posted : Jun 29, 2014


So long as we correct and maintain the safety valves that have served us in the past.





 In recent comments, I made during public events, I stated my opinion that…far from worrying about and cursing the divided state of today’s electorate and its leadership…we should embrace it as a sign of involvement and energy on behalf of ourselves and our nation.  


▲Dr. George A. Sprecace MD.,J.D.

Indeed, it has always been thus from before the beginning of our national identity.  It has made us strong while providing a safety valve whose absence would have defeated us from within.  

The American colonists before 1776 and even throughout the American Revolution were certainly not of one mind.  Fully 30% of Americans during that period were and remained Loyalists, fighting against the revolutionaries and suffering severe personal consequences afterwards.  

Thus the “American Revolution” could be alternatively called our First Civil War.

The Declaration of Independence supported States’ Rights, Slavery and the right of individual States to secede from the “Union”.  That “Union” was very soon a subject of severe – temporarily political and personal – conflict between the likes of Hamilton and Washington vs Jefferson and Madison on the question of a strong central government vs. an amalgamation of independent States.   

Before and during the War of 1812, several New England States took actual steps to secede in order to protect their business interests.  Thus, it can be argued that the Founding Fathers created the “United States”.  I took later action to create “America”.

▲President Abraham Lincoln did not embrace a civil war to free the slaves or to acknowledge the right of states to secede. His goal was to preserve the union. The United States of America.


That action came in the form and in the laser-like determination of Abraham Lincoln.  President Lincoln did not embrace a (second?) Civil War to free the slaves. Nor was he interested in acknowledging the right of individual States to secede.  His one goal was to “preserve the Union”, or rather to establish once and for all such an actual “Union”: The United States of America”.  In the face of determined, often violent and ultimately personally lethal objection, Lincoln did whatever was necessary to achieve that end.  

Some describe his actions as despotic and dictatorial. Presumably he considered that a continued loose alliance of sovereign States would ultimately devolve into the chronically sick model of the European States.  With such an analysis I entirely agree.  Please see the following book, surely iconoclastic for many: “The Real Lincoln”, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2002 – 2003.  

▲Thomas DiLorenzo


Then came Reconstruction, the height of the Industrial Revolution, the Robber Barons, America’s forays into imperialism, our ambivalence toward both WW 1 and a decade of clear signs of danger leading up to WW 11.  During all of these times Americans were divided. But their divisions were channeled in the court of public opinion and in political activity.  This avoided a Civil War 3.  

The danger today is not in our divisions.  In fact, poll figures provided in an opinion piece by Charles M. Blow entitled “The Frustration Doctrine” suggest that we may be more united (“us vs. them”) now than in a long time (NYTimes Op-Ed, June 23, 2014).  The danger is in our losing the traditional organs of public opinion, the Free Press, as the media prostitute themselves to one side or another in the disputes. 

▲Charles M. Blow

  The danger is in our losing the responsiveness of our elected leaders as they seem guided only by their perceived requirements for re-election (i.e.. massive amounts of money, regardless of the quid pro quo always involved), and by their commitment to becoming rich in the process.  In the face of these risks, international dangers – although great -  pale by comparison.  The real danger is from within – frustration that could lead to Civil War 3.  This is not hyperbole.
"Socialism: any of various economic and political theories or social systems based on collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." (from Webster's New Explorer College Dictionary, 2003).


▲President Obama




Apart from their efforts to "put lipstick on a pig", this is exactly what the Obama administration is attempting at every opportunity, as it consciously increases the percentage of the American population on the dole in one form or another (read ObamaCare)...and as it consciously increases the number of new inhabitants in this country who often have no other recourse (read: 50,000 + newly arrived Latino children over our Southern border).

Their justification for all of this is "inequality" of outcome.  But equality of outcome in society, as distinguished from equality of opportunity,  is an impossibility as witnessed throughout the world - both without and within Socialist structures.  Indeed, merely the sustained effort to produce equality of outcome robs the society of the means of achieving equality of opportunity. 

A recent important article on this subject by an author who has witnessed this throughout the world "up close and personal" is: "THE WORLDVIEW THAT MAKES THE UNDERCLASS", by Anthony Daniels, printed in Imprimis, by Hillsdale.EDU, May/June 2014 - Volume 43, Number 5/6.  

 Given this situation with the Obama administration, it is no wonder - rather it is mandatory - that division and disunity are the rule of  the day. 

The above world view and goals are UN-AMERICAN by any honest definition of our American identity and must be overcome by every legitimate means.   


So…what is the message? “VIVE LA DIFFERENCE”.

So long as we correct and maintain the safety valves that have served us in the past.                      




For Comments:

Please write to:  editors@georgiaweeklypost.com

Next News

Board Pagination ‹ Prev 1 Next ›
/ 1