Constitutional Governance, For a Change

Recently, the chief political correspondent for The Colonel's Corner -- the Colonel -- sat down for a wide-ranging on-the-record conversation with Brenda Cannon Gregory (aka: the Comely and Kind-hearted Miss Brenda), the woman whose write-in candidacy for President is sweeping the nation like a cool breeze soothing a slumbering electorate in the midst of a hellish election nightmare.  What follows is the verbatim transcript of what one hopes will be the first of many such candid and illuminating conversations over the course of the next eight and one half years.

TCC:  "Mrs. Gregory, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer a few questions."

BCG: "My pleasure, Colonel.  And, call me 'Miss Brenda.'  I know we'll have to retrain you to call me 'Madam President' after the election, but for the time-being it will be less taxing on your pea-sized brain to keep it simple."

TCC:  "Uh, okay...  So, Miss Brenda, let's dispense with the pleasantries and get right to the subject.  How would you describe your philosophy for governance as President of the United States?"

BCG: "The Constitution; the whole Constitution; and nothing but the Constitution."

TCC:  "Would you care to elaborate on that?

BCG:  "Not particularly.  Besides, what part of those simple ten words is so hard to understand?"

TCC:  "Well..., I, uh...  Okay, um, well.., how, then, would you say that your governing philosophy differs from Barack Obama's?"

BCG:  "Who?  Oh, you mean Valerie Jarret's spokesperson.  Look, I'm not basing my campaign on the failures of the current administration.  I will say this for Mr. Obama, he reads out loud extremely well."

TCC:  "Will you be using a teleprompter in your speeches?"

BCG:  "Why?  None of my speeches will ever be longer than a minute or two.  If you can't make your point quicker than that, you don't have a 'point.'"

TCC:  "Makes sense."

BCG:  "Look, forty years living with the Colonel has trained me to keep it short and simple."

TCC:  "Heh, heh..., wait, what?"

BCG:  "Next question!"

TCC:  "Yes, ma'am!  Um...[the Colonel shuffles through his stack of notecards], okay, let's talk about what you see as your priorities as President."

BCG:  "The first constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the President, as chief executive, is faithful execution of the law as found specifically expressed in the Constitution, and as enacted by legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President."  

TCC:  "Do you believe in the use of Executive Orders."

BCG:  "Only as a means to enforce a specifically expressed Constitutional requirement, or to enforce an Act of Congress.  Not to create law.  Any other use of Executive Orders is an expression of dictatorial powers not expressly given the President by the Constitution, regardless the well-meaning intent or efficacy of the order.  If I see something that I think needs to be done, that is not currently expressly authorized by legislation, I will work with the the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader to have legislation passed to address the need."

TCC:  "Miss Brenda, executive orders and bureaucratic regulations over the last three decades have resulted in trillions of dollars of cost to the American taxpayer..."

BCG:  "And that's what I'm talking about.  Look, I'm sure that the originator of every executive order and non-legislated regulation believes that they are doing good.  Some may even be able to prove that their idea, in the form of an order or regulation, satisfies a critical requirement or provides a solution to a pressing problem.   But, good intentions, or even proven effectiveness and efficiency is not an excuse for extra-constitutional activity by our Federal government.  That's what I mean when I say "...and nothing but the Constitution."

TCC:  "Are you saying that Congress would do a better job at regulation than a professional bureaucracy?"

BCG:  "No! Not at all.  But, that's not the point.  The point is, as our nation's founders meant when they went to war for, among others, the principle of "no taxation without representation," that there should be no federal regulation without representation.  In other words, the Constitution gives the power of regulation expressly to the Congress.  There is no Article in the Constitution establishing an unelected bureaucracy with the power to indirectly tax the citizens of the Republic."

TCC:  " 'No regulation without representation'.  Catchy.  Mind if I make some money putting that phrase on bumper stickers?"

BCG:  "Be my guest.  The best economic stimulus is unfettered entrepreneurialism."

TCC:  "Can I put that one on a bumper sticker, too?"

BCG:  "You're a businessman?  Thought you were a free-loading journalist..."

TCC:  "Who are you calling a 'journalist?"

BCG:  "Next question!"

TCC:  "Yes, Ma'am.  What is your policy on National Defense?"

BCG:  "National Defense is best considered as a series of concentric rings, beginning first with the national security decision-making and policy apparatus and then second with the interior of our national territory and working outward.  Electing me will take care of the first ring.  Secondly, an effective American national defense for the 21st Century requires development of 21st Century internal infrastructure.  To begin with, our critically vulnerable power grid must be immediately shielded to protect against catastrophic failure, whether as a result of a man-made or solar attack.  Our highways, bridges, railways, and air traffic system, once the envy of the world, are now woefully behind and crumbling.  I will work with Congress, and the states, to fix our infrastructure and push it into the next century.

TCC: "But, won't the cost of such programs be prohibitively expensive, given the fact that our nation already has a 20 trillion dollar debt?"

BCG:  "Thought we were talking about national defense?  You want to talk about economic policy, now?

TCC:  "Uh, no..."

BCG:  "The next concentric ring out from infrastructure is borders.  The most compelling case for a 'clear and present danger' facing citizens of the United States is uncontrolled migration across not just our land borders, but via our ports and airports.  I believe that that vast majority of the people coming into our country illegally are otherwise law-abiding and can be productive members of our society if integrated and assimilated properly.  But, if only 1% of the nearly 1 million coming to our shores each year are coming with criminal malice aforethought that represents a light infantry invasion each year the size of the operating forces of the entire United States Marine Corps."

TCC:  "Ooorah!"

BCG:  "You really should do something about that cough, Colonel.  Sounds terrible.  As I was saying, and I'm keeping this as simple as I can for you, the first component of national defense is decision-making, the second is internal infrastructure, and the third component then is border security..."

TCC:  "How would you handle immigration, then?"

BCG:  "Are we talking about immigration policy, now?  Thought we were discussing defense policy?"

TCC:  "Um, okay.  Please continue."

BCG:  "The fourth component in our national defense, the fourth concentric ring outward, if you will,  is our military.  We must continue to invest in the highest quality people and the best equipment.  And, we must ensure that our military is trained and equipped to do one thing -- win on the battlefield.  Any proposed changes to the time-tested fabric of the force should only be made if it can be proven without a doubt that the change will increase effectiveness on the battlefield.  Just maintaining the current level of effectiveness is not enough -- our potential adversaries are not standing still; they continue to grow in capabilities and effectiveness."

TCC:  "Are you concerned about ISIS?"

BCG:  "Of course.  And, we'll deal quickly and effectively with that threat.  I'll ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress and..."  

TCC:  "A declaration of war!?!"

BCG:  "What part of 'the Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing but the Constitution' did you not understand, Colonel?  Look, I know that you are hamstrung by a lack of education -- Ole Miss, Troy, and the Navy War College aren't exactly noted for producing great political thinkers -- but you've got to concentrate on the bottom line of my governing philosophy.  If it isn't expressly covered in the Constitution, the President isn't allowed to do it. 

TCC:  "Okay, let's say the Congress gives you a formal declaration of war against the so-called Islamic State.  How do you attack and defeat 'em?"

BCG:  "Well, that's where all of you military professionals, on whom the nation has spent a fortune educating and training, come in.  I'll turn to the Secretary of Defense, give her the mission, and tell her to let me know when she is done.  She, utilizing the brains for which I selected her to be my Defense Secretary, will turn to the military combatant commanders and give them a mission.  Look, this ain't brain surgery.  There might be some rocket science involved, though..."   

"But, look.  ISIS is not an existential crisis..., yet.  At most, at present, it is a nuisance.  A big nuisance, mind you, what with all of the humanitarian crises fallout.  But, if we continue to attack ISIS incrementally instead of all out, we do run the risk of them getting their hands on WMD.  Then they become an existential threat.  I won't let them get to that point.  Look for a victory parade down Pennsylvania avenue some time before my first State of the Union Address.   

TCC:  "What about China and Russia?" 

BCG:  "What about 'em?  You want me to get Congress to declare war on them, too?  Now we're really talking about rocket science; not to mention splitting an atom or two.  And, that's what will keep Jinping and Vladimir in check.

TCC:  "Okay, let's switch gears and talk about the economy..."

BCG:  "It's all in the same gear, Colonel."

TCC:  "Huh?  Well, um..., What is your tax philosophy?

BCG:  "If I had my way, there would be a simple flat federal consumption tax, somewhere around 10%.  And, I would reduce taxes on corporations, which are always passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices for goods and services, to zero.  With a zero corporate tax rate, and no corporate subsidies, the United States would become the world's business capital. Period.  Imagine the wealth flowing to the United States under that situation! 

TCC:  "I don't think that would pay for all of the current federal programs..."

BCG:  "Exactly!  I will work with Congress to phase out all federal social programs and return that responsibility to the states where it rightfully belongs per the Constitution."

TCC:  "But, the states can't afford to fund all the welfare programs."

BCG:  "Look, I know this is taxing (get it?) your mental capacity somewhat.  But, the Constitution established a governmental system known as 'federalism.'  Contrary to popular belief, the concept of 'federalism' that is the basis for our Constitution does not give the Federal government responsibility, nor even authority, for social programs.  Federalism envisions the individual states bearing that responsibility and authority.  Don't take my word for it, go read the Federalist Papers for yourself."

TCC:  "So you would have the states take over and pay for social programs in their own states.  Won't that lead to different outcomes?  Won't some states do a far better job of taking care of their resident citizens than other states?

BCG:  "Yes, yes, and yes!  Emphatically yes!  That is the whole point of States' rights under federalism and as guaranteed in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:  'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'"  The states that do the most effective and economically efficient job of taking care of their resident citizens will reap the rewards of increasing vitality and economic growth.  This competition between states will actually spur greater and greater good to the welfare of the citizens."

TCC:  Thank you so much for your time, Miss Brenda.  Can we finish by quickly addressing your immigration policy? 

BCG:  I fervently believe in the motto: e pluribus unum.   Out of many, one.  The reason the American Republic stands as the greatest nation the world has ever known is attributable to three facts.  One, our republic was founded on the greatest social compact ever devised by man -- the U.S. Constitution.  Two, that Constitution provided the umbrella of personal freedom and limited government under which a continent brimming with world-class resources was conquered.  And, three, that continent was peopled by representatives of humanity from around the globe who found unprecedented freedom of expression, and who were drawn together as one people yearning for the exact same thing for themselves and their progeny -- Freedom.  We still stand as the globe's greatest expression of that most shared of human traits -- the desire to live in freedom.  Our constitution still stands as the world's greatest guarantor of freedom.  We should celebrate that, and we should share it.  My immigration policy, indeed, my entire foreign policy, constitutionally in concert with Congressional action, will seek to share the unmatched level of God-given human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States to all people, on our territory and on theirs.     

#TCAK-HMBforPresident

Hanging by a Chad

The coming national election has the Colonel feeling a bit nostalgic.

Oh, for the halcyon days of peaceful and orderly transition of presidential power.

You know, like Bush v. Gore.  

Twenty years ago the Colonel was serving as the Chief of Current Operations on the staff of United States Forces Korea (USFK).  The staff was primarily Army with an eclectic assortment of token representation from the Air Force, Navy, and Marines -- just enough to satisfy the designation: Joint. Parallel to the US staff was a mirror staff composed of Republic of Korea (ROK) military.  The two staffs together formed Combined Forces Command (CFC).  And..., all of this was nominally under the command of United Nations Command (UNC) -- a U.S. Army four star wore all three hats.  As you can well imagine, the organization chart and chain of command was more than just a little convoluted.

The staff didn't let the organizational mishmash get in the way of planning and operational progress, however.  Their own squabbling over rice bowls (military slang for areas of responsibility) was enough of a roadblock. 

The Colonel's counterpart on the ROK half of the combined staff was a ROK Army one-star by the name of Bang (pronounced "bong"). General Bang was (is) a great man who navigated the shoals and undercurrents of, often, competing US and ROK goals with aplomb.  That he had a great sense of humor helped immensely in the herculean task of keeping two armies focused on the threat to the north; not to mention easing a knuckle-dragging Marine's attempt to operate in a completely foreign environment -- the Army way of doing things as much as the Korean.

Early every morning, the combined US - ROK staffs provided BG Bang and the Colonel a half-hour PowerPoint presentation that covered peninsular events over the past 24 hours and progress on planning for upcoming exercises and high-level visits, etc. Afterwards, the principles of the two Current Operations staffs -- representing air, land, naval, and command post -- met in a smaller executive setting. Since most of the stuff of any import had already been covered in the larger audience brief, this smaller session was more about team-building than anything else.

BG Bang and the Colonel had agreed early on that instead of the more comfortable and default seating arrangement around the large  conference table -- US on one side and ROK on the other -- staff counterparts would sit together.  Furthermore, each pair was responsible for teaching each other a slang word or colloquialism that would be shared daily.  The looks around the table were priceless when a South Korean general, whose culture is steeped in polite and deferential speech, answered a subordinate's unbelievable claim regarding an issue with: "I didn't just fall off the turnip truck." 

As you can well imagine, some... okay..., a lot of the slang the American officers taught their Korean counterparts was not appropriate for polite company.  The prim Korean officers tittered like schoolgirls when one would use a blue phrase that would ordinarily not be accepted in their society.  For their part, the American officers, the Colonel included, continuously butchered the Korean language, shocking the deferential Koreans when the wrong tense was used when addressing a senior.

One morning in the second week of November of 2000, BG Bang summarily cut off the culture klatch and asked the Colonel, "What is a chad?" 

What followed -- as will be no surprise to any of you unfortunate enough to have been present when the Colonel has been asked a simple political or history question for which the Colonel believes a very detailed answer is required -- was a narrative tour de force of the Constitution, the States' responsibilities in national elections, and the role of the Electoral College.  

The greatest looks of interest around the table were the Colonel's American subordinates -- they were clearly hearing some of this for the first time.  And, that a knuckle-dragging Marine who didn't go to college (the Colonel went to Ole Miss, instead) could expound on the subject so, was even more amazing to them.

At length, when the Colonel finally paused to take a deep breath, the very prim and polite Korean brigadier general sitting next to him, grasped his forearm and exclaimed, 

"I asked you what time it was; not how to build a [expletive deleted] clock!"                             

The Call of Citizenship

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." -- Napoleon

The Colonel has increasingly moved toward entrance into the camp of those whose version of past events is decidedly different than the majority opinion.  It happens to people who really study history objectively and comprehensively.  Most don't, and remain blissfully ignorant.

The Colonel is looking at you, Americans.

  

In the decades leading up to America's third major civil war (See King Philip's War of 1675 - 1678, and the misnamed American Revolutionary War of 1775 - 1783, for the first and second major civil wars), American politicians sought to preserve the union of states by compromising over the heinous practice of chattel slavery.

With the change of presidential administrations in 1861, under a new political party (the Republican Party) specifically organized to end the practice of chattel slavery throughout the entire union of states, American politicians effectively discarded the canard of compromise.  Southern politicians led their states in a revolt against the central government (a move they claimed, not altogether erroneously, echoed the revolt against the central government in 1775), and Northern politicians rallied their states in an effort to "preserve the union."      

Neither position was particularly popular to a majority of citizens in either region.  But, as is nearly always the case throughout history, and is certainly true today, the views of a malcontent minority  receive the most attention.  

Let's be clear -- the base cause of Southern secession was indeed the desire to preserve the institution of slavery.  Full stop.  Historians sympathetic to the antebellum south have cloaked that root cause in the threadbare cloth of "states rights," but the overarching "right" the southern states sought to preserve was the right to maintain the institution of slavery.  Period.

And..., let's be likewise clear-eyed regarding the real reason Northern politicians were so intent on preventing Southern secession.  Southern politicians weren't nearly so interested in whether western states would enter the union as "slave" or "free" as they were in the prospect of "tropical" lands to the south (much more conducive to agriculture based on slave labor) joining the union.  Northern politicians feared dilution of their power in that possibility -- they had prevented President James K. Polk from annexing all of Mexico (as he easily could have) at the conclusion of the War with Mexico in 1849.  Annexation of just the northern half of Mexican territory (the half least suited to agriculture based on slave labor) added enormously rich lands to the Union without the prospect of diminishing Northern politicians' power.  An independent Southern nation's manifest destiny would not be westward.  Had the Confederacy succeeded in establishing its independence, the Southern nation might very well have rather quickly extended itself to include at least the Caribbean and Central America.  Such a nation would have become an economic power-house with which the remaining states in the diminished United States would have had a difficult time competing. 

    

The vast majority of citizens on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line were not overly enthusiastic about the prospect of war in 1861 (just as the vast majority of colonists were not enthusiastic about the prospect of war in 1775).  Their politicians were, and they generated enthusiasm (as politicians always do) by rationalizing war as a means of projecting ideals (North) or protecting property (South).

And, so we find ourselves today -- politicians on one side of the aisle (the ideological Mason-Dixon Line, if you will) generating enthusiasm for projecting ideals (socialism) and politicians on the other side provoking an opposing reaction for the protection of property (capitalism).  But, in reality, as it has nearly always been, the politicians on either side care far less for their side's ideology than they do for the personal power that accrues to the leaders of the ascendant movement.  

Politicians are able to accrue personal power, at the expense of those they purport to serve, because the vast majority of the people are unwilling to do the hard work of citizenship in our Republic.  True citizenship is not a label; it is a calling. 

The call of citizenship requires education.  

A worthy citizen of our Republic should have an appreciation of the objective, unvarnished version of the Republic's history.  Public education textbooks do not provide this.  If a citizen's study of his republic's history ends with public school education, he or she is not answering the call of citizenship. 

A worthy citizen of our Republic should have ready access to our Constitution, through even the most casual study of which the least educated of us can determine for ourselves whether a politician's proposal passes the Constitutionality test.  If a citizen depends on the courts to tell him or her what is Constitutional, he or she is not answering the call of citizenship. 

The call of citizenship requires acceptance of responsibility.

A responsible citizen is one who leaves our Republic in better condition and in better hands than he or she inherited it.  Our Republic is indeed an incredibly valuable inheritance, and each generation of Americans should do all in their power to at least preserve the principal of that inheritance by observing and preserving the principles upon which that inheritance was initially bequeathed.

A responsible citizen ensures that his or her progeny are prepared to inherit the riches of our Republic.  Leaving this up to our public schools (love you, teachers, but you know the Colonel is right) is not a responsible action. 

The call of citizenship requires the sacrifice of service.  In some form or another, above and beyond just being a productive member of society, every citizen should seek a way to serve the other members of our Republic.  The older, if not necessarily wiser, the Colonel gets, the more he doesn't view his service in uniform as particularly sacrificial -- he was adequately compensated for his service.  

So, he'll seek to serve by sacrificing his time and continuing to write.

    

The Coming Fourth American Civil War

Ask any public school graduate to provide the very basics of the seminal wars of the American experience and you will be lucky to get a vague accounting that may or may not include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the War with Mexico, the Civil War, the War with Spain, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the two major campaign theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan) of the Global War on Terrorism.

Ask for causes and participants in each of the above and you will be lucky to get much more than a shrug of the shoulders and a dismissive, "Dude, that's history.  It don't matter anymore..."  

So, the Colonel knows that any post hereon which deals with any critical analysis of history (particularly causes and effects of military conflicts) runs the risk of finding their way to the bottom of the list of most-read.  Nonetheless, he is uncontrollably driven to posit a likely future event given the current state of American social and political discourse viewed through the lens of American history.

The Colonel believes we are on the cusp of the Fourth American Civil War.

At this point, the Colonel is sure that the lips of a majority of the Alabama and LSU fans who began reading this missive have already tired, and they have left to google search tree-killing herbicides and corndog recipes.  The rest of you dear and valued readers are no doubt scratching your hat racks and asking,

"Fourth American Civil War?"

Yep.  We Americans have endured at least three previous major civil wars since European colonists began beaching boats on the New World's coasts. 

"But, Colonel.  My high school U.S. History teacher taught us that there was just one civil war and it was fought by the North to free the slaves in the South."

The Colonel knows what you were taught.  He had the same textbooks.  But, you see, there are these marvelous things called non-fiction history books that actually contain critical analysis beyond the one paragraph summary indoctrinations provided by modern public school textbooks.  Read enough of these marvelous critical examinations of history and you can actually begin to discern the truth of history.  Not only that, but you can learn to critically analyze the present and predict possible futures.

The Colonel's bit-more-than-cursory examination of history informs him that there have actually been several major, and many minor, civil wars on the North American continent since the 16th Century.  Let's take a look at three from which we can draw conclusions that may inform us about the coming fourth.

King Phillip's War
            Hop in the way-back machine with the Colonel and let's flash back to the year 1675.  The scene is the northeastern region of the future United States we now refer to as New England.  Five decades of European colonists had established enclaves along the New England seaboard and despite on and off skirmishing with the Native American people then occupying the territory (having displaced others), the separate European enclaves had lived largely in peace by establishing alliances with the various tribes against those tribes enemies.  Under the paramount chief of the Wampanoag Confederacy, Massasoit, the native population, though decimated by disease had maintained an equilibrium of sorts with the European settlers and the two occasionally joined forces to resist encroachments and raids by outside tribes.  But, as the tide of European settlement continued rise, competition for land and resources began to mount correspondingly.  The natives were restless.

With the deaths of Massasoit and his oldest son in 1692, Massasoit's younger son, Metacomet assumed leadership of the Wampanoags.  He was a rather prideful man, full of his position, and assumed the name King Phillip because he believed himself to be on par not with the various village and town leaders of the colonists, but with their king in England.  He continued his father's strategy of peaceful social and economic interrelationships with the colonists.  However, he began to doubt that the colonists felt the same way about the relationship that he did, and he chafed at what he considered disrespect and breaking of promises as the settlements expanded into more and more of traditional Wampanoag land.

King Phillip began to conspire with tribes in the interior, whipping up anti-European sentiment and promising to destroy the European settlements before the European population got too big to stop.  But, King Phillip was not able to enlist all of the various tribes in his conspiracy and several remained loyal to the Europeans with whom they had developed deep social and beneficial economic relationships they were loathe to abandon.

During the spring of 1675, warriors from tribes loyal to King Phillip began raids against isolated European settlements.  The European reaction was swift and indiscriminate.  Soon open war wracked the region.  Native Americans were caught up on both sides of the war in fighting and destruction that eclipsed any the region had ever seen.  By the end of hostilities a year later some of the major native tribes had suffered 50 to 80% population losses.  The European colonists had suffered nearly 10% population losses.  Scores of towns and settlements on both sides were completely destroyed.

King Phillip's War, which had enough definitive hallmarks to be considered a civil war, was the most destructive war on the North American continent per capita.  Even surpassing the calamity of the War for Southern Independence (aka Civil War) in 1861 - 1865 in terms of percentage of population and property lost.

King Phillip's War was the first major American civil war.  It's casus belli was primarily competition over land and resources.

The American Revolution
             Arguably, the seeds for the American colonial rebellion against Britain were planted during what we call the French and Indian War  -- a relatively minor campaign in the titanic European struggle that wracked the world in the middle of the 18th Century.  Native American populations again found themselves on both sides of a conflict -- this time between France and England.  Native tribes that attempted to stay out of the fight were indiscriminately attacked by both sides.  

To pay for the cost of that war, Great Britain levied taxes on commerce with its colonies.  The so-called Stamp Act of 1765, requiring that all publications and public records in the American Colonies be printed on paper containing a paid-for stamp, was one of the most ubiquitous and irritating of these taxes -- particularly so because it was imposed without participation and/or approval of the political representation in America.  Ergo the resistance slogan: "No taxation without representation."  

Commercial interests in the New England colonies -- particularly Boston -- agitated more and more fervently against London's heavy-handed and dismissive attitude toward its colonial subjects in America and began to act out in not-so passive resistance.  This prompted a dramatic increase in British troop presence (including mercenary forces) that further exacerbated the situation. 

The British move to seize militia-stockpiled arms and ammunition in Lexington and Concord set the spark to the powder keg of Colonial resentment against the heavy handedness of the Crown -- at least in New England.

In the Southern Colonies the reaction to the anti-Crown activities in New England was a mixture of horror, revulsion, and fear.  There was already developing a cultural divide between the two regions and the Southern Colonies were, frankly, happy with the very beneficial trade of their agricultural commodities with Britain.  The majority of colonists in the Southern Colonies were either completely loyal to the Crown or, in the case of settlers in remote western lands, ambivalent to a concept of "independence" they already enjoyed de facto.  It took more than a year of open hostilities in New England, before the representatives of enough Southern Colonies were cajoled into supporting the Continental Congress' declaration of independence.

It wasn't until the British carried the war to the South in 1780 that more than a small minority of Southerners participated on either side.  But, heavy-handed tactics by Cornwallis and two of his more notorious lieutenants (Lt.Col. Banastre Tarleton and Maj. Patrick Ferguson), incited open warfare (true civil war) between loyalists and rebels (aka patriots).  The intensity of fighting in the war of maneuver employed by General Washington in the north (primarily aimed at keeping a viable force in the field -- the destruction of which would have snuffed out the rebellion) paled in comparison to the ferocity of fighting between Americans in the South as loyalists and rebels (in militia formations and out) settled old scores and created new scores to be settled.

The American Revolution, particularly in the South, was the second American civil war.  

The American Civil War
       The third major civil war on the North American continent (at least since the arrival of Europeans) was the war fought over southern states' secession from the United States.  History written by the winners of that conflict states flatly that the war was fought to "free the slaves." This belies the fact that Lincoln's war to "preserve the Union" did not assume the abolitionist mantle until halfway through the conflict.  Confederate apologists argue that the war was fought over "economic" reasons.  They are correct, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the economy in the south was built on the back of chattel slavery.  

The war fought between 1861 and 1865 was conceived by politicians from two regions (north and south) with widely different economic bases (industrial vs agricultural) and governing philosophies (bias toward national supremacy vs tendency toward state sovereignty).  The war was disastrous for the south -- a significant portion of its infrastructure was wrecked, cities and towns burned, and farms laid waste.  It took the better part of the next century for the region to recover economic vibrancy.  But, from a purely scientific viewpoint, it can be argued that the American Civil War actually sowed seeds of American Exceptionalism whose germination bore amazing fruit in the next century.                                  

The Coming Fourth American Civil War
       War is the single most prevalent theme in the history of man.  Wars between peoples who on the surface have all but the most superficial things in common is common.  Even the most cursory examination of history shows that.  To believe that the American experience will be any different..., well..., it hasn't been so far; and it will likely not be any different in the future.
               

The Colonel believes another major American civil war is all but inevitable, to be fought for much the same reasons the first three major civil wars (and countless minor civil wars) were.   It might even be America's next great conflict...


...or it might be the coming war with China.  The Colonel's crystal ball is a little cloudy on that point this morning. 

     

Nothing More Than Feelings

The Colonel is a heartless creature, empty of empathy and short on sympathy.

You want him that way.

The Republic needs men and women like the Colonel -- cold, calculating, rational...,

...unfeeling.

While the rest of humanity pines for the ease of a life where the phrase "I feel that..." precedes all pronouncements of policy positions, there must be those hated few who keep the rest grounded in reality.

The Colonel's bride, best friend, and permanent life journey co-marcher -- the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda -- is a world-class "feeler."  She possesses a heart the size of Montana.

Why Montana?  

Because the Colonel likes to see his Texan friends pay attention, and slighting them is a sure way to accomplish that mission.

Works with Bama and LSU fans as well.

But, the Colonel digresses.

Last evening, the Colonel was ensconced in his comfy leather chair parked front and center of his far-too-small 50" flat screen (he means, c'mon there's room on that wall for at least a 75"), perusing the cable news opinion prattle.  The comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda was couch-side tending to her current quilting project and paying about as much attention to the discussion of politics and policy as an armadillo pays to traffic, when one of the talking heads said something that caused her to pause mid-stitch,

"That's not right."

The Colonel jumped at the sudden sound to his right, unaccustomed to any other sound during his nightly perusal of the cable news opinion prattle, save his own shallow breathing.  He turned to see the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda glaring at the far-too-small flat screen (seriously, the Colonel could easily fit an 80" on that wall), "What's that dear? Did you lose your needle again?" 

She pointed toward the far-too-small flat screen with her dainty chin (the Colonel loves that chin..., and seriously, if Vizio ever comes out with a 100" model...), "That's not right.  I don't feel that they should be able to do that."

"Your 'feelings' have zero bearing on the issue," the Colonel growled dismissively.

"Don't be dismissive with me, old man!" The comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda was no longer pointing her dainty chin at the far-too-small (see previous paragraphs) flat screen.  Her green eyes were flashing at the Colonel over her readers, "and, what's wrong with your voice? You sound like a puppy fighting over a bone." 

"Who you callin' a puppy? That was the Colonel's dismissive growl, developed during a career of interminable staff meetings, and meant to strike mortal terror in the hearts of staff weenies wasting the operators' time."

"Whatever..." Obviously the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda had realized the error of her ways and was now submitting to the intellectual superiority of...

"What's wrong with your face, knucklehead?  You've got that haughty Obama look going on."

The Colonel glared toward his beautiful bride, "That's the 'Colonel's haughty look.' Obama stole it from the Colonel." 

"Whatever..." (The Colonel has a very submissive wife.) "I just don't feel that they should be able to do that."

"Well...," the Colonel dropped his dismissive growl (puppy, indeed! -- she probably thinks Moby Dick was a minnow) and assumed his practiced pedantic pontification persona.  "There's no law against it."

"Well, I feel like there should be."

"It would be unconstitutional.  And..., nowhere in the Constitution of our great Republic is the concept of 'feelings' found." 

"How would it be 'unconstitutional?'" The comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda emphasized the last word in what the Colonel recognized as her mocking attempt to impersonate the Colonel's practiced pedantic pontification persona.  The Colonel might have been offended if..., well..., if he had any feelings.  

"Ever heard of the Bill of Rights, dear?  What you are proposing would violate at least two of the rights protected in the first ten amendments to our Constitution."

"Well," the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda huffed, "they need to change those amendments, then."

"First," the Colonel shifted into a whole 'nuther gear in his practiced pedantic pontification persona, "you can't 'change' an amendment to the Constitution.  In order to undo something in the Constitution, or an amendment thereto, you must ratify another amendment.  For example, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1919, outlawed the production, transport, and sale of alcohol.  It was superseded in 1933 by the 21st Amendment lifting this prohibition; but, the 18th Amendment itself was not changed and remains in the Constitution."

"Well, that's stupid.  Why do they do that?"

"In the Colonel's not-so-humble opinion, that's part of the overall genius of the U.S. Constitution -- leaving the language of the amended portions of the original Constitution and superseded amendments intact provides an historical road map for posterity."

"Yeah.  I know, I know. It's always about history with you isn't it?"

The Colonel didn't so much ignore the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda's jibe as much as took it as a compliment.  He continued, "The constitutional process for changing anything in the U.S. Constitution is prohibitively protracted." The Colonel was wound up and reveling in the opportunity to educate, "Article V of the Constitution provides for two means of proposing an amendment for ratification consideration.  One is via Congress -- either by a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, or by a national convention called by Congress (which ain't likely to happen).  The other is what is currently being called "A Convention of States," where two-thirds of the states themselves call for a national convention."

The Colonel paused in a quick beseeching prayer, "Lord, if you love me -- and I don't doubt that you do -- you'll allow me to be selected as a state representative to the coming convention of states. Amen."

The Colonel noticed that the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda's patience was wearing ever-so-slightly thin and began to wrap up his practiced pedantic pontification, "Any proposed amendment must be ratified by two-thirds of the states in order to take effect.  So, you see, it ain't an easy proposition."

"Why is it so hard for you men to do anything?"

The Colonel ignored the overt sexism in the comely and kind hearted Miss Brenda's remark, "Because..., had it been easy, anytime somebody felt that a change should be made -- based on their heart and not their head -- the limitations and protections of the greatest form of government ever devised by man would have been erased and the Republic would have foundered within its first generation."   

"Well, I still feel like we should..."

The Colonel, empty of empathy, short on sympathy, and lacking even a modicum of tact, cut her off summarily.

"Yep, you and 150 million brainless socialists."     

                

Killing Democracy

It frightens the Colonel more than just a little (and he ain't scared of much) that the future of our Republic rests today in the hands of power-seekers whose cynical use of the inherently tyrannical concepts of democracy (also known as government by mob rule) and socialism threatens the very foundations upon which the most free people in the history of mankind live and work.

Those who would aspire to leadership in the affairs of our grand Republic would do well to study the actions of a great leader 236 years ago this month.

Allow the Colonel to set the scene for you:

The main fighting force of the American rebellion against Great Britain was encamped at Newburgh, New York.  They, with more than a little help from the French Army and Navy, had shocked the world with the defeat of a British expeditionary force at Yorktown a year and half earlier.  The remainder of British forces were bottled up in New York City, and the Continental Army remained nearby at Newburgh to keep an eye on them while an American delegation negotiated a peace treaty and independence in London.

One of General George Washington's most difficult tasks as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army (the army of the American colonial rebellion against the British Crown) was keeping an army in the field.  As long as a Continental Army existed, the rebellion existed.  As long as the rebellion existed, hope of independence existed.  

The Continental Army was a whole different animal than the local and colony (state) militias.  The various militias were untrained, mostly poorly led, and only showed up to participate (usually with poor results) in battles.  After a battle (often in the midst of one) the militia melted away and returned to their homes.  Militias started the war for independence -- but it would take a continuously fielded army to win that war.        

Keeping an army in the field requires material, leadership, and, most importantly, a steady supply of manpower.  Manning an army, particularly in a relatively free society, is a tricky business.  Most nations employ some sort of conscription or draft.  Richer nations rely on a combination of a draft and volunteers (providing compensation and benefit inducements).  The richest nations often do away with a draft altogether (in times of relative peace) and rely strictly on an all-volunteer (read: "recruited") force. (In the United States most young men and women do not seriously consider military service until contacted by a recruiter and sold on the benefits of serving.)

During the American rebellion, there was no central Colonial authority to draft or recruit personnel for the Army and fledgling Navy.  The individual colonies were cajoled by the Continental Congress (and, in some cases, by direct communication from George Washington himself) to raise forces for extended service with the line of the Continental Army.  Most enlistments were for only one year and often for only 6 months.  While some soldiers committed to serving for the duration of the conflict, most of the army's manpower was in a constant state of flux.  

A large part of the reason for this constant state of flux was the fact that compensation for service was often only promissory -- individual colonies promised to compensate (in one form or another) later for service now.  The national government was really no government at all -- it had little to no power over the individual colonies who each considered themselves practically independent nations in their own right.  Any compensation and provisions provided by the Continental Congress came mostly from whatever loans the individual colonies and foreign governments (primarily France, Holland, and Spain) voluntarily provided.  

The Continental Congress, and the individual colonies, did initially rely on fiat currency (paper money not backed by precious metal or other collateral) but before long that currency was considered worthless and not acceptable for trade, and by the time of the occurrence about which this post is written (early 1783) the compensation for the officers and men of the Continental Army was seriously in arrears.

In fact, in 1782, the Continental Congress actually formally suspended all individual compensation for the Army, the intent being to settle up with the officers and men after the war was over.
    
So, with no battles to fight since the defeat of Cornwallis' force at Yorktown in 1781, the roughly 8,000 man Continental Army sat on its hands in camp -- under-equipped, under-fed, unpaid, and unhappy.

An army with time on its hands -- even a well-paid and well-fed one -- will soon turn its energies to complaint.  Place a few unprofessional officers with personal agendas in charge and those complaints will turn to conspiracy.  In camp at Newburgh, New York, the Continental Army was rife with conspiracy.

In early 1783, an anonymous letter circulated among the officers at Newburgh condemning the inaction and inattention of the Continental Congress to the plight and pay of the Continental Army, and proposing a march on the seat of that congress at Philadelphia to rectify the situation.

In the Colonel's not-so-humble and not-so-little-studied opinion, one of Washington's chief subordinates -- General Horatio Gates (a former British Army general and open rival of Washington for command of the rebellion) -- if not the actual author of the letter, was the power behind the hand behind the pen.  Washington had left Gates in charge of the force at Newburgh while he dealt with larger matters of the entire force and the Colonel believes Gates saw an opportunity (with the preponderance of the American army at his back) to stage a coup and take personal leadership of the entire rebellion (or maybe even use his control to bargain with the British for his own personal gain).

At any rate, a conspiratorial meeting of the officers was called for the 11th of March, 1783. 

It was democracy in action.

That's right, the Colonel says this mutinous conspiracy had democracy as its agent of creation and force of animation.

You see, in a democracy, one man can whip up and ride the passions of a majority to his own ends and to the end of the interests of the minority and eventually to the end of the freedoms of the whole.  The leaders of the Newburgh conspirators intended to hold a democratic vote, get majority approval for their plan, and then stage a coup that would have defeated the entire purpose of the revolution -- the establishment of a (little "r") republican form of governance for the upstart American nation.  

The founders of our great nation DID NOT intend to found it as a democracy.  They were (for the most part) well-read and educated men whose study of historical examples of government forms informed them that a democracy was the least stable and ultimately most self-destructive form of government known to man.  The written arguments (the Federalist Papers, and other public and private letters) for establishment of our current Constitutional Republic -- are replete with dismal of democracy, decrying that form of government as dangerous and wholly unsuited for the purpose of the grand republic (with minority State and individual rights protections) envisioned.  Democracy leads to coups -- coups lead to tyranny.

Need further proof of the Colonel's assertion?  Go read both the  Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and report back to the Colonel the number of times you find the actual word "democracy" or even discussion of the concept of democracy.  

The Colonel will save you some time.  "Democracy" does not appear anywhere in either document.

But, back to Newburgh...  

Washington got wind of the called meeting, denounced the "disorderly" nature of the proposed meeting, and instead issued an order sanctioning a meeting to occur on the 15th.  Washington ordered Gates to preside over the meeting and to prepare a report of the grievances to be made to the Commander in Chief.

Gates and the officers of the army did as commanded by Washington.  Shortly after Gates gaveled the meeting to order, Washington, to the surprise and astonishment of all, strode into the meeting hall and took the stage.

His address to his officers denounced the conspiracy and its intentions, and appealed to their professionalism and patriotism, but seemed to fall on deaf hears.  The army held Washington and his leadership in the highest esteem, but his exhortation at this point was no match for their exasperation.  

The Colonel believes that study of Washington's Newburgh Address should be mandatory for all members and prospective members of the U.S. military's officer corps.  It is a passionate plea, not for "democratic" ideals, but for a professional consideration of "republicanism" in which the rights and privileges of all are best promoted and protected.   

A member of Washington's staff in 1783 -- David Cobb -- wrote in 1825, "I have ever considered that the United States are indebted for their republican form of government solely to the firm and determined republicanism of George Washington at this time.

But, at the end of his prepared speech to the officers assembled there at Newburgh in the cold, late winter of 1783, the passions of the majority still ran hot for action.  Washington sensed his failure to sway the majority -- democracy was howling and ready to go on the prowl.  He searched for the right words to add to his argument, and then remembered a letter from a member of the Continental Congress who had promised Washington that they were doing everything in their power to compensate and reward the sacrifices of the men of the Continental Army.  Washington reached into the pocket of his coat, withdrew and unfolded the letter.  He then realized that he couldn't focus on the writing.

Washington paused, and then did something then considered unprofessional for an officer to do in public and completely out of character for the Commander in Chief -- he donned a pair of reading glasses.  Witnesses later said that the entire assemblage drew breath in an astonished gasp.  Washington apologized humbly, saying, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country." 

Whether or not it was intentional stagecraft on Washington's part will never be known.  Washington's stature and character was such that no one ever thereafter dared ask him about the incident.  And, no record exists that Washington ever mentioned it.   

Washington's officers, unswayed by the words of his prepared speech, were thunderstruck instead by his example of personal sacrifice.  They disbanded their democracy, and the future Republic was saved.

If any man were truly capable of pulling off the coup contemplated by the Newburgh conspirators it was Washington.  He could have been the "democratically" approved King of America, had is character been so inclined.  Instead, he was an honorable man.  The indispensable man of his generation.  The Father of our Republic.

The Colonel prays for our nation principled, Constitutional, (little "r") republican patriots like Washington.  He also prays for republican enlightenment for those who would use democracy to gain socialist power by leveraging the material desires of the majority against the liberty and best interests of We the People.    

Free the Children

The Colonel is an abolitionist.  He fervently hopes that he will live long enough to participate in the coming war to free the children, and the subsequent "reconstruction" of states found in rebellion to the Constitution.

In 1860, the people of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President.  For several decades prior to his inauguration, the issue of slavery had divided the nation culturally and politically.  Generally speaking, the largely agrarian southern half of the nation viewed slave labor as an economic necessity -- particularly on large acreage plantations.  The much more industrialized (and rapidly becoming more so), and small farm dominated northern half of the nation, which benefited from massive European immigration flows to its manufacturing centers, was far less economically dependent on slave labor.

As the Republic grew, adding new states whose clout in Congress affected the balance of political power, legislative compromises kept a rough political balance between "slave" and "free" states; but the inhumane practice of chattel slavery remained a belying blight on the moral standing of a nation that professed the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to "all" men in its founding documents.

As abolitionist fervor grew in the northern states and the southern states felt their 10th Amendment rights ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") under threat, and sectional tension increased, "slave state" politicians (most of whom were slaveholders -- as opposed to the vast majority of their constituents) saw secession from the Union as the only means of maintaining their socio-economic status quo.

"States Rights!" was the secessionist battle cry.

Of course for the states in rebellion, "states rights" ultimately meant a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery.  The southern canard that the Civil War was fought for "economic reasons" and was "not about slavery" fails to admit that the South's "economic reason" was slavery. 

"Free the slaves!" was the Union battle cry.

But..., not necessarily at first.  "Preserve the Union!" was actually the initial battle cry, reflecting the main war aim of Lincoln and company.  It wasn't until several early battles, far bloodier than anyone had imagined, presaged a long war that would have a far greater cost in men and material than anyone had imagined, that the necessity for wrapping the Union cause in religious fervor became evident.

Abolitionist sentiment, whipped to a religious fever pitch from Northern pulpits, soon became a far more palatable reason for continuing the horrors of war than merely preserving the Union.  The Battle Hymn of the Republic, with its stirring abolitionist themes, actually didn't make an appearance and gain any usage until well into the war    

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.

       As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free..."

                                                    

In an article "Did Religion Make the American Civil War Worse?" published in August 23, 2015 edition of "The Atlantic" Allen Guelzo wrote,

     "If, in Jefferson’s words, the Constitution had erected a 'wall of separation' between the church and the federal government, there was no corresponding wall between church and culture. Closed off from making policy, churches organized independent societies for Bible distribution, for alcoholism reform, for observance of the Sabbath, and for suppressing vice and immorality. And, they grew. By the time the French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville took his celebrated tour of the United States in the 1830s, he was amazed to find that while 'in the United States religion' has no 'influence on the laws or on the details of political opinions,' nevertheless, 'it directs the mores' and through that 'it works to regulate the state.'"

Guelzo's premise (based in part on books by Harvard president Drew Faust, and Yale’s Harry Stout) was that religious fervor in the mid-1850s was a major contributor to the unprecedented carnage wreaked by the Civil War and that the United States' war aim of preserving the Union, if not initially driven by religious zeal to right a moral wrong, came to that notion as the only way to justify continuance of a war whose horrendous human toll was orders of magnitude beyond what had been expected at its outset.  Guelzo warns,

"A nation guided by realpolitik knows when to cut its losses. A nation blinded by the moral gleam of a 'fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel' and charmed by the eloquence of a president with an uncanny knack for making his assessment of political problems sound like the Sermon on the Mount, obeys no such limitations."

In other words, a sense of a particular immorality, especially a wrong against humanity, buoyed by religious standards and proscriptions, becomes not just casus belli ("cause for war" for you LSU grads), but ultimately the force that propels one side so imbued to victory, no matter the cost.              

In this, the Colonel thinks, is a warning of things to come in our Republic.  

The Colonel believes that a great moral question -- greater even than the inhumanity of slavery which divided our Republic in the early 19th Century and led to the greatest loss of life of any war in our nation's history -- divides our nation today.  He speaks, of course, of the issue of killing a child in the womb.  Just as slavery set afire the hearts of the religious 150 years ago, today's commercialized killing of defenseless children is kindling a like flame.  The Colonel knows; it burns in his, and not much stirs the cold, flinty cinder that passes for a heart deep in the military recesses of his chest.

The Colonel believes a Second American Civil War is all but inevitable.  The sides of the conflict are setting up much like they did 150 years ago.  "States' rights" will again be the secessionist battle cry.  "States' rights" meaning the right to maintain the legality of the commercialized procedure that kills an innocent and completely helpless child in the womb, without limitation.  

Apologists for the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life misappropriate the term "slavery," referring to a woman "inconvenienced," "punished," or "handicapped" (their very own words) by carrying an "unwanted" (again, their words) child to full term as a "sexual slave."  Imagine Lincoln's or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s reaction to such a comparison. 

Apologists for the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life hang their legal hats on the "settled law" (their words) of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.  In Roe, the majority (in a 7 - 2 decision) ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to end an innocent and completely helpless child's life, but that the state's interests in regulating the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life -- the woman's health and the innocent and completely helpless child's viability -- were limited to regulation of the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life to the third trimester of pregnancy.

There was a similar law-settling U.S. Supreme Court case prior to the First American Civil War.  In the 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford , the majority (in a 7 - 2 decision) ruled that people in the United States who had been imported as slaves or were offspring of slaves, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories, and that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.   

In other words, men and women of African descent were NOT afforded the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  A clearly outrageous claim, since repudiated by a catastrophic war and amendments to the Constitution.  What was "settled law" precedent by an overwhelming majority of the United States Supreme Court, was swept aside in a tsunami of blood and humane reason buoyed by religious belief in the sanctity of all human life.  

Never mind that most Constitutional jurists and scholars believe  that Roe's constitutional underpinnings are fabricated out of the thin air of convenience rather than any studied jurisprudence.  No, we are to accept it as "settled law" and an enshrined right simply because it has been on the books for two generations.

By that reasoning, the heinous and inhumane institution of racial segregation should still be accepted practice.  In 1896, the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Fergusson the majority ruled (7 - 1) that, in accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (the very same Constitutional Amendment from which the 1973 session of the Supreme Court drew a hitherto unknown right to privacy on which to base a woman's right to a procedure to end the life of an innocent and helpless child), states could practice racial segregation of public facilities as long as the denied race had access to roughly equal public facilities of their own.  

Outrageous, no? 

And yet, Plessy was the settled law of the land for three generations.  The "separate but equal" precedent of Plessy was unanimously (9 - 0, for you LSU grads) overturned by the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.  

That's right, segregation was settled law for fifty-eight years.  

Frankly, the Colonel can not fathom the depths of depravity one must go to place an innocent and helpless child's right to life below that of a man's right to drink from the water fountain of his choice. 

So, here's what the Colonel believes is on the horizon for our Republic:

As more and more judges and justices are appointed to the courts of our lands based on loyalty to the Constitution instead of subversion and perversion of its protections of liberty (of all persons) and prohibitions of government tyranny, the injustices and harm done over the last half century by judges and justices legislating from the bench will be overturned and reversed as surely as Brown overturned Plessy.

This, of course will not sit well with those who prefer personal convenience over constitutionality.  The Colonel refers to those socialists who couldn't care less about the Constitution and who have congregated in a minority of states that are increasingly hostile to the federal government's enforcement of the Constitution in matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness for its CITIZENS.  When Roe, and other cherished socialist decisions, are challenged and lost, the socialist legislatures of those states will take more and more anti-federal steps, the likes of which will make the current anti-federal sanctuary laws look like child's play.  

The federal government's hand will eventually be forced. 

Federal troops will be sent to restore constitutionality.

Don't think it can happen?  Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1956 or Oxford, Mississippi in 1962.

What's the worse case scenario?  Socialist-governed state secession from the Union.  Want to talk about precedent?  Try Fort Sumter and the next four years of carnage on for size.

The official United Nations estimate of the death toll of the legal Atlantic slave trade in the 18th and 19th Centuries is seventeen million.  That number eclipses the loss of life during the First American Civil War by over 20 times.  

Nearly fifty million innocent and completely helpless children have lost their lives to the legalized and, shamefully, commercialized practice of abortion.  That number eclipses the loss of life in all of America's wars by nearly a factor of 40.

The Colonel is okay with a Second American Civil War to free the children, and the subsequent reconstruction of the socialists found in rebellion to the Constitution.  It's what he is trained for.   Heck, it's what he swore a solemn oath to do.  But, if you aren't trained or sworn to that end, perhaps there's another way.

How about we compromise?

What if instead of the federal government subsidizing the commercial killing of innocent and completely helpless children, that money was instead set aside to fund the adoption of those children by people who desperately want them?

Might just derail the coming train wreck that will be the Second American Civil War.  

Of course, that would ruin the chance for the Colonel and his kind to march into secessionist territory and stand on the necks of the rebels.  But, that's the nature of compromise.