyond endurance by repeated and aggravated wrongs, elected delegates to a convention, who, in the true spirit of the Revolution, recited, in glowing language, the reasons which compelled them to a separation, and closed with the following emphatic declaration of rights:

“We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended; and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently submit the issue to the Supreme Arbiter of the destinies of nations.”

Page 342: The treaty-making power is, then, competent to acquire the title to Texas, treating with the people of Texas, or a power especially constituted by that people to make such a treaty. But that authority alone could not bring Texas into the United States. When it had procured for us the title-deed its function would be exhausted. The law-making power would then attach to make “all needful rules and regulations” for Texas as of right a portion of our territory. I would be the business and the duty of Congress to pass a law authorizing the President to take possession of the country, to prescribe for it a code of laws, to extend over it the jurisdiction of the government of the United States. Such were the measures taken by our predecessors in relation to both Louisiana and Florida; and without others of similar import, Texas could never, in fact, form a part of the United States. when she had thus become a portion of our country, Congress would have a discretionary power to admit her as a new State into the Union. This power would apply to her, and all other territory properly obtained, because it is a power limited only by our right and jurisdiction; and to keep countries in the form of territorial dependence and vassalage, is opposed to the spirit of our system, and not required by the constitution. …… Mr. Giddings remarked that in whatever light the question before the committee is presented, it becomes a question of “union between the two governments of Texas and the United States.’ These governments are at this time (said he) independent powers each acting under a written constitution, each passing laws for the government of its own people; entering into treaties with foreign powers; maintaining peace, or making war; and discharging all the functions of an independent sovereign nation. The people of each have selected that form of government which best accords with their own views; and it is a reflection upon the people of Texas to talk of extending to them the benefits of a free government. The declaration carries with it an imputation that their present government is oppressive.

Page 346: My colleague from the Butler district [Mr. Weller] was anxious to extend our “democratic institutions” to Texas. It is this particular branch of our “democratic institutions” now sought to be extended and perpetuated. These scenes to which I have referred took place in this city, under our own laws, enacted by Congress, and which are now kept in force by the action of the very gentlemen who exhibit so much sympathy for the people of Texas, and who become so eloquent in favor “of extending the area of freedom” by establishing and perpetuating the slave trade, with its horrors and crimes, its outrages, and its murders. Gentlemen here become pathetic upon the sufferings to which the people of Texas have been subjected during their war with Mexico. They speak in melting terms of the predatory warfare heretofore carried on against Texas, and they ask the people of our free States to go to relieve them from Mexican barbarity. Why, sir, there is more human suffering in this city, every year, by reason of the slave trade, than has been endured by the whole people of Texas during their entire revolution of eight years. The consumption of human life attendant and consequent upon the slave trade in this District is greater every year than it has ben in Texas during any period of their war with Mexico. It should be borne in mind that this slave trade is authorized and maintained by act of Congress, which the advocates of annexation refuse to repeal. The scenes which I have described, and the sufferings which I have mentioned, are authorized by our laws, passed by this body, and which we now keep in force. Gentlemen on this floor, who, by supporting the gag rule, have for years voted to continue those laws, and the scenes tow which I have made reference—whose hearts are unmoved by all the suffering go the slave population here, and by all the blood that is annually shed in this District, become eloquent upon the sufferings endured by the people of Texas. They are willing to spend the national treasure, and pour out American blood, to protect the Texians, while they authorize by law all those crimes and outrages, and all the violence and bloodshed, attendant upon the slave trade in this District. Indeed, they are striving to extend and perpetuate those crimes in Texas, under the plea of “extending the area of freedom.”

Page 347: Speech of Mr. Barnard, of New York. ….. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I deny that we have any the slightest claim, or ground of claim, in the world on Texas, or the territory of Texas. And I deny that Texas, of the people of Texas, have any the slightest claim, or ground of claim, in the world upon us.

Page 351: I consider this as nothing more nor less than a proposition of Congress to form a union between the United States and the republic of Texas. It is made directly to Texas in her sovereign, independent capacity. The conditions are, that she shall dissolve her present government and erect herself into a new State, with a republican form of government, for the express purpose of being admitted into this Union. Now, it is apparent upon the very face of this resolution that it is something more than the admission of a new State or the acquisition of territory. It is an act of union between two republics—Texas consenting to change her form of government into what is called a new State, in order to accomplish the act. Again, this resolution admits that the government of Texas are asked to give their consent, through a convention to be called for that purpose. Why this precaution? If the Congress of the United States has the power to bind the people of this country to annexation, why may not the Congress of Texas do the same with respect to the people of Texas? The constitutions of the two countries are similar.

Page 352: Have not the people within our Union as much right to say who shall be admitted into their family, as the foreigner has to refuse or accept admittance? Is the stranger who knocks at your door to ask no other consent but his own for permission to make a part of your family? It is admitted that there is no power in the government of Texas to transfer and bind its people to a union with the people of the United States. Where then, I ask, is to be found the power in this government to bind the people of the United States to a union with the people of Texas? Are the free people of this republic to be united, for all future time, for weal or for woe, to the destinies of a foreign country, to pay its debts, to fight its battles, to assume all its national and international duties and obligations, and to fraternize with the manners, customs, and vices of its people at the mere discretion of Congress, by a joint resolution passed by a mere party majority? Is this the way in which republics are to be pulled down and reconstructed? the manner in which constitutions are to be abrogated and new political unions to be formed? Mr. Jefferson doubted the constitutional authority to purchase the Territory of Louisiana. Timid politician! no longer worthy to be called the great apostle of democracy! The disciples have grown wiser than their master, and better understand the law. They have discovered a clear authority in our constitution not only to purchase adjoining territory, but to annex all the nations of the earth to our Union, and convert a world of aliens into citizens by a joint resolution of Congress. …… But there are other objections attending this congressional compact which I have some curiosity to hear answered by its friends. One of the conditions named in these resolutions is, that the new constitution to be formed by the people of Texas “shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its’ final action on or before the 1st day of January, 1846.” Now, it is impossible for Texas to comply with this condition, without a palpable violation of her present constitution.

Page 360: Now, to what “inhabitants” does this apply? Of course to those who then inhabited the country—to the people of Louisiana; and, so far as they were concerned, the terms of the treaty have been strictly complied with. There were no inhabitants, either French or American, then in Texas proper, who could have rights vested under the treaty. Texas was then, for the most part, a wilderness. The parties to the treaty were France and the United States; and France has not complained of our non-fulfillment of the treaty. And as to the Spaniards then in Texas, instead of urging rights under the treaty, they chose to prefer the Spanish and Mexican communion. Or, if the terms of the treaty did enure to those who might afterwards become inhabitants of the territory, still the inhabitants of Texas proper submitted to the treaty of cession to Spain in 1819, passed quietly under the Spanish dominion, took the oath of allegiance to the Spanish government, and thereby disenfranchised themselves of all claim upon the government of the United States. They thereby recognized and submitted to the claims of Spain under the treaty. And those who emigrated to Texas after the treaty of 1819 went to Texas as a Spanish or Mexican province; expatriated themselves in so doing; and went there to take advantage of the benefits proffered to American emigrants by the Spanish and Mexican authorities. How, then, can the people of Texas set up a claim under the treaty of 1803, when it is a notorious fact that they went to Texas expressly for the purpose of availing themselves of benefits which Spain and Mexico acquired the power of conferring under the treaty of 1819? Why, then, is the treaty of 1803 so often alluded to ? It will not be denied that this government has the power, in adjusting a question of boundary, to transfer a portion of its territory. We have had a late instance of that in the Ashburton treaty. The gentleman from Illinois admitted this. He admitted we had lost our claim and forfeited our right to that country. But yet, he said, a breach of faith on our part could not absolve us from the moral or legal obligation to fulfill our solemn treaty stipulations, when required to do so by the other party. A breach of faith! And to what “other party?” France was the other party. So far as she stipulated for terms to her citizens they have been complied with, and France has never complained. As to Texas, there were no people there to become parties in 1803; and, as we have already shown, those who went there afterwards, went to receive benefits under the treaty of 1819, which ceded Texas to Spain. Strange argument truly! Gentlemen justify Texas for revolution—as with propriety, too—because the rights and privileges of the Mexican confederacy, to which they became entitled under the treaty of 1819, were violated by Santa Anna, and, at the same time, claim forced the power to waive those rights and privileges ? the treaty of 1803. It was as a part of Mexico ? owing allegiance to Mexico, as resisting her ? and unconstitutional usurpation, that the reception of Texas was effected, and its independence established. In this consists all the gory and patriotic association of the Texian revolution; and is a reflection on the people of Texas themselves–it is countenancing all the charges of robberies and plunder, and speculation, so often charged against them—to intimate that they effected their solution as quasi American citizens, with her prospects, claims, and vested rights in the benefits of our Union. I choose rather to think that they were satisfied with, and fully recognized the authority of the Mexican constitution of 1824; that they were not stimulated with the hope or expectation of becoming a member of this Union, but that, form pure instinctive love of constitutional freedom, they took up arms.

Page 375: Again, it is urged, because it will make a market for the productions of agriculture, and will increase our commerce. Men seem to argue as if the people of Texas never would want anything to eat or wear, unless they should come into this Union. For one, I believe that Texas free—I mean free from slavery, as I believe she soon will be if not annexed—would require more of our manufactures, our agricultural productions, and give more impetus to our commerce, than if she should be annexed, with her energies crushed by that institution.

Again, we are urged to do it out of sympathy for the people of Texas. Gentlemen, at the same time that they urge this argument, tell us that she is independent; that Mexico never can reconquer her; that England is offering her great commercial advantages, if she will only refuse to be annexed; and that her people are wise and brave, and have established a constitution like our own, except that they have made some great improvements. If all this be true, (and I have no disposition) to deny it, they are certainly better off than they should be if annexed to this country. Let them enjoy, I say, their better constitution, their great commercial advantages, and the honors which by their bravery they have won. Let them live in peace; why bring them into this country, to be participants in the great contest now going on between liberty and slavery here, and which will convulse this nation in all its length and breadth for years to come?

Lastly, it is urged that we must annex Texas for the purpose of extend the “area of freedom;” and this bring me to the true reason which urges on the friends of the measure. This cry about extending the area of freedom is not a new cry. It was first gotten up by Mr. Murphy, our chargé d’affaires in Texas. In a letter directed by him to Mr. Upshur, then Secretary of State, after stating that England was striving to bring about an amicable arrangement between Mexico and Texas, which, he says, “would liberate at once all the slaves of Texas,” he asks, “If the government of the United States can longer doubt what to do?” He says that the constitution of Texas secures to the master the perpetual right to his slave, and prohibits the introduction of salves into Texas from any other quarter than the United States; and says, if the United States will take their position on the side of the constitution and laws, and the civil, political, and religious liberties of the people of Texas secured thereby, (saying nothing about abolition,) all the world will be with her. And again: “saying nothing which can offend even our fanatical brethren of the North, let the United States espouse at once the cause of civil, political, and religious liberty in this hemisphere. This will be found to be the safest issue to go before the people with.” Here, then, is the origin of the cry of extending the area of freedom. And what did it mean in its first conception? Simply this, that slavery must not be abolished in Texas. And it has not changed its meaning yet. It is to prevent the abolition of slavery in Texas that its annexation is urged upon us. This is the great controlling reason. Were it not for perpetuating slavery in that country, we should hear no more of this measure.

Page 409: On the 7th June, 1844, while the treaty heretofore negotiated by the executive of the United States was pending before this body, I submitted to the Senate, in secret session, the following resolution, which were ordered to be printed:

“1. Resolved, That to accomplish the annexation of Texas, as proposed by the pending treaty, is less consonant with the spirit and genius of the governments of the United States and Texas, respectively, than if more directly deterred to the popular or representative will to attain the object.

“2. Resolved, That such annexation on the part of the United States would be properly achieved by an act of Congress, admitting the people of Texas, with an assigned territorial boundary, as a new State into the Union, on an equal footing with the other States; with the right of property to be retained by such new State in all the public lands now comprised in the territorial domain of Texas, subjecting such territory as might be without the State of Texas to the civil and political jurisdiction of the United States.

“3. Resolved, That, as part of said act of union, and in form of stipulation, to be acceded to by the people of Texas, a boundary of limits should be fixed and agreed on, beyond which the institution of slavery should not extend.  

“4. Resolved, That, by such act of annexation, the people and State of Texas should continue responsible for the subsisting debt of Texas, and for the security and discharge thereof her public lands should be first pledged; and that all private titles and claims to land within the present territory of Texas should be adjusted and decided on by the tribunals of the State of Texas.”

The obvious coincidence of views and principles embodied in these resolutions with those contained in the resolution now before us could not be misapprehended.

Page 410: According to our system of non-intervention in the civil commotions of other States, we have no right or wish to look beyond the government in power, further than to inquire whether it is able to sustain itself, and competent to enter into and comply with national engagements. And when we come to apply this principle to the issue between Mexico and Texas; when we look at the internal commotions in which Mexico has been embroiled ever since her revolt from Spain; at the indolent and lethargic habits of her people, her financial embarrassments; and then, on the other hand, look at the hardy and enterprising character of the people of Texas, their Anglo-Saxon fondness for liberty, their prowess in arms against the Mexican forces,—we cannot fail to see that the idea of conquest of Texas by Mexico is worse than vain and hopeless.