Bookmark and Share

Monday, July 5, 2010

Winston Churchill and 'The Great Republic'.

What would Churchill say about the state of Dis-Union under the Black Jesus?

by StFerdIII

The 'Great Republic' is a book compiled from many essays which Churchill wrote about America, during his many years in politics. This book was formed and edited by his grandson, Winston S. Churchill who was also for a time, an MP in the British Parliament. The book makes for interesting reading because it covers all of American history, including the Revolution, the Civil War, slavery, America's role in two World Wars, and even the creation of Canada. One of the more interesting chapters is named 'The American Constitution'. It is a good read because it gives the reasons why America, and its key foundational text is so outstandingly unique.

One has to wonder what Churchill would say today of the American government's disregard for this document? What would be his reaction to the destruction of the rules of political engagement which allowed in very large part, the creation of the modern world and of American exceptionalism? The Federal government alone now consumes close to 30% of national income, with ownership of key sectors such as auto manufacturing and banking. One doubts very much, that Churchill would be impressed by the Kingly pretensions of the Marxist pretender Sir Barack of Obama, and his lust to socialize the entire political-economy of the Republic.

One of Churchill's strengths in his 66 year long political career, was his defense of both democracy; and of the Constitutional division of powers. He admired the US foundational texts as being unique in human history, and the bedrock of the Republican ideal. The US Constitution was not just an piece of parchment concocted by rich, white men, who owned slaves – but rather the apogee of genius, crafted by highly intelligent men, who were successful in life, and knew how a prosperous and well-functioning nation state should be developed.

Churchill's chapter is a brilliant summary of how and why the Constitution was put together in 1787. The US was literally bankrupt after the War for Independence. Farmers were in debt to the urban financiers of the East. Inflation was rampant. Unrest everywhere. A large division between the supporters of centralization and a strong Federal government, led by the banking cabal centered around Alexander Hamilton, were opposed by the agrarian interests and yeomanry led by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. The Americans might have defeated the British mercenaries but they stood every chance of collapsing into an episodic internal war.

The Constitution thus had to serve the disparate interests of the many, and refuse power to the few. It was a very tricky and difficult task to construct. Without a proper and limited Federal government the Union would collapse. Without a central state which had enough power to pay off debts, curtail inflation and restore peace and normalcy, the various states would simply form their own nations, and the entire point of the Revolution would in part, be undone. As Churchill stated:

“This was a concise document defining the powers of the new central Government. It established a single executive: a President, appointed by electors chosen as the state legislatures might decide, and serving for four years, with the right of veto over the acts of Congress, but subject to impeachment; head of the Army and the administration, responsible only to the people, completely independent of the legislative power. The Lower House, or the House of Representatives as it was now called, was to be elected for two years, upon a population basis. But this concession to the democratic principle was tempered by the erection of a Senate, elected for six years by the state legislatures....At the summit of the constitutional edifice stood a Supreme Court, composed of judges nominated for life by the ensure their [the states] conformity with the Constitution.”

The US Constitution and its Federal Government have of course, much in common with the English example. But the US construction is brilliant in many ways. It rides the delicate balance between the rights of the individual, states and the very limited responsibilities of the Federal Government. The idea behind this document is timeless in its validity. The further away that political and executive power lies from the ruled population; the more opportunity that fraud, corruption, and tyranny will blossom. What the US founding fathers framed was a unique blend and division of powers in which the individual, the state and the Federal governing institutions could co-exist and respect life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

“The new nation that had with difficulty struggled into being was henceforth fortified with something unheard of in the existing world – a written Constitution. At first sight this authoritative document presents a sharp contrast with the store of traditions and precedents that make up the unwritten Constitution of Britain. Yet behind it lay no revolutionary theory.....The Constitution was a reaffirmation of faith in the principles painfully evolved over the centuries by the English-speaking peoples.”

Hamilton and the 'monied class' wanted a strong central government, running the nation's paper; its finances; controlling its banking systems; and pushing industrialization forward. Only through industry, production and profits could the monumental debts be paid. Jefferson and his cohorts viewed industry, capital formation, big banks and the monied class with the same derision they felt for the aristocracy or monarchy. For Jefferson the coming French revolution was the realization of his ideal – an agrarian, non-industrial and non-aristocratic regime, purportedly ruling for the good of all. In reality of course the French Revolution was a social, economic and political disaster of epic proportions. Thankfully for America, the 'Hamiltionians' gained political power and forced America to imitate England and not the failed neo-despotism of French communalism.

“In France he [Jefferson] saw, or thought he saw, the realisation of his political ideas – the destruction of a worn-out aristocracy and a revolutionary assertion of the rights of the soil-tilling man. Hamilton, on the other hand, looked to the England of the Younger Pitt as the embodiment of his hopes for America.”

The current President, the Great Black Jesus, Marxist fakir, and a student of radical socialism, is no Hamilton. Neither is he a Jefferson. He is just another tired, discredited and not-too-bright student of modern cultural Marxism – an entire program dedicated to hating America, its founders, its texts and its history. Churchill if alive today would agree with this sentiment: Americans, in the long cultural Marxist march from FDR to the Black God Obama, have in effect neutered their founding documents and gone far in re-establishing a reign not unlike that of King George III.