Rugged individualism, hurray! Just don't take away my insurance (that most socialistic of all inventions of man).

Mr. Jurgensen what Adams is saying is that there had become an estrangement or break in the feeling of being British. I believe this quote is from a much larger piece in which Adams said that during the religious awakening of 1730 the people started thinking differently. In the "Religious History of the American People" Sydney Ahlstrom said that the American sentiment towards "independence" went something like this. In the 1400's northern Europeans decided that "We don't need the Pope anymore, in 1730 the Colonists decided we don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury anymore." This type of standing up and being independent was breathtaking and revolutionary in its own right and after all of the trials and tribulations between 1730 and 1776, the Colonists came to the easy conclusion "You know what we don't need that King either." The true revolution was the breaking with British and European custom in politcal and social order, the end of monarchy, nobility and church domination, in the hearts and minds of the people. The war would have been unnecessary if the Brits would have got smarter sooner. If they would or could have come to accomodation with the new way of Colonial thinking. I don't think it ever would have happened. This is what revolution is about; two immovable ways of thinking unable to accomodate each other. If you have studied it you would know that some Colonies were more of one mind and some another but the uprisings in Massachusetts was authentically from the people and the miracle of unity with them from the other Colonies was from the people.

Where does health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, house insurance fit into Mills brave world of pursuing our own good in our own way? Insurance is the largest system of socialism going in which we all pool our resources in order to help a few unfortunates, with the management skimming off a nice little piece of the action.

It sounds great but many do not feel they have this kind of freedom. They are swayed or feel they are swayed by the media and the governments or social mores into thinking they have to do what everyone else is doing or living the way everyone else is living and thus they think their choices and freedoms are limited. I think it is the rare bird that can do this and even much rarer one that can do it all of their life. To be Aware that is ultimate freedom. Aware of our surrondings our options and our opportunities. This type of freedom seems to be totally different from Thoreau's "the great mass of men live lives of quiet desperation". The ideals of freedom expressed in these three quotes is a great thing to strive for.

Mr. Davis, I don't agree that the south had its own best interests at heart in trying to retain slavery as an economic system but yes it was in agreement with Lincoln's quote. IT WASN'T RIGHT BUT IT HAD THE RIGHT UNFORTUNATELY IT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER.

Michael, Michael, Michael you said "The word United was used with the word States not with the word union, I agreed with you so what is your problem. United union is meaningless, United States and Union meant and still does the same thing to most people. The term United States existed and was used befrore the Constitution. The Union became stronger and caused a new loyalty or sypathy to occur. A loyalty, or sympathy for an entity greater than ones original colony. The USSR in its very name stresses the soverignity of the republics, that is what the word Soviet means. Thus the brake up of that "union" had little legal obstacles hindering it. Not so in the USA. The states are only soverign in the matters to which they have been given soverignity by the Constitution. They cannot leave the union. We are citizens of the union or United States Persons, American. We are not citizens of the State where we live but residents. Thus we can roam freely from state to state. They are not so soverign that they can keep us out or prevent us from leaving. We cannot roam freely between the soverign Nation of the United States/Union and other soverign nations. We have been there before Michael a republic is a democracy a democracy is a republic, (except in Plato's Republic it was the rule of the benificent few which philosophy was the harbinger of totalitarian communism).

I fully understand your sentiment about bureaucrats Helorat, if you study the history of the US Government, however, you will find that bureaus and merit hiring and promotion was instituted to replace the spoils system and rampant cronism and unprofessionalism of politicians. The most recent example of professioanl bureaucrats versus political hacks is in the demotion by Condi Rice of the man most knowledgeable about terrorism. He reported directly to her and she pushed him down a notch. To make matters worse the politcal hack Ashcroft told the career bureaucrat who was the acting Director of the FBI "don't give me anymore reports about terrorism". When Ashcroft was asked directly whether or not he said that to the Acting Director of the FBI he could have said and should have said, Yes or No. Being a politician rather than an honest professional bureaucrat he said, "Of course I care about the safety of the American people." By this waffle answer he saved himself from 1) perjury and 2) total embarrassment and vilification. Lets not discuss the professional US Attorneys versus Bushes man Gonzales. It looks like the Texas crowd is about gone (including Rove) and professionals can have a new go at in DC. You are right Ken and they need to know when to listen to and leave bureaucrats alone to do their jobs professionally.

A civil war to some observers is when relatives or friends are on different sides. Thus when army officers who went to school together and fought together in Mexico etcetera and considered each other to be the best of friends found themselves fighting each other it was tragedy at its "finest". And that is what civil war is. A little like fighting with your spouse. To my knowledge no state ever declared war on another state. A better term may be the war between North and South. The states all fought as members of a "union". The northern union or the southern union. The Revolution was much less a civil war. After 175 years not many Americans had relatives or friends in Red Coats, not to say that many did not consider the Brits and the Crown to be like distant cousins.

Mike if you don't think that the Constitution was a new form of government over the Articles of Confederation you really got a few loose ones rattling around if you know what I mean.

Mike I just found a book on the net entitled "The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire 1854-1861" by Robert E. May.

Yes Mike words matter so what the heck are you trying to say in your last post. I agree that United was used with States as in "United States" it was not used with union as in "United Union" which would of course be superfluous and redundant. The idea of being "united" means we stick together even though we have differences. Secession is anathema to the idea of democracy or republican form of government in which every one has their say and has agreed to abide and compromise with each other. It is the equivalent of a child taking his ball and bat and going home.

Mike Article 1, Section 2 para 3 states, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned .......by adding to then Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, (indentured servants) and excluding Indians not taxed, THREE FIFTHS OF ALL OTHER PERSONS." My understanding of some Southern sentiments on empire and expansion of their economic system (slavery) comes from reading of an historical novel written I believe by Thomas Fleming in which he traces the politics of slavery through the Presidents from 1820 to 1860. I read other historical novels by Fleming ("Over There" about WWI and "Liberty Tavern" about the ambivalent citizens of New Jersey during the revolution) but can not find the name of this one at the moment.

Sam you don't understand? When the Republicans (Reagan and the Bushes at least) run for President they say "no more taxes" and "tax cut, tax cut" and then they go out and sell bonds to their rich friends at 5%. They call their Democratic Party rivals "tax and spend" Democrats. They fail to explain that they are "borrow and spend" Republicans. This demogogurery (sic) has gotten Uncle Sam into 8 trillion dollars of debt. We owe the Chineese 1 trillion. And recently it was rumored that the Chineese could hold us hostage with this debt. No economic entity (you, your company, your city,county or state) can exist running in the red year after year. It is a lie that the Uncle Sam can or should do what no else can. The Nation needs a tax and spend policy that balances more often than not. But now we need more than balance we need surpluses annually to pay off the accumulated debt of the past. We talk much about freedom on this site and financial freedom is a wonderful thing, for you, me, companies, cities, counties and states. Would it not be wonderful to have a debt free Uncle Sam. All he has to do is pay off all of the bonds, 8 trillion dollars worth.

If peoples have the right to secede from territorial alignments at the drop of a hat I suggest that we would not be grouped into neighborhoods, cities, counties, states or nation at all. Every election day would bring a new wave of secession fever. Get over it people Massachusetts argued the secession question for years when the south had the upper hand in Congress. The question was argued right up until Appomatax Court House. Let us move on. Ain't nobody goin nowhere so lets get civilized, hey!

I know of no group of people that are more patriotic than southerners. They may not see every thing the same way on national issues as the NE, NW or Left Coast but in pure expression of patriotism they are second to none. As far as empire the South had ideas too. After winning the war they figured they would spread their economic system (slavery) to South America and beyond, maybe all of the way to Singapore. After all they were successful in immigrating to Texas with their slaves and the Texans managed to fight a war and win their freedom from Mexico where slavery was illegal. Lincoln's assertion that his interest was in saving the union and not ending slavery is not untrue or out of context. In his house divided speech he did not say that he hated slavery but simply said that the Union could not exist with two different legal systems. As far as the money issue their is some truth all around. Northern industrialists were probably jealous of their Southern cousins easy riches. And yes Southern money created by slavery contributed heavily to the Revolutionary War effort (tobacco). One could argue that our freedom from England was purchased by slavery. The primary beneficiary of slavery was actually Europe who really created the idea in order to feed their insatiable appetite for tobacco and sugar and later cotton. As far as lawyers in the government or the White House which many deplore, Lincoln was probably the best. His intellect, linguistic abilities and unconventional spirituality and fortitude to do the right are generally universally admired. (Mr. Miller did you know that before the war we had a southern empire ruling from Washington. The constituition required the inclusion of the slave population into the census for determing the number of Representatives sent to Congress. Two slaves equaled a little more than one person in the census. As the slavery population grew the political power of the south grew and yet these people could not even vote for the increased number of representatives.) The south had the country by the you know what or in a political bind on slavery that only a war could resolve.

Confederation I believe leaves states the right to leave, federation does not. Confederation did not work for the 13 colonies or at least not very well. That is why the tried to form "a more perfect union". The Soviet Union fell apart at least legally because the Socialist Republics were soviet (soverign). The states of the union as harsh untasteful as it sounds are not soverign, do not have the absolute power to do anything they want especially leave. That at least is what the Civil War said.

Ken fail to pay your Bank of America mortgage or car payment and see how fast they move on you. Much faster I would bet than the Feds would. Compared to the size of our economy the Fed is not big. Add up the number of city, county, and state governments, employees etcetera and you will see BIG.

You know Warren I think I felt very special being able to go to school "free". I had some kind of awareness that this opportunity was provided my the adults in my subdivision, city, county etcetera. And I agree with you 1000 percent that we would be in a much different economy and life style without compulsory education as imperfect as it is.

I agree that the government is not the republic, nation or country. But politics is based on relationships among people. We most often defend a policy because of whose it is or who is on which side rather than on the absoute merits of the policy. We imbue the current leader or party with such awe that we no longer address the merit of a policy or decision. Thus we put party politics and politcal heros ahead of issues, nation, country, and republic.

I've been thinking about how much individuals acting totally alone can screw things up. Thus a man on one side of the mountain kills as much game as he desires and a man on the other side does the same thing. They may not even know each other exist. They meet one day and discuss the dwindling game situation, and assuming they are able to avoid killing each other they form a committee to keep track, regualte and make rules on this issue. Thus the first government is formed. Read today about the near extinction of fur bearing animals and salmon in Alaska around 1900. The U.S. government stepped in and eventually got agreements with Japan and Russia and turned things around. It is amazing what people acting in CONCERT can accomplish. If you label this socialism versus individuality so be it. Labels are a problem with me. Maybe this beauty and harmony that people acting together can cause is the reason a symphony orchestra performance is called a CONCERT or referred to as performing IN CONCERT. If we could only see things not solely individually but sometimes as divinity does.

I read the article Ken, doesn't convince me of anything except yes it is confusing that no one can even agree on "science" let alone difficult issues like politics and philosophy. I do have a problem though with anyone who believes that man cannot affect environment and weather. The problem today is I believe population. There are two organizations that teach, and lobby for population stabilization and reduction, one calls itself Zero Population Growth and the other Negative Population Growth. Basically for the US they teach that immigration should be severly limited and folks should have no more than two children. This should not be hard to live with. The ability of governments to influence such things has been shown in modern times in China where Mao called for babies and China delivered, now they are back tracking and limiting apparently by law one child per couple. It is sad and no one wants this kind of interference in private lives but population impact on environment is obvious and I will still keep and open mind on man's impact on weather. On the television many scientiest I hear speak our adamant that the science is correct.

These quotes are perfect! I suggest that other government (other than the self) exists because too many folk don't govern themselves as they should.

I will check it out Ken thanks. I moved here a year ago. Otherwise grew up in Pennsylvania and lived in Chicago for a number of years. Don't trust these rednecks too much. They all live on acreage and think every one in the world does. Tom Brokaw did another special on "climate change/global warming". Awful scary stuff but optimism is there if we get smart real quick.

Thanks Mike I appreciate it. At least I tell the truth rather then imaginative literature like Mr. Anonymous that "national forests are state forests and up is down" etcetera. Lincoln was dead when Alaska was purchased. So you have proved your right wing credentials by invoking another conspiracy theory that you can't talk about. Spooky, spooky stuff. As long as all international bodies, governments etcetera recognize the US ownership of Alaska nothing else matters. I am sure you are correct about growing food on national forest property. It is not for squatting but can be used very freely and generously for recreational purposes. Most of all taxes I know of on property are assessed and collected by local county or city governments. If you really don't want to pay taxes I think you should take Helorats advice to Robert and move to another country. DC put African Americans in charge of the southern states after the war also, I fail to see your point here. There is no license to grow marijuana Mike why don't you try that. It seems like you and Archer want to live like you know wild men, if that is your hang up, yeah I pretty much agree with you that it may be hard to do. Few can pull off the Grizzly Adams thing these days. However 100 acre parcels and less are readily available throughout America put up your cabin and go for it. But you are absolutely right the local tax man will be looking for his pound of flesh and they do not call it rent, they call in taxes and it goes to educate you neighbors kids. Education is pretty much compulsory all over the world. If you don't like that idea get a ride on the next space shuttle and don't come back, maybe you will be happy out thataway. Why not go to the northwest territories or somethin.

The Idaho forests comprise 22.3 M. acres 75% is owned by the US Forest Service, 5% by corporations, 10% private and 10% state. When Idaho became a state the Feds gave the state 3.6 million acres which was immediately placed into 9 endowment funds for things like the University Fund, Penitentiary Fund etcetera. LET US KEEP ARE FACTS STRAIGHT rather than by rewriting history to satisy some pshco need you have to attack what you perceive to be big government (Timothy McVeigh's style). All ownership of property in this country started with some governmental authority and then it became distributed to private owners. Wm Penn was given what became Penna, Massachusetts Bay Colony was given by charter from England etc. We know about Louisianna and Alaska. Uncle Sam gave land away via the land rush in Nebraska and Kansas. Gave land to the railroad companies. Uncle Sam purchased land that was destroyed by private owners through bad farming practices in southern Illinois (Shawnee National Forest) and turpentine refining in the Florida panhandle (Apalachicola National Forest). I think many individuals on this site need to show a little more Respect, Love and Admiration for Uncle Sam for his foresight, attention to land management and conservation and his generosity with his lands that he purchased legally fair and square. I have faith that in 100 years, when most all of us will be gone, Uncle Sam who is now 220 years old (counting from the Constitution 1787) will still be the biggest and best land owner in America. Long live Uncle Sam. (The statistics about Idaho were taken from idahoforests.org. Another site about the Idaho endowments is from Idaho Department of Lands their tele. 208-334-0200.)