Maybe this Republic thing is a bad idea

Abraham Lincoln was certainly against slavery, but he led the Nation into war to preserve the Union, not to end the institution of slavery

One of the tragedies of over-simplified history lessons is how most people have lost a sense of why the Civil War was fought. My guess would be that if you ask an average high school Sophomore they would tell you that the North fought to free the slaves and the South fought to keep their slaves. Of course, it doesn't take too much research to realize that most people in the South weren't slave owners and most people in the North (Abraham Lincoln included) weren't abolitionists. Just to clarify, the Civil War was about slavery. It started because of the issue of slavery and as it lingered on for 4 horrible years, ending the institution of slavery became the method and the motivation (at least in part) for the North to win.

Captured Rebel soldiers. As the story goes, when asked by their captors why they fought they answered "Because you're down here!"

If you were to ask a Southerner in 1861 why they were fighting they might tell you it's because the Northerners invaded them. Perhaps this is why some Southerners still refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". In principle though, they were fighting for the right to control their own destiny rather than being ruled by a Federal government that didn't understand them or represent their interests. The way the South saw it, if they didn't like how the Federal government was running things, they could choose to go their own way, just as the United States had split from England 85 years earlier. Although Lincoln initially had no intention of emancipating the slaves not a single Southern state had voted for him and in many states he didn't even appear on the ballot. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to realize how one might feel that if they didn't vote for Lincoln and no one they knew voted for him, he didn't exactly represent them (and by "them" I mean Southern white men). When you like and agree with everyone around you but you hate and disagree with the far away government running things, it is a natural conclusion that smaller, more localized government would serve you better.

If you were to ask a Northerner in 1861 why they were fighting the answers probably would have been more varied. For Lincoln, it was a matter of preserving the Republic. It is easy for us to forget that during the mid-1800s our Republic was still seen as an experiment. Many of the European monarchies saw that experiment as one that was destined to fail. The central question was whether or not people can really govern themselves or if we would go the way of the Ancient Greeks. When Lincoln said that "A government by the people, of the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth" in the Gettysburg address, he was essentially arguing the case for our form of government. The Civil War exemplified the difficulty (and perhaps the fatal flaw) with Democratic Republics. Just because a representative wins the majority of votes doesn't mean that they represent everyone. So what happens when there is an issue [like Slavery] that is highly contentious and highly regional? The people will not see their vote as a choice between 2 different opinions about how to serve the people best but as a choice between good and evil. Inevitably, one side will be very upset. So what are they to do? As we all know, the Southern states decided to try and separate themselves. But what kind of precedent would this have set if states are permitted to secede the moment they don't like the outcome of an election? Would certain regions or counties secede if they didn't agree with their state governments? As a matter of fact, many did just that. The state of west Virginia is only a state today because they sided with the Union in the Civil War. Many other counties or regions of Southern States either successfully or unsuccessfully did the same.

"...if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25 (later adapted by Lincoln)

The great irony to me is that both sides were in some ways fighting for the same thing- the right to be represented in their government. Of course, it is an even greater irony is that for slave owners, exercising that right for themselves meant denying it to others. In 2013 most people seem to see the issue of whether or not this great Republican experiment can work or not as settled. Since the American Civil War democracy has become the prevailing form of government in the world. But is it the best form of government? I have to admit, I am not sure. The problem is that people don't always understand the details of government. One might argue that this is because people are too stupid or too selfish, but the reason we have a representative democracy is so we can elect professionals to understand the details for us. Otherwise democracy is just a series of ballot initiatives and it's easy to see where that leads...

"Do you want free stuff?"
"Yes!"
"Do you want to pay for it?"
"No!"

Ballot initiatives are a great way for politicians to avoid the responsibility that comes with taking a stand

The problem is that we aren't electing representatives that are willing to take responsibility for actually governing. In practice, "governing" has become an endless exercise in maneuvering and juxtapositioning in order for politicians to get themselves elected and re-elected and keep their party in power. Instead of saying that compromises and deal making are part of the sausage making of government and we have to trust the people we have elected to do it with our best interests in mind, we have made it into a childish game in which winning is the only thing that matters. If you are in charge, use your power to destroy the other side. If you aren't in charge, do whatever you can to obstruct the other side.To some degree, this has always been the case in American politics. I would argue that the 24-hour news cycle, the internet and the short attention span of most modern Americans all make this worse. We have little patience for understanding the complex nature of many of our problems. We need everything boiled down to catch phrases and sound-bytes.

A good government has to do things that are painful sometimes, just a like parents sometimes have to punish their children. Sometimes taxes need to be raised. Sometimes benefits need to be cut. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the benefit of us all. The good thing about monarchy is that the monarch doesn't have to worry about getting elected and re-elected. They are free to do what is right for the people. Now I am not suggesting that single party rule like China or North Korea is best. Absolute power breeds absolute corruption. But when I look at monarchies that have an elected parliament that keeps a balance of power between the monarchy and the democratically elected government, for example the UK, Japan, Norway, Sweden and Denmark... well I have to say that things don't look so bad. Those nations are some of the richest in the world with the strongest middle classes. They have the best health care and the best education.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and King Harald V of Norway. Norway is ranked #1 in the Human Development Index, 7th in Education, 4th in GDP per capita, 7th in Education  and 11th in health care. FYI, the US is ranked 4th in the HDI, 8th in GDP per capita, 13th in Education and 38th in Health Care

This discussion is really an exercise in rhetoric. It's not like we are going to appoint a King, or re-attach ourselves to Britain after 237 years. The question now is how can we elect a better government and hold them accountable to do their job? First, we need to accept some responsibility. We need to accept that we won't always get our way. We need to accept that if we want better representatives we need to be better educated and stop making every issue into black vs white/right vs. wrong.

The promise of our country is that everyone should be able to have a chance to make it. That doesn't mean everyone owns a mansion and a yacht. It means that everyone, no matter where they come from and how much money their family has, should have an opportunity to be the best they can be. If it works, it is good for everyone. It means that our society can benefit from the ideas, innovations and hard work of everyone, not just a chosen few that have the resources to be relevant. But parents won't be able to prepare their children if they are constantly worried about what they are going to put on the table for dinner. No child can get a good education if they are worried that they might get caught up in a drive by on their way to school. The value of a college education is limited if going to college means crippling yourself in debt for 20 years. And would be entrepreneurs will never be able to take the risks they need to if they can't afford to start their own business because they can't afford to get sick.

It's always the first line that everyone remembers, but it's the last line that is really worth thinking about. Will the government of, by and for the people perish from the earth? TBD

The job of our government is to keep this promise alive. Right now, our government is failing us. If this Republican experiment is really going to work, we cannot resign ourselves and we cannot simply split off and form our own country. We have to be smarter and better informed and we have to elect a government that really does represent our interests.