A "Civil" War

I know the term Civil War only means that we fought ourselves. Because there is nothing "civil" about brothers fighting brothers, fathers against sons, neighbors meeting neighbors on a bloody battlefield.

Nothing.

People will always debate the causes of the War Between the States. The perspective is different based on where you live. There isn't even always consistency with what it's called. Around here, I hear The War of Northern Aggression. As I learned on my trip to Gettysburg this summer, some folks further north of here call it the War of Southern Rebellion.

As I've said before, perspective is everything.

What I don't think can be debated is the initial start of the war - regardless of what face was later put on it. The War was started because South Carolina asked a question.

Could they ignore a federal law that they believed was not in their best interest?

Now, remember, our nation was still young at this time. Actually less than 100 years old. A baby by most countries' standards.

Even though we declared our independence in 1776, there was a war to fight after that. And when we defeated the British, we were basically 13 states independent of England and each other. Each state functioned as an independent entity for many years. They printed their own money. Made their own laws. Operated themselves. The United States were not yet united.

The United States' Constitution was not written until 1787 and not ratified by the Continental Congress until 1789. So, when South Carolina asked their question, the nation itself was only about 70 years old.

Most all of Europe was centuries older than that.

South Carolina was told no. Federal laws were federal laws and that was that. They fired the first shot on Fort Sumter in retaliation. They launched an attack on the Union.

One of the most interesting things about my bus trip this summer was all the neat people we met from all over the country. The morning after our night in Gettysburg, one lady from California - whom I particularly liked - wanted to talk about the Civil War. She understood the South's having something for which they would fight - their culture, their livelihood, their whole way of life. But she didn't understand why the North would fight it. Why did they care enough to have a war? What effect did it have on them?

Well I researched and learned something. Part of the Presidential Oath taken by each inaugurated president is to preserve the Union.

And that is what President Lincoln was trying to head off - the succession of the South which would destroy the Union.

The topic could have been any topic. It happened to be revolving around slavery but it could have just as easily have been shipping routes or the common currency or anything else. South Carolina and the other Southern states could not be allowed to form their own nation.

Why, you're asking, am I talking about this now? Does it not sound familiar? The difference now is the topic.

Immigration.

Arizona has passed its own laws in response to a massive illegal immigration problem because the federal laws are not getting the job done. The federal government's response - you can't do that.

While I don't want to think it could happen, I can see the groundwork for another civil war. There are tons of states that support Arizona and their stand. Many have similar laws but, for whatever reason, have not drawn the same attention.

My question is this - why does the federal government care? Is it just to preserve the Union? If a state has a problem and they think their solution is better than the current conditions, why shouldn't they be allowed to implement it? Would not the Union be better preserved if each state could do whatever they felt best for their own citizens? Especially if the idea at the center of the controversy is supported by the majority of its citizens. Maybe it's just ego. Maybe it's a control issue.

No, I don't think an actual war will break out. But I can see how it did 140 years ago.

The answer to my question, I don't know. I don't know why the federal government cares enough to try and stop Arizona from enforcing their citizens' desire to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. I don't know why they've taken such a strong stance. If the problem was merely some wording, as has been alluded, then sit down and have a conversation. Don't send in troops of lawyers waving reams of paper, filing lawsuits faster than the court clerks can type.

I think it is a shame that it ever got that far. One of the purposes of the federal government is to protect her people. The government, and this goes way back - not just the current Administration, has not done that. Then why stand in the way of those who think they can? Men and women are dying daily on our border because of the problems and the inability of the federal government to fix them.

Yet they want to inhibit anyone from trying anything else.

Go figure.

Parlez-Vous Anglais?

I know this is old news, but it still bothers me.

There was a news story recently that a county - and I don't remember where - was looking at spending a lot of money to print their upcoming election ballots in Spanish for their non-English speaking CITIZENS.

Let me say that again.

Their non-English speaking CITIZENS.

CITIZENS.

Who are these citizens of the United States that don't speak English?

It was reported that the U.S. Constitution does not require that its citizens speak English. To my mind, it should be a no-brainer. If you are a citizen of this country, speaking the official language should be assumed automatically. No one should have to tell you that it is required. If I defected to Italy I wouldn't expect the citizenship test to be in English.

If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. You will also go through 10 to 12 years in one or more of our school districts. English is a standard subject in schools. While you may not be extremely proficient, dependent on your abilities, you should reach voting age able to speak and read English.

If you immigrate legally to this county and decide to become a naturalized citizen you will have to take a test to obtain citizenship. Now, I have been unable to confirm this but I would think the test is printed in English.

If it isn't, then I have a whole other topic to blog about.

But I believe that is it. It may be very rudimentary English, but it is in English.

So my question is this - who are these non-English speaking citizens?

I understand their English may not be perfect. A recent People Magazine article with Elin Woods (now Nordegren) stated that she would write the answers to the interviewer's questions because she didn't trust her spoken English. I know lots of people that immigrated to this country who speak with their native accents and so forth.

Fine. We don't speak when we vote. We read and select.

And a lot of times we're only reading names. Names translate fairly well in most languages.

OK, let's say I'm being too harsh and we should have multi-lingual ballots. (The news report did say that the Constitution does require some to be available). Shouldn't we then make sure that we have ALL possible languages? Why not print them not only in Spanish, but Vietnamese, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, Farsi, Chinese, Korean, and so on and so on?

Maybe I'm callous, but it sounds like someone is this county was looking to commit, or at least condone, voter fraud.

Which is a shame. The right to vote is one of the most invaluable rights we have. We have a say in our government. In our leadership. In the laws and consequences of our country.

Any fraud in that process should not be tolerated.

We have a privilege that all citizens in other countries don't have. It should not be taken lightly. Nor should the process be tainted. The right to vote, and exercising that right, is critical to the success of our great nation.

But it can only be exercised, and exercised once per person, by those persons who have earned that right.

I'm all for making the voting process fair and equitable. No one should feel intimated at the polls. No one should be afraid of not understanding the issues and persons on the ballot. But no one should be allowed to vote that hasn't earned that right.

A voice in our government is a reward of citizenship. To paraphrase an ad campaign - membership has its privileges.