Large elements in Congress and the public were willing to fight for victory but wanted to be very sure that the struggle was not contaminated by any moral principles.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Therefore, our fight must primarily be a political mass struggle with revolutionary goals.
The violence had broken out in both sides, but our philosophy as a party was very, very clear.
While the struggle for religious liberty had proceeded without large-scale bloodshed in New England and elsewhere in the United States, the struggle for political liberty had not fared so well.
It was the separation of powers upon which the framers placed their hopes for the preservation of the people's liberties. Despite this heritage, the congress has been in too many cases more than willing to walk away from its constitutional powers.
The biggest problem was the politicians knew nothing about fighting a war.
When I began my work on how morality varies across the political spectrum, there was a partisan, manipulative element to it. I wanted to help the Democrats win.
The middle ground in Congress has all but disappeared. The founders intended competing principles and interests to check excesses and create a balance in our politics that would benefit 'we the people.' Gerrymandered districts and a hyped-up fight-night media offer a partial explanation of why we seem to have neither checks nor balances.
The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual's greed for power and the electorates' desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.
It was very much a cry for democratic control at that time. Above all, breaking the accomplished power of a few people to rule the lives of everybody else.
If you look through history, all of the great work we've done in Congress has been around a table of compromise, when it comes to the most difficult problems.