It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bill Clinton's Democratic Convention Speech: "A more perfect union." Really......???

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:04 AM
Ok, I must draw a few distinctions and so will try to do my best.

First Bill Clinton said something to the likings of:

"Our founding father in creating the Constitution, tried to form a more perfect union. In the Civil War, our nation met another crisis, and through saving the union and ending slavery, tried to create a more perfect union. In the 60s the civil rights movement tried to create a more perfect union. Kerry is trying to do so, Bush is dividing our nation, because he can only win through dividing us."

Not exact, anyone who can get the exact quote please do.

Now, a more perfect union?

Well first off, the United States is no longer a union, it is more like the Republic of Rome, late republic to be exact, in transition from republic to empire, and Clinton did his fair share.

Now why is it that Clinton's "more perfect" union statement is false? Well here, let's look at the facts.

Anything obviously better than something else, is and always has been accepted nearly effortlessly. Not completely, there are always a few stragglers, but nearly...moderately, obviously it was more wanted than not.

Examples, Russian Revolution, both of them.

In 1917, the Russians nearly effortlessly over-threw a bad government, for what the hoped would be a less bad government, indeed until Stalin's purges it was a less bad government when compared with the former Empire.

In 1990, the Russians over-threw the Soviet Union and Communism, nearly effortlessly.

This is because in all cases, the end result was better for the people than the previous doings.

It does not mean that in some cases, there is no violence.

Example: The American Revolution.

The American Revolution is considered to be the last "civil" war....civil as in honorable and all that. The Generals on the British side did not all take it very seriously. In total the Americans lost about 4,000 men, the Birtish I think it was about 10,000 but I can't remember. This was an 8 year war.

The only reason that there was even a fight, was because of the power struggle of an Empire to keep its colonies, but it lacked the support of its people.

When things are not for the "better" people do not put up with it. If that means transition, it happens relatively peacefully.

If it means avoiding transition, it is disasterously the opposite.

The Civil War.

Better called the War Between the States.

More accurately called the War of Federal Agression. Or "Northern Agression" by the southerns.

This war, in 38 months, killed 600,000+ men. At a time when most weapons required 20 seconds to reload.

Why the great amount of death?

Because it was a transition that should never have happend, and the people did not want it.

In 1856, the transition began, it became obvious to anyone in the Union tha the Union would be governed by the Republicans (at that time it was far more ideological than it is today, much like the modern day Democrats), and in 1860 that obvious event came true with the election of Lincoln.

Now, was the abolition of slavery bad? No. Was saving the Union bad? No.

But many knew that this is not what the coming war was about. It was about the preservation of the "perfect Union" our fore-fathers effortlessly put into effect with the ratification of the US Constitution.

There was no blood spilled on battlefields, or graves filled to ratify that noble doccument.

Because that doccument indeed created a more perfect union. In that sense Bill Clinton is right.

However, in 1860, the Federal Government stood poised to govern the States, and that would not be stood for. Especially since that government now was led by ideologues.

The people would not have it. As a result 38,000 Americans became political prisoners over night in Linconl's north. The South did not have any such civil problems. The Federal Government supplied its armies with foreigners and those believing they were saving the Union, not destroying it.

Lincoln to get himself re-elected, had every soldier be eligible to vote. Might sound decent to you, except that included 8 year olds.

Yes eight.

Clinton really showed the crisis we now face.

Our perfect union was destroyed 137 years ago, and now like 1856, the government is poised to be ruled by ideologues. Ideologues on both sides, the institution is the flaw.

We were never supposed to be like Rome. The Founding Fathers feared this.

And now Clinton spits in the face of history, believing that the Civil War was for the "better".

It most certainly was not, or it would not have killed 600,000 men.

Which brings me to my last example, the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement, for how much racial hate was fueling it, also was relatively non-violent.

This, again, is because things that are obviously for the better, obviously just, simply are accepted by the people within that culture.

Only when cultures collide, or self-interests and ambitions or paranoia govern, do you have conflicts that will be fueled and have little good or bad for the people.

But when it involves the people, they will accept it or not.

And the death toll of the Civil War is proof that that transition was not for a "more perfect union" but to destroy that perfect union.

Just as the lack of death tolls in Russia is proof that the people truly wanted those transitions.

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:44 AM
Understand his meaning. When he said '..a more perfect union.. after the Civil Rights Movement, he meant segregation was stomped out; when he said we came out of the Civil War into a 'more perfect union,' he meant slavery was abolished, so on and so forth. In that context he was correct, wouldn't you say?

I just have to say, I've never been a fan of Clinton, but it was strangely refreshing to listen to a (ex) president who is capable of writing his own soaring speech AND deliver it to such effect. He makes Bush look like a damn automoton.

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 07:41 PM
No it is on that principle he is wrong.

The Civil War was not about freeing was about Federal Government usurping the power of the States.

That is why it was absolutely the destruction of our "perfect" Union, not making it "more perfect".

What good comes from it for the people is another matter, the end result is a faulty institution that is revealed by the over-excersise of power by Clinton, Bush and if Kerry is elected, him too....

People too often only complain when it is not their ideology in office....

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:13 PM
Perhaps Clinton speech were in a rhetorical way and do to how divided our country has become so divided under Bush administration.

This just an opinion.

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Understand his meaning. When he said '..a more perfect union.. after the Civil Rights Movement, he meant segregation was stomped out; when he said we came out of the Civil War into a 'more perfect union,' he meant slavery was abolished, so on and so forth. In that context he was correct, wouldn't you say?

I just have to say, I've never been a fan of Clinton...

We have rammed horns in many debates (Which is a good thing! Hearing different points of view is how we think outside of our own 'box'...), but here I agree with you 100%.


log in