The south was well on the path for secession before Lincoln. Lincoln was a sufficient cause for secession, not a necessary one. It could have been any anti-slavery candidate who got elected, and they would have seceded. In fact, if Stephen Douglas had won, the south still would have seceded.

The Popular Sovereignty debate had gained considerable ground, especially in the North. One might think that government non-interference in a state's sovereignty would have sat well with the South; however, they were demanding as much federal protection as the North was demanding intervention and prohibition. I sympathize with the Northern Democrats' argument for popular sovereignty; however, they should have chosen a better platform than slavery on which to base their fundamental argument. In the end, Lincoln defeated the divided North and their notion of popular sovereignty with this argument: "No vote can make a wrong right." In this, Jefferson, Adams, Mason, Hamilton, Locke, and Hobbes would have all agreed.

I am tired of the Bald Eagle being used as the mascot of the United States. Speaking for eagles everywhere, we resent being portrayed as the fierce, stern, introverted, and solitary birds of prey that have emblazoned seals of the United States for centuries.. There are many eagles who are kind, moderate, peace-loving, and docile; those who would never harm a mouse or a fish for personal gain, but would rather collect his prey and distribute evenly to all other birds and beasts in this world. As one of these aquiline altruists, I demand that the Unites States use something that does not disparage my identity, and instead use, say, an igneous rock...

The rich don't NEED more economic protection (rightly, "securitization.") more than the lower class. All classes would be much better off with governmental non-intervention into the economic sector. It is the same philosophical principle to advocate the government's securitization of wealth as it is to advocate its redistribution. And once you get involved in one, it's hard to avoid the other. Just look at where we are today, with bailing out banks who had no business being bailed out.

The whole premise needs to be revisited. It's not whether one class deserves protection, or whether one class deserves assistance. It is whether the government can actually do those things that people demand. My opinion is that, in the long term, they can neither effectively secure wealth or redistribute it without limiting the long-term stability of the state.

I change from "protection" to "securitization," because the protection of the right to property is an essential part of the government's responsibility to its citizens. But to recklessly guarantee investments and securitize assets is something completely different. The right TO property is not the same as the right OF property. The latter is something that both advocates of governmental redistribution and securitization demand.

That is one reason why Communist countries are inherently atheistic. If there is no God, then the idea of "rights" is completely relativistic, and subject to the arbitrary whims of whoever is in charge.

As to your question of proof, however, despite what some people may say, the burden of proof is never on the believer. The burden of disproof is always upon the skeptic. The same goes for any scientific experiment. In a literal sense, you never set out to prove a hypothesis, you only set out to show your hypothesis cannot be disproven. The distinction is very important. Remember, it was proven once that all swans were white.

You are right. Every generalization has its problems. Much of the middle class is too concerned with the government protecting their upper-class homes that they had no business purchasing in the first place, as well. However, the more one has to lose, the more inclined they are to secure those possessions. I don't blame much of the upper class for even attempting to protect their assets through government intervention. I do, however, blame the government for intervening. For government-financed securitization of assets is just as dangerous as government-financed seizure and redistribution of assets.

I am sure there are upper-class citizens who yearn to be free; I am sure there are lower-class citizens who cling to self-pride and refuse government subsidy of their own previous failures; I am sure there are middle class citizens who are squeezing every dime they can out of the governmental teat.

I think in general, however, the middle class--as created by capitalism throughout Western Civilization--is unique in its character. The traditional nobility has sought to perpetuate power and subdue the serfs throughout history; but it wasn't until a few rats migrated from India to Italy in the 14th century when that all began to change.

The lower class wants subsidy and assistance from the government to become the middle class.

The upper class wants protection from the government to remain the upper class.

The middle class simply wants the freedom and opportunity to become the upper class.

Educators by and large have failed to recognize their disposability. Even during the height of the Roman Empire, when great emphasis was placed on educating children, the "magistri ludi" were paid very little, and the "pedagoges" were nothing more than slaves. Teachers need to realize that they are NOT that special--they have a false sense of importance because of the absolutely insane process it takes sometimes to get licensed. (This is a direct result of the Dept. of Education.)

Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for (good) teachers, but when individuals enter the education market seeking to profit rather than teach, it opens itself up to corruption. This was one reason Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson argued for public education vs. private enterprise. But the government--scratch that--the PEOPLE have enabled the government to bestow upon these educators massive benefit packages that, frankly, they don't deserve. They have allowed teachers to reach tenure--an absolutely absurd idea for anyone without a PhD or equivalent, and who is teaching at University--making it nearly impossible to fire those who naturally become complacent in their luxury. We have created among the teachers an appetite for gifts and a habit of receiving them. If we take them away, they will revolt.

I say let them revolt. There are plenty who will fill their posts.

The Christian Church is well known for adapting indigenous holidays to suit their own celebrations. They are also well known for adopting indigenous symbols into their own religion as representations of sanctity or reverence. Goodness, the cross is one such object. Why use a symbol of the cross rather than a symbol of an empty tomb? Probably because it was easier to draw and understand at the beginnings of Christian expression.

Oh, and this is not unique to Christianity either. Every religion has adopted existing ritual or representations to suit their own needs. This does not mean that their adopted expression of reverence is any less sincere. Non Sequitur.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean; however, the term "X-Mas" is not some sinister attempt to eliminate Christ from Christmas. It has a very old origin with the most reverence for the name of Christ (χριστος in Greek (notice the Chi)).

The term: "Happy Holidays" however is such an attempt...

The more the government is allowed to impose "positive" legislation, the more the people will become dependent upon it as an institution.

Please see my web page (under my avatar) for a demonstration of this, in a story that compares the slavery of the Roman Empire to the slavery of the United States.