Thanks J It certainly would not hurt for me to read another book. I agree with you that Lincolns first and foremost interest was in preserving the Union but he had a long history of talking about the problem of slavery and it was a festering problem that had to come to an end. The new Republican Party I believed preached putting and end to slavery. I personally believe that the war was necessary. The way the constitution was written and the way that slavery was institutionalized in it a war was the only way to resolve the matter or dissolve the Union. Lincoln nailed it when he said "A house divided cannot stand".

The practice of reliance on the will of the majority is the wisdom and common sense of the ages. The majority knows instinctively that if it abuses its mandate it will loose its majority status. The problems with ascendant and dominant political parties is that they often overreach with their agendas and the pendulum swings back the other way. Worse than having a majority that overreaches is to have a minority that does so. I am trying to keep it simple Majority rule is the best way, minority rule is what they had in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba etc. Majority ruled government, with free elections is universally called democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with the Democrat Party of America. True democracy is much more than party politics. Democracy is based first of all on love and respect for your fellow human being in that you extend to him/her the same right to have a say in matters of public interest. It includes the concept of fair play. The US has had that for 231 years or so with peaceful changes of the Presidency and Houses of Congress. Such a tradition is rare in the world, and it is something of which Americans should be proud. Thank God America is a democracy, and Americans take it for granted that they control their governments rather than their governments controlling them. A good example of pure as compared to representative democracy is the referendums and recall petitions. I believe there is going to be a referendum in California this November concerning gay marriage. That is democracy when the people come together and run things. Beyond elections and referendums and recalls, the entire idea of political opinion polls as a way to determine what the public wants is a form of pure democracy. I believe a voter can write in any name they choose. Our choices started with about 20 people for President and has narrowed down to just two. The US has the longest and most gruelling Presidential selection process in the world and in history. There has seldom been a man who a substantial number of folks did not think consider to be a jackass. The President is just a standard bearer for the platform of his party. I think these two guys are pretty great. Do you really think the choice this year is any worse than the others: Kerry/Bush, Gore/Bush, Clinton/Dole, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Dukakis, Reagan/????, Reagan/Carter you get my drift. These guys are just representatives of the American people. They are not gods anymore than were the Founding Fathers. In the end it is us who do the governing by our actions and opinions. Personally I think Obama is quite something, my kind of thinking guy. I use to like McCain but disagree with his change on Bush's tax cuts. He was against them twice and now he is for them in order to get in with the far right. America is a democracy get over it, that is what protects our individual rights. The minority governments and dictatorships is what you have to look out for.

PS: Gore has made a lot of progress already by getting the copy cat Pickens plugging away at the same problem. At age 80 Mr. Pickens has a lot more of that want to, get up and go, and can do spirit than you youngsters have. It is sad, very, very sad.

A friend of mine pooh-pooh Mr. Gore's ten year plan to 100% alternative energy electricity. I reminded him that John Kennedy knew nothing about rockets, the moon, or outer space but gave a speech and said, "We will land a man on the moon in this decade." He surrounded himself with scientists he did not have to be one. He was the politcal genius. In the same vain Gore has not come up with this on his own. He has been a genius to recognize these problems and priorities, surround himself with scientists and to educate an unknowing world. Who among us can say they believed Kennedy's far fetched promise. The fact is if you think we can not do what Mr. Gore suggests and you convine enough others of your position then you are correct, we can't do it. On the other hand if you believe and convince enough others that we can do it then we can. Either way you are correct and you will be an actor in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only thing missing from science and much of politics is the human spirit. You got to have a "want to" attitude. I suggest that most people will want to sooner or later. For many on this site it will be later rather than sooner.

I admired Thomas choice in women. That woman who he was hitting on and who testified against his sexual morality was really cute, methinks.

Logan and I are prime examples of Reston's "animals grunting in cave" comment. We have agreed about the basic substance of American society and what the founders intended but we still use different words to describe the same meaning. We can only keep hoping. As long as an overwhelming % of the population of this country, the world, teachers, professors use the one word over the other I do see what is the problem of us all using it especially if it means the same thing that Mr. Logan means by using a different word. What are we missing here or better yet what is he missing? Great remarks Ken, five thumbs up to you especially your remark that "we all know it". Sadly though we don't all admit it!

Quit fighting and fearing the majority. One day any one of us may be a part of it. The miracle is that we can slip in and out of it on any given question or vote. It is the wisdom of the ages. Better to have rights denied by the majority than by the minority. At least more people will be happy the first way than the second way. This fear of the majority as expressed by the three Manchureans (you, Mike, Archer) is actually steeped I fear in some dislike of your fellow man, especially in the cases of Mike and Archer (he wants mankind to return to being hunter/gatherers expressing total disdain for modern society). I have a friend here in town that after the 2006 democratic party victory said "Now hear comes the mob, we are a republic not a democracy." His combining of these thoughts shows exactly from whence his thoughts spring. His preferred party was out so he was trying to seek solace in a falsehood that we are not a majority ruled society. Understanding people like him and his ulterior motives for his illogical construction is not rocket science Logan or I would not be able to do it.

One name and only one name in these modern times comes to mind: Al Gore as an example of the former (genius) and government by mediocrity the latter (dunces).

There is a time for everything. Subtlety and finesse can be a useful tool. Some head on arguments can be avoided and actual agreement be found by two protagonists actually circling each other rather than head long charges. We get into arguments by knee jerk reactions rather than by actually talking to each other and what is more in listening to each other. On some occasions I am sure Mr. Thomas is correct.

You absolutely nailed it Reston.There are those who seek to change commonly used words and morphy them into different things and thereby change basic concepts for their own ulterior purposes or to steal someone else's thoughts and make them appear to be their own or make something that may be good or neutral appear to be bad. Thus estate tax becomes death tax etcetera. Majority rule commonly known and called democracy beomes "republic not a democracy" etcetera. Intentionally failing to call things by their right name is deceit.

It will not sink in. And not shallow at all it is just a talking point. You should take a talking cure sometimes Logan it might be good for you.You show your self to be a misanthrope and that is what Jeffeson said Hume was, a philosopher to the Tories and a traitor to his fellow men. Hey we all say a lot of stuff and it all comes together at some time and some place in the future. It has taken you all this much time to find out that I am a hack. Why did you not ask I would have informed you?You, Archer, and Mike from Norwalk are pompous idiots. At least I have gotten y'all to admit after about a year of banter that as Mike begrudginly said "Yes we are a democracy" and you finally begrudginly said well yeah "we are a majority ruled society" but but but" That is about the only word you know Logan is but but but. The other day you said how much you liked me now you are turning on me. I am not here to have friends just to call 'em the ay I see 'em. The good news is y'all keep reading me. You don't have to you know. I do this for my own gratification. That someone would actually read it and go ballistic is well I have a great laugh over y'all.

No I believe Jefferson backed the idea that the majority guarantees the inalienable rights of man against a tyrannical minority when it is properly empowered. As we know minorities in the Soviet Union, China and Germany stepped on these rights by first bamboozling the majority.

Jefferson places his faith in majority rule. So do I. What makes you think I was interested in what you were saying Logan? I have now read your post and I suggest there was such a society or at least one was theorized and written about. It was called Plato's Republic and it is considered to be the forerunner of totalitarian communism. A society run by educated sophisticates or elites for the benefit of all others. in other words a dictatorship. Hitler to claimed to establish a perfect government that will last a thousand years. Please, please, please give me the sloppy Jeffersonian model "where the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave" or a scandal, or an argument. I actually enjoy the free market place of ideas and opinions.

"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." Thomas Jefferson. The utopia described by Logan is a pipe dream. "Until humans acquire perfect knowledge and logic - thereby reaching unanimous agreement - there is no hope of knowing how a constitution should be written to achiee a utopia of perfect individual rights. Lacking this omniscience, the people do best by determing their laws and constrints by MAJORITY RULE." If a constitutionally utopian society could be achieved then Jefferson would not have said "each generation should have its own revolt". If each new generation is as logical and capable of reason as the previous why should they not have an equal say in their affairs and not have to live according to something etched in stone hundreds of years previous. Logan assumes along with Hume that man has reached this perfection and can write such a constitution, but Jefferson said, "And where else does Hume, this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the MAJORITY of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that society?"

In this quote the majority still rules even if wrong, but they have the opportunity to change, it does not say that they have to take the opportunity. Nor does it say that the one minority opinion, though it be correct, has the right to rule. For have we not heard it said, "I would rather be right than President." This is the case for patience in such a society.to understand the benefits of majority rule and the need to muddle through even when it is in error.

In a government "of, by, and for the people" the greater the transparency the better. With larger government functions and activity such as war the more reporting there is to be required. A no brainer.

Yes Ken but the Supreme Court and the Law of the Land which it represents circumscribes free thinking down to some very low levels of existence. The best approach is to keep thinking free until someone tries to stop you, then sue and pray.

How about a freethinking Supreme Court for a change, stop with all this strict construction crap. And why don't we wake up tomorrow and every day and say f@#$ the founding fathers. I think they, the founding fathers, would have a great laugh and say "Yeah right on man". Again I agree with your statements above concerning "voice of the people" and majority rule. We are in sync brother except I learned and have always called it democracy as does 99% of the population today. The important thing is Sir we mean the same thing but use two different words. But now we have communicated. Lets bury this hatchet and agree where we can and each have our own word for the same thing. I was being facetious in the first four sentences above but I hope it brings home a point, many of the posts that support "freethinking" will completely reverse their support when it came to the Supreme Court or the Founding Fathers which shows how thoughtlessly we sometimes comment on these things.

I said you are a compulsive thinker Archer.

CIVIL WAR QUOTE: "Since 1789 the South with only rare exception, had controlled the presidency. Control of the office became a symbol of sectional supremacy, and its loss in 1860 was an unbearable psychological blow to the South. Even though the Democrats still controlled Congress and Lincoln himself represented no immidiate threat to slavery, the South felt the danger was imminent. In the aftermath of the election South Carolina voted to leave the Union." Stanley Coben, Collier's Encyclopedia.

The authoritarian lovers are those who put the founding fathers on a pedestal and worship them unthinkingly. The "Voice of the People" phrase was raised by Mr. Logan in place of using the word "democracy". He also stated that the constitution or the founders "purported" to use that phrase. For the constitutional scholar he poses to me I am shocked that his investigative or research techniques only allow to him to know what was "purported" than what was actual. I repeat my opinion that the compulsive contributors to this site (and you know who you are, the republic vs. democracy crowd, the victimless crimes crowd, and the gold standards crowd) are not free thinkers at all, one has even stated that he feels controlled. These crowds to my mind are compulsive just like the 'ol Manchurean Candidate. Like to know who is pulling their strings.

J was not Lincoln's "a house divided against itself cannot stand" speech a lot more than the South could stomach and thus that is why So. Carolina seceded. Lincoln said "we will all be all one or all the other" slave states or free states. Was not that the underlying reason for the secession. Lincoln's reason for taking them on was "to preserve the uninon" but again was not slavery or the lack of its universality the underlying cause of the war.

Beware of zealots and one issue people. Jim I would be interested to know what you think about Holocaust deniers. Do you feel they are justified in there position? I think you may be misquoting Gore. He probably did not say "Those who doubt MY version" but may have said "those who deny facts". See how even you may change things to read the way that you want them to read whether or not you do it intentionally or inadvertently. It is still a major flaw in our ability to think and communicate accurately. Holocaust deniers say that it is just the view or propaganda of those who love Jews. Others say that the holocaust was a fact. Can you know a fact when you see one?

Well said Mike a politician recently bemoaned the attack on Georgia because "it is a democracy and an old Christian nation". I think that both of those things are great things but if the country were a Monarchy or some run of the mill republic it would appear that the politician would not care. That position some how does not seem to be correct or fair, does it? We learn slowly, children must be spoon fed with simple stories of history generally from their cultural and national tradition, when they get older they may read different view points. There are history students and there history students if you get my point. We must study and weigh many view points to come to complete awareness and truth. Most have limited time for that. It is sad but a fact of life.

Free thinking is great but generally is not found in the work place, the military, etcetera. Standard Operating Procedures exist for a purpose and should be changed when and if necessary. Until they are well there they are. Freethinking to obtain some psychological high or to be different is a sign of illness and is not free thinking at all but some kind of compulsive thinking. The compulsiveness of some of the arguments on this stie give one pause as to how free thinking the contributors are or whether the folks are thinkers at all. Some who have a vested interest in their work, society, governmental and community institutions etcetera devote themselves to learning how things are done and suggest changes where they feel that they may be helpful. Those without a vested interest in any of these things hould mind their own business.