Yes, I did over generalize. Its hard not too listening to the most of the Democrat candidates.
Hold on now some will say the Civil war wasnít about the Nations ultimate sin at all it was more so about states rights and all. Now on the states rights to do what I suppose it was various reasons according to some but the ultimate sin fell way on the bottom of the list even if on the list of reasons behind that war according to some.
Yes some say that. Mostly Southerners. They talk about the South's right to secede. They freely joined the Union so why couldn't they freely leave? But I haven't heard that position in a long time. Those who still hold that position need to ask themselves "Why did they want to secede?" It was because they wanted to keep slavery. Being from a northern state I do not subscribe to the idea that is was about states rights. The war was about slavery. The entire attempt to keep balance between the slave and free states was falling apart. It couldn't be maintained.
And it was a nasty war. Roughly 15% of Indiana's population joined the Union Army. 32% of the Hoosiers
who joined ended up casualties. 12.6% were killed.
Here is the most likely origin of the nickname Hoosier
: "The distinguished Hoosier writer, Meredith Nicholson (The Hoosiers) and many others have inquired into the origin of Hoosier. But by all odds the most serious student of the matter was Jacob Piatt Dunn, Jr., Indiana historian and longtime secretary of the Indiana Historical Society. Dunn noted that "hoosier" was frequently used in many parts of the South in the 19th century for woodsmen or rough hill people. He traced the word back to "hoozer," in the Cumberland dialect of England. This derives from the Anglo-Saxon word "hoo" meaning high or hill. In the Cumberland dialect, the word "hoozer" meant anything unusually large, presumably like a hill. It is not hard to see how this word was attached to a hill dweller or highlander. Immigrants from Cumberland, England, settled in the southern mountains (Cumberland Mountains, Cumberland River, Cumberland Gap, etc.). Their descendents brought the name with them when they settled in the hills of southern Indiana."
---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------
The Federalist Papers are a great source of information concerning the original intent of the constitution. The authors explain the need for a second amendment. (The essays were written to support ratification. The Bill of Rights were several years away. They were proposed and ratified to clearly state what were the rights of the people and the individual states.
This is a summary of some of the essays talking about the second amendment
published by the UCLA School of Law. When you read it try to remember that a Select Militia (now called the National Guard) was feared almost as much as a standing Army. It was thought that it too could be a tool for oppression. The militia is every abled body male citizen. Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." The assemblies never happened.
Madison wrote about state governments possibly repelling federal troops. It was believe that state governments would be more responsive to the needs of the people than a remote federal government. He wrote, " To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.'
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
"But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
There is also a paragraph somewhere where the militia was to assemble with their rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition. If you want to know the original meaning of the Constitution you need to get a copy of the Federalist Papers.