Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DOOMED FROM THE START?
Tenth Amendment Center ^ | Mar. 18, 2010 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted on 03/19/2010 8:36:22 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake

After spending a lifetime in politics John C. Calhoun (U.S. Senator, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of War) wrote his brilliant treatise, A Disquisition on Government, which was published posthumously shortly after his death in 1850. In it Calhoun warned that it is an error to believe that a written constitution alone is “sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism except such as is necessary to separate its several departments, and render them independent of each other to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and abuse of power” (p. 26). The separation of powers is fine as far as it goes, in other words, but it would never be a sufficient defense against governmental tyranny, said Calhoun.

Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers” (emphasis added). The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”

The “part in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution” (emphasis added). He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.

This is a classic statement of the Jeffersonian states’ rights position. The people of the free, independent and sovereign states must be empowered with the rights of nullification and secession, and a concurrent majority with veto power over unconstitutional federal laws, if their constitutional liberties are to have any chance of protection, Calhoun believed. The federal government itself can never, ever be trusted to limit its own powers.

How did Calhoun come to such conclusions? One answer to this question is that he was a serious student of politics, history, and political philosophy for his entire life, and understood the nature of government as much as anyone else alive during his time. He also witnessed first hand or quickly learned about the machinations of the sworn enemies of limited constitutional government in America: men such as Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Joseph Story and Daniel Webster.

The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion

America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, did a much better job of limiting the tyrannical proclivities of government than the U.S. Constitution ever did, and it did so while permitting enough governmental power to field an army that defeated the British Empire. The limits on government that the Articles contained outraged the advocates of unlimited governmental powers, such as Alexander Hamilton, which is why the “Perpetual Union” that was created by the Articles was abolished as all the states peacefully seceded from that union

The constitutional convention was Hamilton’s idea as much as anyone’s. Upon arriving at the convention Hamilton laid out the plan of his fellow nationalists: a permanent president or king, who would appoint all governors, who would have veto power over all state legislation. This monopoly government would then impose on the entire nation a British-style mercantilist empire without Great Britain, complete with massive corporate welfare subsidies, a large public debt, protectionist tariffs, and a central bank modeled after the Bank of England that would inflate the currency to finance the empire.

Hamilton did not get his way, of course, thanks to the Jeffersonians. When the Constitution was finally ratified, creating a federal instead of a national or monopolistic, monarchical government, Hamilton denounced the document as “a frail and worthless fabric.” He and his Federalist/nationalist colleagues immediately went to work destroying the limits on government contained in the Constitution. He invented the notion of “implied powers” of the Constitution, which allowed him and his political heirs to argue that the Constitution is not a set of limitations on governmental powers, as Jefferson believed it was, but rather a potential stamp of approval on anything the government ever wanted to do as long as it is “properly” interpreted by clever, statist lawyers like Alexander Hamilton or John Marshall. Hamilton “set out to remold the Constitution into an instrument of national supremacy,” wrote Clinton Rossiter in Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution.

One of the first subversive things Hamilton did was to rewrite the history of the American founding by saying in a public speech on June 29 1787, that the states were merely “artificial beings” and were never sovereign. The “nation,” not the states, was sovereign, he said. And he said this while the constitutional convention was busy crafting Article 7 of the Constitution, which holds that the Constitution would become the law of the land only when nine of the thirteen free and independent states ratified it. The states were to ratify the Constitution because, as everyone knew, they were sovereign and were delegating a few express powers to the central government for their mutual benefit.

It was Hamilton who first invented the expansive interpretations of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution, which have been used for generations to grant totalitarian powers to the central state. He literally set the template for the destruction of constitutional liberty in America the moment it became apparent at the constitutional convention that he and his fellow nationalists would not get their way and create a “monarchy bottomed on corruption,” as Thomas Jefferson described the Hamiltonian system.

Hamilton’s devoted disciple, John Marshall, was appointed chief justice of the United States in 1801 and served in that post for more than three decades. His career was a crusade to rewrite the Constitution so that it would become a nationalist document that destroyed states’ rights and most other limitations on the powers of the centralized state. He essentially declared in Marbury vs. Madison that he, John Marshall, would be the arbiter of constitutionality via “judicial review.” The Jeffersonians, meanwhile, had always warned that if they day ever came when the federal government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, it would soon declare that there were, in fact, no limits on its powers. This of course is what the anti-Jeffersonians wanted – and what has happened.

In the case of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee Marshall invented out of thin air the notion that the federal government had the “right” to veto state court decisions. Marshall also made up the theory that the so-called Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the federal government “supreme” in all matters. This is false: The federal government is only “supreme” with regard to those powers that were expressly delegated to it by the free and independent states, in Article 1, Section 8.

Marshall also repeated Hamilton’s bogus theory of the American founding, claiming that the “nation” somehow created the states. He amazingly argued that the federal government was somehow created by “the whole people” and not the citizens of the states through state political conventions, as was actually the case. In the name of “the people,” Marshall said, the federal government claimed the right to “legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory” (Edward S. Corwin, John Marshall and the Constitution, p. 131).

All of the Hamilton/Marshall nonsense about the founders having created a monopolistic, monarchical government and having abolished states rights or federalism was repeated for decades by the likes of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and Daniel Webster. Story was “the most Hamiltonian of judges,” wrote Clinton Rossiter. His famous book, Commentaries on the Constitution, published in 1833, could have been entitled “Commentaries on Alexander Hamilton’s Commentaries on the Constitution,” says Rossiter. He “construed the powers of Congress liberally,” i.e., meaning there were virtually no limits to such powers; and “upheld the supremacy of the nation,” i.e., of monopolistic, monarchical, and unconstitutional government. Stories Commentaries provided a political roadmap for “the legal profession’s elite or at least among the part of it educated in the North during the middle years of the nineteenth century,” wrote Rossiter.

Story’s “famous” Commentaries are filled with phony history and illogic. On the Articles of Confederation, he wrote that “It is heresy to maintain, that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact.” But of course the Articles were revoked!

Secession of a single state would mean “dissolution of the government,” Story wrote. Nonsense. After eleven Southern states seceded in 1860–61 the U.S. government proceeded to field the largest and best-equipped army in the history of the world up to that point. It was hardly “dissolved.”

In a classic of doubletalk, Story admitted that “The original compact of society . . . in no instance . . . has ever been formally expressed at the first institution of a state.” That is, there was never any agreement by the citizens of any state to always and forever be obedient to those who would enforce what they proclaim to be “the general will.” Nevertheless, said Story, “every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole.” And who is to define “the will of the whole”? Why, nationalist Supreme Court justices like Joseph Story and John Marshall, of course.

Story admitted that social contract theories of “voluntary” state formation were mere theoretical fantasies. He also held the rather creepy and totalitarian, if not barbarian view that “The majority must have a right to accomplish that object by the means, which they deem adequate for the end . . . . The will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual.”

What Story is saying here is not that there should be a national plebescite on all policy issues that can express the “will of the majority.” No, as with Hamilton he adopted the French Jacobin philosophy that such a “will” was possessed in the minds of the ruling class, and that that class (the Storys, Hamiltons, Marshalls, etc.) somehow possessed “absolute” power as long as it has the military means to “make its will effectual.” Here we have the theoretical basis for Abe Lincoln’s waging of total war on his own citizens.

Contrary to the political truths expressed by Calhoun which have all proven to be true, by the way Story expressed the elementary-schoolish view that the appropriate response to governmental oppression should be only via “the proper tribunals constituted by the government” which would supposedly “appeal to the good sense, and integrity, and justice of the majority of the people.” Trust the politicians and lifetime-appointed federal judges to enforce their view of “justice,” in other words. That hasn’t really worked out during the succeeding 170 years.

Story also repeated John Marshall’s fable that the Supremacy Clause created a monopolistic government in Washington, D.C. and effectively abolished states’ rights, along with the equally ridiculous myth that the Constitution was magically ratified by “the whole people” (presumably not counting women, who could not vote, or slaves and free blacks).

Another famous and influential subverter of the Constitution was Daniel Webster, who repeated many of these same nationalist fables during his famous U.S. Senate debate with South Carolina’s Robert Hayne in January of 1830. This is a debate that Hayne clearly won according to their congressional colleagues, and the media of the day, although nationalist historians (a.k.a., distorians) have claimed otherwise.

The first Big Lie that Webster told was that “the Constitution of the United States confers on the government itself . . . the power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the extent of its own authority.” No, it does not. John Marshall may have wished that it did when he invented judicial review, but the document itself says no such thing. As Senator John Taylor once said, “The Constitution never could have designed to destroy [liberty], by investing five or six men, installed for life, with a power of regulating the constitutional rights of all political departments.”

Webster then presented a totally false scenario: “One of two things is true: either the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion and beyond the control of the States; or else we have no constitution of general government . . .” Huh? All the laws? Are the people to have no say whatsoever about laws they believe are clearly constitutional? Apparently so, said Daniel Webster.

The a-historical fairy tale about the Constitution being somehow ratified by “the whole people” was repeated over and over by Webster. His strategy was apparently to convince his audience not by historical facts but by repetition and bluster. “The Constitution creates a popular government, erected by the people . . . it is not a creature of the state governments,” he bellowed. Anyone who has ever read Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution knows that this is utterly false.

In fine French Jacobin fashion, Webster asked, “Who shall interpret their [the peoples’] will? Why “the government itself,” he said. Not through popular votes, mind you, but through the orders, mandates, and dictates of “the government itself.” The people themselves were to have nothing to do with “interpreting” their own “will.”

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly defines treason under the constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Thus, treason means levying war against “them,” the sovereign states. This is why Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern states was the very definition of treasonous behavior under the Constitution. Had the North lost the war, he could have been justifiably hanged.

Webster attempted to re-define treason under the Constitution by claiming that “To resist by force the execution of a [federal] law, generally, is treason.” Thus, if the federal government were to invade a sovereign state to enforce one of its laws, a clearly treasonous act under the plain language of the Constitution, resistance to the invasion is what constitutes treason according to Webster. He defined treason, in other words, to mean exactly the opposite of what it actually means in the Constitution.

Then there is the elementary-schoolish faith in democracy as the only necessary defense against governmental tyranny: “Trust in the efficacy of frequent elections,” “trust in the judicial power.” Well, we tried that for decades and decades, Daniel, and it didn’t work.

All of these false histories and logical fallacies were repeated by other nationalist politicians for decades. This includes Abraham Lincoln, who probably lifted his famous line in The Gettysburg Address from this statement by Webster during his debate with Hayne: “It is, Sir, the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law.” Of course, they did not.

As Lord Pete Bauer once said in commenting on the rhetoric of communism, whenever one hears of “the people’s republic” the “peoples’ government,” etc., it is a sure bet that the people have nothing whatsoever to do with, or control over that government.

Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, Story, and other nationalists kept up their rhetorical fog-horning for decades, trying to convince Americans that the founding fathers did, after all, adopt Hamilton’s plan of a dictatorial executive that abolished states rights and was devoted to building a mercantilist empire in America that would rival the British empire. But their rhetoric had little or no success during their lifetimes.

New Englanders plotted to secede for a decade after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800; all states, North and South, made use of the Jeffersonian, states’ rights doctrine of nullification to oppose the Fugitive Slave Act, protectionist tariffs, the antics of the Bank of the United States, and other issues up until the 1860s. There was a secession movement in the Mid-Atlantic states in the 1850s, and in 1861 the majority of Northern newspaper editorialists were in support of peaceful secession (see Northern Editorials on Secession by Howard Perkins).

The false, nationalist theory of the American founding was repeated by Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address (and praised decades later by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, wherein Hitler mad his case for abolishing states’ rights and centralizing all political power in Germany). In the same speech Lincoln threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his words) in any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff tax. He then followed through with his threat.

The only group of Americans to ever seriously challenge this false nationalist theory, Southern secessionists, were mass murdered by the hundreds of thousands, including some 50,000 civilians according to James McPherson; their cities and towns were bombed and burned to the ground, tens of millions of dollars of private property was plundered by the U.S. Army; Southern women, white and black, were raped; and total war was waged on the civilian population. This is what finally cemented into place the false, Hamiltonian/nationalist theory of the American founding, for the victors always get to write the history in war. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, is “limited only” by the state’s “power to make its will effectual,” as Joseph Story proclaimed. The technology of mass murder in the hands of the state finally made this will “effectual” in the first half of the 1860s. Americans have been mis-educated and misinformed about their own political history ever since. It is this mis-education, this false theory of history, that serves to prop up the Hamiltonian empire that Americans now slave under.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; founders; kkk; klan; racist; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
A worthwhile read IMHO.
1 posted on 03/19/2010 8:36:22 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt; 2001convSVT; 2ndDivisionVet; A_Former_Democrat; A_Tradition_Continues; ...

Last ~~ping~~ of the night — probably.


2 posted on 03/19/2010 8:38:15 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Great read. Good to still have access to written history.


3 posted on 03/19/2010 8:50:30 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
When Obama said that the US Constitution was a " flawed document " was he nodding to the same sentiments as Hamilton ?

( Hamilton did not get his way, of course, thanks to the Jeffersonians. When the Constitution was finally ratified, creating a federal instead of a national or monopolistic, monarchical government, Hamilton denounced the document as “a frail and worthless fabric.” ) .....
4 posted on 03/19/2010 8:56:04 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

ping


5 posted on 03/19/2010 8:56:14 PM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
When Obama said that the US Constitution was a " flawed document " was he nodding to the same sentiments as Hamilton ?

They were probably cut from the same piece of cloth; each believing in the almost absolute supremacy of a "national" government. I pray the States, encouraged by We The People, and the SCOTUS retain enough backbone to fight off the latter day Hamiltonians.

6 posted on 03/19/2010 9:05:24 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
No wonder the progressives want to lie and tell the people that " the US Constitution is a living and breathing document " because it says whatever they " DEEM " it says....

( The first Big Lie that Webster told was that “the Constitution of the United States confers on the government itself . . . the power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the extent of its own authority.” ) ....
7 posted on 03/19/2010 9:15:49 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

As a sub-mediocre student of history, I find it remarkable...endlessly remarkable...that the Founders foresaw just about everything that could happen in their new nation; governed by their new Constitution; and wrote about and discussed and speculated about their concerns as to what would/might/could happen.

I am sure that if I were a far more diligent student than I am, my amazement would only grow. This is really one vile bunch of brazen sick scumbags we have running the place in DC.


8 posted on 03/19/2010 9:16:04 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Voters who thought their ship came in with 0bama are on their own Titanic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Good article. My 2 cents:
The states preceded the federal government and created it, as the people created government in their own states from positive law. Preceding postive law was natural law, e.g. that government “gives us” no rights and possesses only those rights that we give it.
The Declaration of Independence preceded the framework given us by the first Americans, and it recognizes morality throughout, while the Constitution is a pure creature of positive or manmade law.
Presumed in the Constitution, however, is that citizens are—and must be—moral people. In a moral vacuum, tyranny results. A tyrant, whether a regent, aristocracy or oligarchy will take as much power as it is allowed. In a totalitarian state, members aid in their own subjugation and actually encourage it, while discouraging liberty, because they have actually returned to a state of nature in which they do not know the difference between freedom and slavery. http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html


9 posted on 03/19/2010 9:23:08 PM PDT by tumblindice (Americas Founding Fathers--armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Indeed. The point being of course, the ink wasn’t even dry on our Constitution before the attacks on it began. Had it not been for Patrick Henry and his fellow Federalists and patriots, we would probably have not even gotten our Bill of Rights. Factoid: Patrick Henry ALMOST didn’t attend the Consitutional Convention because he feared a railroad job from the “nationalists”. Good thing for us he changed his mind.


10 posted on 03/19/2010 9:26:55 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
As a sub-mediocre student of history, I find it remarkable...endlessly remarkable...that the Founders foresaw just about everything that could happen in their new nation; governed by their new Constitution; and wrote about and discussed and speculated about their concerns as to what would/might/could happen.

Not many people know just how well traveled and erudite most of our Founders were. And as was custom at the time, almost all spoke several languages. In addition, and should be obvious given their creation, most were also students of human nature and the human condition.

This is really one vile bunch of brazen sick scumbags we have running the place in DC.

Agreed, and thanks in no small part to the human condition. Tyrants never sleep; We The People did. We are paying the price for our lack of vigilance, no?

11 posted on 03/19/2010 9:36:29 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
In essence, it all comes down to this:
The " THE PEOPLE " is not the possession, or property of the state or government, only the GOD of Israel reserves that right..... and once the government declares it's self as god, then, the GOD of Israel has to show who is boss......

THE PEOPLE, the CITIZENS is NOT !!!! the possession, or property of any state or government...

The all mighty GOD of Israel will have the last say and judgment.... not the state, or government....
12 posted on 03/19/2010 9:38:08 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

I’m sure we agree on darn-near everything but I don’t look to Calhoun for enlightenment. Not a good guy. An unrelenting advocate for slavery. He drove this nation apart. Andrew Jackson threatened to “hang from the highest tree” those who spoke of succession.


13 posted on 03/19/2010 9:41:02 PM PDT by rae4palin (islam is of the devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

Just so. Too many of our fellow countrymen prefer to be “kept” by their betters. I believe however, there will always be those amongst us who would rather not become involved in the daily struggle required to remain a free people. It’s when the government reduces itself to buying votes from these parasites the fall begins.


14 posted on 03/19/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
The all mighty GOD of Israel will have the last say and judgment.... not the state, or government....

Even so, come, Lord Jesus...

15 posted on 03/19/2010 9:52:21 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rae4palin

I wouldn’t discount a man’s opinion soley because he coincidentally happened to support a common practice of his day. Is there anything in particular re his stated positions in the article you disagree with?


16 posted on 03/19/2010 9:58:45 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rae4palin
Andrew Jackson threatened to “hang from the highest tree” those who spoke of succession...

And we sent 25,000 solders down to Charlestown to meet his challenge..Jackson backed down and shut the h-ll up..

17 posted on 03/20/2010 12:15:37 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: triSranch

Never happened.


18 posted on 03/20/2010 12:27:50 AM PDT by rae4palin (islam is of the devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

I might add that because Jackson pushed to hard John C's wife set up Jackson's demise..Jackson's wife had a tea party of her own..which cause Jackson to end up being shot..
Jackson couldn't control his temper and she knew it..

Pay back served up cold..

19 posted on 03/20/2010 12:34:24 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rae4palin

In November 1832 the Nullification Convention met. The convention declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable within the state of South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Furthermore, attempts to use force to collect the taxes would lead to the state’s secession. Robert Hayne, who followed Hamilton as governor in 1833, established a 2,000 man group of mounted minutemen and 25,000 infantry who would immediately march to Charleston in the event of a military conflict. These troops were to be armed with $100,000 in arms purchased in the North

Governor Hayne in his inaugural address made it clear where South Carolina stood:

“ If the sacred soil of Carolina should be polluted by the footsteps of an invader, or be stained with the blood of her citizens, shed in defense, I trust in Almighty God that no son of hers … who has been nourished at her bosom … will be found raising a parricidal arm against our common mother. And even should she stand ALONE in this great struggle for constitutional liberty … that there will not be found, in the wider limits of the state, one recreant son who will not fly to the rescue, and be ready to lay down his life in her defense.[


20 posted on 03/20/2010 12:42:36 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: triSranch

(Jackson’s) wife had a tea party ...my error
should be ..John C’s wife had a tea party


21 posted on 03/20/2010 1:02:23 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rae4palin

On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office in order to run for the Senate where he could more effectively defend nullification[4], Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress.[5] The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.

The crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory


22 posted on 03/20/2010 1:27:35 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Patrick Henry wasn't a Federalist. He, along with most Thomas Paine and George Mason, were probably the most notable Anti-Federalists.
23 posted on 03/20/2010 1:41:04 AM PDT by CitadelArmyJag ("Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions" G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: triSranch

“The crisis was over,....”

I think “postponed for thirty years” might be another way of looking at it.


24 posted on 03/20/2010 1:52:56 AM PDT by 21twelve (Having the Democrats in control is like a never-ending game of Calvin ball. (Giotto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Yep, hear tell that is was but a warm up for the final American war for freedom, once and for all.
All in this time..so I hear..


25 posted on 03/20/2010 2:55:45 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

” Tyrants never sleep; We The People did. We are paying the price for our lack of vigilance, no?”

How true.


26 posted on 03/20/2010 3:53:36 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Worth repeating:

Secession of a single state would mean “dissolution of the government,” Story wrote. Nonsense. After eleven Southern states seceded in 1860–61 the U.S. government proceeded to field the largest and best-equipped army in the history of the world up to that point. It was hardly “dissolved.”

27 posted on 03/20/2010 4:57:34 AM PDT by central_va ( http://www.15thvirginia.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
The “part in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution” (emphasis added). He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.

It's folly to believe that the founding fathers and those near their time didn't know anything about "modern" government because they lived in relatively non-technological, more bucolic age. They knew the propensities of the human heart and that it didn't make much of a difference except in body count and extent and speed of oppression whether the perp was using a club or the most powerful federal government in the history of the world.

Their goal was to keep these people hobbled. Strong states were the way to do it. The states could band together against any one state that tried to take over. The states could band together against a federal government trying to do the same. The first thing that the proto-statists would do, then, was to weaken the states. This was done through the 17th Amendment. By the popular election of senators the state governments were displaced from their position of counterbalance against the populism of the House of Representatives. It was said that the senators still represented the states, but it was no longer the states' governments they represented.

Remember that the move to institute the popular election of U.S. senators came because of someone trying to buy a senate appointment. And now we have the spectacle of others in the federal government buying the senators' votes on health care.

The ideology of leveling democracy to clear out competing institutions of power had knocked out a major threat to statism. The others that needed to be subordinated were churches and religion in general, educational institutions, private clubs (even the idea of any sort of private association which could determine its own membership requirements) and business. Looking over the past 100 years, the statists have done a pretty good job of eliminating or weakening the competition.

Another way they've used is to abuse words so that they become just another of the same kind of politics so that the distinctive nature of their threat is lost through a feeling of inclusiveness or familiarity, "Hey, we're all ideological." As I said in an earlier thread:
"Ideology" has come to mean "a system of political thought," but that loses the original distinction as a means of using reason, free of religion or aristocracy, to devise a system that will ensure equality and justice for all men.

Conservative politics is based on known quantities of what man actually is, of lessons learned through long experience in a real world. It is about as ideological in nature as mechanical engineering.

Ideological politics begins not with man as he actually is but with man as the ideologue believes he ought to be or could be if only the ideologue and his followers had enough time, money, or power to make them that way.

Since time, money, and power are all limited and since the ideologue has never been successful in accumulating any of the latter two through persuading enough people to make any difference (because at every stage of effort his product is defective and he relies chiefly on spinning a fairy tale of a perfect future), he aims to take control of a government in any way he can so that he can exercise power both to coerce the masses toward immanentizing the eschaton and to extort money from them to pay for it.

Since his world view is by definition in conflict with reality, the degree to which he is able to use state power to force people to conform to it is the degree to which people will be dehumanized and oppressed.

28 posted on 03/20/2010 5:57:10 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
I try to understand the language used during our early years as opposed to how we speak today, because I think the English used then was by far more eloquent and descriptive.

Having said that, I also discover myself NOT reading what is sometimes explained as the understanding that is meant.

(I know .. it jumbles in MY head too)

But here .. in a passage of the above article;

"In a classic of doubletalk, Story admitted that “The original compact of society . . . in no instance . . . has ever been formally expressed at the first institution of a state.” That is, there was never any agreement by the citizens of any state to always and forever be obedient to those who would enforce what they proclaim to be “the general will.” Nevertheless, said Story, “every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole.” And who is to define “the will of the whole”? Why, nationalist Supreme Court justices like Joseph Story and John Marshall, of course."

The first segment; "In a classic of doubletalk, Story admitted that “The original compact of society . . . in no instance . . . has ever been formally expressed at the first institution of a state.”

Reads .. to me .. Story is stating that a social structure is never manifested when it first begins to developw from an idea.

But the author continues by saying;
"That is, there was never any agreement by the citizens of any state to always and forever be obedient to those who would enforce what they proclaim to be “the general will."

Now, that MAY say the same thing as I understand it, but not exactly.

So, here's my question(s) to any and all ...

When I read, am I understanding correctly the English used?

If I am not, but only partly, could THIS be the reason we are in such turmoil today ... our ability to understand our own language has been so altered and/or destroyed the words no longer make sense (teenage. and all .. texters scare me ) ?

29 posted on 03/20/2010 6:16:49 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitadelArmyJag
Patrick Henry wasn't a Federalist. He, along with most Thomas Paine and George Mason, were probably the most notable Anti-Federalists.

I think you may be right about that; labels tend to get caught up in the fog in this old noggin. Federalism and Federalist are in fact almost 180° opposites and I get them confused from time to time. Of course you're exactly right about their positions, that is, they were all against a powerful feral government that could dictate to the people and the states. Thanks for pointing out the error.

30 posted on 03/20/2010 10:32:02 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Just EXCELLENT! Also, there have probably been volumes written concerning the whys and wherefors of the 17th Amendment.

Another Freeper and I became involved in a fairly lengthy discussion of the 17th and in my web research it became pretty clear the reasoning behind the 17th. Keeping in mind full well the often suspect product, and the fact that history is most often written by the victors notwithstanding, a good case for changing the system emerged. Corruption at the state level in many, maybe most states led to a groundswell for popular election of senators. Could it be that much of this frenzy was whipped up by our exalted media types of the day? Probably.

Still in all and on balance I believe the Founders got it right, warts and all, having the individual states select their senators by whatever means each state chose. It is still incumbent on the electorate to hold their state legislatures accountable. And state capitols are a lot closer for most of us than DC.

31 posted on 03/20/2010 11:01:01 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: knarf
When I read, am I understanding correctly the English used?

Great question that I don't have an answer for. I would only make an observation: Politicians, especially those that attempt to deceive, generally have the ability to obfuscate even when they are trying to be honest. Those that know full well they are lying through their teeth aren't constrained to things like facts and the more eloquent the language, the greater the likelihood of them being able to pull it off, eg, barack odinga. Was Story from the same mold as odinga?

32 posted on 03/20/2010 11:13:58 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Good post. Sounds like most in gov’t would like this interpretation:

“the Constitution of the United States confers on the government itself . . . the power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the extent of its own authority.”

People that believe that are not pro freedom.


33 posted on 03/20/2010 3:08:21 PM PDT by dynachrome (Barack Hussein Obama yunikku khinaaziir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

How likely is it that the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution would have done so if they believed that they would be abolishing their authority and sovereignty by doing so?


34 posted on 03/20/2010 3:38:52 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Two blogs for the price of none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

If the founders had intended that the fedgov could define the limits on its own power, the Constitution was a lot of wasted ink. This notion could have been expressed in a single article with a single clause.

Of course, no state that wasn’t controlled by raving lunatics would have ratified it.


35 posted on 03/20/2010 3:50:03 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Two blogs for the price of none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
People that believe that are not pro freedom.

Nor would they be so good a comprehension, or more accurately given their unwillingness to cede power to "consent of the governed", claim to have the unique ability to decipher the subtle nuances the Founders intended -- but didn't actually put to paper. Navel gazing will do that to you. ;^)

36 posted on 03/20/2010 5:58:57 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
How likely is it that the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution would have done so if they believed that they would be abolishing their authority and sovereignty by doing so?

I'd say the liklihood is slim to none, and none just left town. From the limited research I've done it looks like there would have been no United States without the Bill of Rights, which sealed the deal.

37 posted on 03/20/2010 6:01:43 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
I meant to reply to both your posts together but, no matter...

If the founders had intended that the fedgov could define the limits on its own power, the Constitution was a lot of wasted ink. This notion could have been expressed in a single article with a single clause.

Similar thoughts I've had that for me, tend to clarify the Founders' intentions. What possible use would there have been for our Constitution if it didn't or doesn't actually mean what it says -- in plain language -- that we all can understand.

38 posted on 03/20/2010 6:07:49 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Uhhhh, it occurs to me I kinda messed up an old saw...

"I'd say the likelihood is slim to none, and none just left town."

Should of course be slim just left town. Sortof dulled that old saw, eh??? But you probably knew that. Pardon the lapse; early stages of old-timers setting in I suspect.

39 posted on 03/20/2010 6:13:27 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
One thing is certain, the states had better dismantle the Federal government and severely limit its power or we are doomed. The health care battle just showed the path to greater threat to our freedom. The Left will be back, more emboldened than ever next time. And... next time is very soon. They have the momentum only as long as the Baby Boom Generation can vote...
40 posted on 03/20/2010 8:45:37 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington
One thing is certain, the states had better dismantle the Federal government and severely limit its power or we are doomed.

Couldn't agree more! The problem: We have allowed the "national" government to insert itself into almost every aspect of our lives. Too many VOTING parasites have been cultivated and seducced by the nanny staters into becoming dependent on the producers to ever effectuate a painless transition back to our Constitutional roots. That is as it was planned by our honorable leaders IMHO.

That said, if we are to survive as a culture and reclaim our liberties once again as a free people, there will necessarily be a period of "adjustment" the likes of which we haven't seen since possibly the Civil War. We Boomers are fast becoming too old to join in the fight and I wonder if generation X, or whatever they're called, hasn't been emasculated and indoctrinated to the point where they are even have any fight in them. The so-called "greatest generation", who are all but gone now, and we boomers have a good deal to answer for. WE especially, should have known better but we, like the greatest generation, were busy with careers, living the good life and raising families to pay much attention to what our government was up to. To our shame I might add. I say this even as a diehard, lifetime, voting Republican.

So, what now???

41 posted on 03/20/2010 9:58:15 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

I should clarify something: I’m not altogether convinced all of our elected representatives necessarily had ulterior motives or weren’t worthy people, but the system itself has such a corrupting influence on even the best intentioned we send to DC. Many of them were likely influenced by forces we can only imagine but rarely see. And as the powers of the States slowly began to be eroded by those influences, the spiral downward was all but assured.


42 posted on 03/20/2010 10:10:37 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Y’all are never to old to show up and be seen. It gives support for those that can run faster and shoot strighter.
With a few good leaders in charge, anything is possible !..

Here’s one at the moment in S.C. rising ..

In Case You Missed It:
Attorney General Henry McMaster (next Governor of S.C.) challenges health care bill’s constitutionality

“It is my belief and that of other attorneys general that this is clearly unconstitutional,” McMaster told McClatchy. “That’s why we’re moving forward. We need to protect the sovereignty of our states and the liberty of our people.” (McClatchy News, GOP state prosecutors threaten court challenge to health bill, 3/20/2010)

“Like all of these people, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of South Carolina,” McMaster said.
“It is difficult to understand how the president and the Congress can believe that this is constitutional. It is harmful, and that’s why we’re going to ...kill it.”
(AP, South Carolina attorney general set to sue over health care bill, 3/19/2010)

“It’s essentially a direct tax on the people for which there is no authority,” McMaster said. “It’s the national government requiring a citizen to buy something that he may or may not want to buy. There’s no authority in the Constitution that allows the Congress to do that.” (AP, South Carolina attorney general set to sue over health care bill, 3/19/2010)

“The individual mandate is unconstitutional and a violation of state sovereignty and individual liberty,” McMaster told CNN. “This is the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember.” ... (CNN, Two state attorneys general ready to file lawsuit on health care, 3/19/2010)

“We are motivated by the law, according to the constitution,” McMaster said. (CNN, Two state attorneys general ready to file lawsuit on health care, 3/19/2010)

J.C. Calhoun’s place is just down the road a couple of miles..
I might go see if any fires are lite up tonight like back in 1860 and 61..(see tag line)
Remenber Force Bill and Tariff (taxes) of Abominations.
It didn’t stand then and it by God want stand now..

we’ll see..


43 posted on 03/21/2010 3:57:50 PM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: triSranch
Y’all are never to old to show up and be seen. It gives support for those that can run faster and shoot strighter.

Heh. FWIW, I can STILL hit a squirrel in the eye at 50 steps. I still chuckle to myself when I think about the day a couple of grandsons challenged the "old man" to a shoot off. When the shooting stopped and the smoke cleared they were asking, "Grampa, how do you do that!!??" ;^) They're young and have a lot to learn.

Of course, if they gave me a 50 yd head start in a foot race, they would probably beat me at a 100 yds, IF I made it at all. Having been a smoker for the better part of 50 years I have my doubts.

It gives me some comfort to see many States giving the federales something to ponder as they serve up some blowback. From the gitgo the States SHOULD have been our first line of defense against an overstepping and overbearing feral government. The States were reduced to groveling for crumbs in many cases by the feds using OUR tax dollars to keep the States toeing the line. We The People, along with the States need to figure out a workaround for that.

BTW and FYI regarding health care nullification:

THE TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER

44 posted on 03/21/2010 5:41:06 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

I hear ya, I’m the same way..with that running to..

Here’s what I also know..!
After they passed that bill last night I got so mad that I bit myself..Haven’t done that in years..

Those fires of yester-years I spoke about.... have been lite up again down here I fear, but I will get over it!

Our Grandfather’s, and their daddy’s and Granddaddy’s made sure that the old story’s and the pain of our past history were pasted down the line clearly..Just in case, because they knew the fed’s would nerver stop pushing..

We will be expecting a call from the S.C. Governor to resist also..as McMasters has started..
If the call doesn’t come in a short time, people will start pressing for it..God help us...again.

It’s the South Carolina’s goverments place to protect us now..and they can’t do it without our help..

The resistence has now started for sure..
South Carolina attorney general McMasters has spoken his mind CLEARLY, and in S.C. he doesn’t talk just to hear himself talk..Somebody better be listening to this..

McMasters says:
“We need to protect the sovereignty of our states and the liberty of our people.”
“It is harmful, and that’s why we’re going to kill it.”
“It’s essentially a direct tax on the people for which there is no authority,”
“There’s no authority in the Constitution that allows the Congress to do that.”
“The individual mandate is unconstitutional and a violation of state sovereignty and individual liberty,”
“We are motivated by the law, according to the constitution,” McMaster said..

Well said.

What I heard last night around the area, with heads looking down was, we are in agreement..
McMasters can NOT back down..and our S.C. Gov. must step up to the plate..

South Carolina will not be run over rough shod again..as Jackson tried and grant did.
This problem is now in South Carolina’s face and in their hands. I feel sure all actions will be thought out well before another South Carolina call up is given..for the 8th or 9th time..I think..

South Carolina’s people will answer the call as we have in the past..every time.

McMasters must stand and do as he has said. He must press hard. The S.C. Governor will speak with this effect soon..I think..

A lot of people reading this will not understand until their states has been burned black, bare and blood soaked as S.C. and Georgia has..How can you forget something like that? You can’t..


45 posted on 03/22/2010 1:38:54 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

You may have seen this but just in case..
How to fight back using your state goverment.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2476462/posts


46 posted on 03/22/2010 2:19:57 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

But it was the Jeffersonians who led us down the path to Jacobinism. Which fits in very well with what Rockwell is all about. This critique of Federalists is the same critique of Republicans we hear today from “progressives”.


47 posted on 03/22/2010 2:23:09 AM PDT by Brugmansian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Marker for later.......


48 posted on 03/22/2010 2:29:12 AM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: triSranch
You may have seen this but just in case..

I'm on it, thanks for the heads up.

49 posted on 03/22/2010 8:28:51 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian

I’ve not doubt you are probably accurate in your statement, but without some background, the labels and arguments tend to become “fuzzy” in the fog. Would you mind fleshing out your thoughts some more?


50 posted on 03/22/2010 8:35:26 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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