1913: A Bad Year for Freedom

[ajax]

From Thomas DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse, Chapter 7: The Hamiltonian Revolution of 1913:

"The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913." - Frank Chodorov, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil

Hamiltonian political hegemony, including the near-death of the principle of states' rights or federalism, was achieved during the War between the States. But the citizens of the once sovereign states still retained some control over the government in Washington after the war. The Jeffersonian states' rights tradition, therefore, had some life in it yet.

But that life was snuffed out completely in one revolutionary year, 1913. During that one year three sweeping changes occurred: the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, and so for the first time US Senators would be directly elected rather than appointed to office by state legislatures; the federal income tax was adopted; and the Federal Reserve System was created. All three institutions almost completely centralized power in Washington and constituted the death blow to the old Jeffersonian tradition in American politics.

[Separatist]

1913: The 17th Amendment / The Fed / The Income Tax

The death knell to liberty.

[wargames83]

I don't see how the 17th amendment is bad for freedom. Direct election of senators means more power is the hands of the people, rather than state bureaucrats. Sounds good for freedom to me.

[Separatist]

We already have a house of direct election - the house of reps. The senate was supposed to be different and represent the interests of the states via their legislatures. If you want a good discussion of this, listen to this talk by Monsieur Snuffer:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29839" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wargames83]

We already have a house of direct election - the house of reps. The senate was supposed to be different and represent the interests of the states via their legislatures. If you want a good discussion of this, listen to this talk by Monsieur Snuffer:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29839" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Snuffer's argument was that the founders made the two chambers of Congress for a reason, and that having state legislatures select the Senators protected the states because they were less likely to be manipulated by special interests groups that did not have the best interests of the states at heart. Is that really true? It seems to me that special interest groups would have an easier time targeting a small group of state legislators versus the entire voting population of the state. If the people can be trusted to vote on the state legislatures, then why not U.S. Senators?

[ajax]

[Daryl]

Without reading your OP, amen brother.

[Ezra]

When it's put to a vote by the people you have campains that are funded and promises made to those who fund it. Look at president of the us. Lots of money in campaigning. Where dose it come from. All you can bet that the only promises kept were not to the people of the us. But those elitists who payed the way.
Obama is a perfect example.

[KMCopeland]

When it's put to a vote by the people you have campains that are funded and promises made to those who fund it. Look at president of the us. Lots of money in campaigning. Where dose it come from. All you can bet that the only promises kept were not to the people of the us. But those elitists who payed the way.
Obama is a perfect example.

So silly to pretend Obama's any worse than anyone else in the fundraising department. As a matter of fact, much of his campaign money came from small donors.


But yes, he's gotten millions in campaign contributions. You can't get elected to national office without huge amounts of cash. So you can take it to the bank -- no pun intended -- that anybody, left or right, who currently holds national office is the recipient of huge amounts of cash donations, from the four corners of the political universe.

We all know that we need to get money out of politics. But since the people in a position to change that have perfected the art of corralling vast amounts of money to feather their own nests with, we may have a long wait before anybody does anything about it.

[Ezra]

When it's put to a vote by the people you have campains that are funded and promises made to those who fund it. Look at president of the us. Lots of money in campaigning. Where dose it come from. All you can bet that the only promises kept were not to the people of the us. But those elitists who payed the way.
Obama is a perfect example.

So silly to pretend Obama's any worse than anyone else in the fundraising department. As a matter of fact, much of his campaign money came from small donors.


But yes, he's gotten millions in campaign contributions. You can't get elected to national office without huge amounts of cash. So you can take it to the bank -- no pun intended -- that anybody, left or right, who currently holds national office is the recipient of huge amounts of cash donations, from the four corners of the political universe.

We all know that we need to get money out of politics. But since the people in a position to change that have perfected the art of corralling vast amounts of money to feather their own nests with, we may have a long wait before anybody does anything about it.

Im beginning to think you have a shrine for Obama.

It always amazes me how you think "I think." Makes me laugh.

I just said its a perfect example. As its one of the best known currently since he is our current prez.
Bush befor him and so on. Every president since the early 1900s has been bought and payed for. Is what I "actually" think. Which is quite diffent then you think I think.

[KMCopeland]

It always amazes me how you think "I think." ... Is what I "actually" think. Which is quite diffent then you think I think.

Well, since we both speak English, and I can read what you post that you think, I don't see how I could have gotten that so wrong. Unless you posted something that you don't think. Then I would be wrong about what you think. Because I would read the thing you posted about what you think -- but it wouldn't be what you really think. Only then.

[Ezra]

It always amazes me how you think "I think." ... Is what I "actually" think. Which is quite diffent then you think I think.

Well, since we both speak English, and I can read what you post that you think, I don't see how I could have gotten that so wrong. Unless you posted something that you don't think. Then I would be wrong about what you think. Because I would read the thing you posted about what you think -- but it wouldn't be what you really think. Only then.

I'm seeing a pattern of blame.

Looking to oneself for the root of the problem and you will always find that you are your own sorce in every argument or negitive feeling towards another.
Wait I guess that's only true if you don't transfer blame to an outside sorce which is what most do. Half full half empty type thinking thing. But with this looking to ones self you can solve all your own problems As it dosent require anyone but you to fix that part of yourself.
And if I have done that to you I apologize to you for that.

[wargames83]

Sorry, but I am just not seeing the big problem with the 17th amendment. It seems to me that the real problem is with the 16th amendment which has resulted in each state having its residents send their money to the Federal government, and then each state has to fight to get the money back into the state.

[wargames83]

Okay, I thought of something I didn't think of before. Without the 17th amendment we probably wouldn't have "carpetbagger" senators like Hillary Clinton. She was elected U.S. senator from New York even though she didn't live in New York. Are carpetbagger senators more likely to be bad for freedom?

[KMCopeland]

Okay, I thought of something I didn't think of before. Without the 17th amendment we probably wouldn't have "carpetbagger" senators like Hillary Clinton. She was elected U.S. senator from New York even though she didn't live in New York. Are carpetbagger senators more likely to be bad for freedom?

Probably depends on the senator.