Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
It was repudiated by force, but has yet to be repudiated by reason. The Founders said explicitly that people have a right to independence, but some times the King wins a clash of arms and denies them their right.

I guess anyone can arrive at his own opinion. I believe that the Constitution created "one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states" like Patrick Henry said. He saw clearly that "we the People" meant something very different than "we the states" and that we were creating more than just a confederation. Like Patrick Henry, I've never even thought it was a close issue. Apparently, you see it all differently.

But, it really doesn't matter what you think or I think. The matter was, as you say, decided "by force."

My point has been that you can still try to convince folks to divide the country up. You just can't do it unilaterally. You need to convince the American people that it would make sense.

873 posted on 08/03/2015 2:25:35 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food

Ok state referendum passed with flying colors in 1861. So apparently then the “people” were convinced.


874 posted on 08/03/2015 2:28:07 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies ]

To: Tau Food
I guess anyone can arrive at his own opinion. I believe that the Constitution created "one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states" like Patrick Henry said.

But the belief that you cannot leave this government is inconsistent with the principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that you can.

This is a dichotomy. Both things cannot be true.

876 posted on 08/03/2015 2:39:33 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies ]

To: Tau Food
"one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states" like Patrick Henry said.

Patrick Henry was against the US Constitution. He regarded that as a criticism of the proposed constitution. He saw the US Constitution as a danger to freedoms, and especially the autonomy of the States. In that regard, he and the other anti-Federalists were absolutely correct. They were prophetic.

But this is still beside the point. Even if we count Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry in his criticism as a valid authority in making this interpretation of the constitution correct, it still does not override the power of "nature and nature's God" in exercising a right to leave such a government.

But, it really doesn't matter what you think or I think. The matter was, as you say, decided "by force."

That we should accept an outcome merely because it is decided by force is a position that is incompatible with reasonable men or a Free Republic. This is no different from arguing that Jim Crow was acceptable because they had the power to get away with it.

Might does not make right.

My point has been that you can still try to convince folks to divide the country up. You just can't do it unilaterally. You need to convince the American people that it would make sense.

You're talking pragmatism, and i'm talking principle. If you can't get the principle straight in the public mind, you will never be able to work out the practicality.

Many people are convinced that leaving the Union is absolutely forbidden, and will simply not entertain the question at all. They have been propagandized and brainwashed by the events during and subsequent to the Civil War.

879 posted on 08/03/2015 2:52:41 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson