Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
Why dont you try the one who has the command to enforce the laws of Congress as the Commander in Chief. Which President Lincoln was.
Congress may have called forth the Militia but the Constitution gives the Commander in Chief the power to execute their command.
"Whilst America hath been the land of promise to Europeans and their descendants, it hath been the vale of death to millions of the wretched sons of Africa…Whilst we were offering up vows at the shrine of Liberty... whilst we swore irreconcilable hostility to her enemies... whilst we adjured the God of Hosts to witness our resolution to live free or die; we were imposing on our fellow men, who differ from us in complexion, a slavery ten thousand times more cruel than the utmost extremity of those grievances and oppressions, of which we complained".Tucker isn't arguing that the sovereignty of the states can be grasped back from the federal government; he is arguing that the sovereignty is not diminished while they operate within the federal government, since their union was voluntary. Your quote is not relating to the issue of secession, but is an explanation of the tenth amendment. In fact, your citation is a misquote:
The twelfth article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, declares, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.Funny, how your citation missed the part about the sovereignty being now united with the other states, united and modified.The powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10. viz.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.
2. Nor grant letters of marque and reprisal.
3. Nor coin money.
4. Nor emit bills of credit.
5. Nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
6. Nor pass any bill of attainder.
7. Nor any expost facto law.
8. Nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
9. Nor grant any title of nobility. . . . Concerning all which, we shall make some few observations hereafter.
All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments.
From this view of the powers delegated to the federal government, it will clearly appear, that those exclusively granted to it have no relation to the domestic economy of the state. The right of property, with all it's train of incidents, except in the case of authors, and inventors, seems to have been left exclusively to the state regulations; and the rights of persons appear to be no further subject to the control of the federal government, than may be necessary to support the dignity and faith of the nation in it's federal or foreign engagements, and obligations; or it's existence and unity as the depositary and administrator of the political councils and measures of the united republics. . . . Crimes and misdemeanors, if they affect not the existence of the federal government; or those objects to which it's jurisdiction expressly extends, however heinous in a moral light, are not cognizable by the federal courts; unless committed within certain fixed and determinate territorial limits, to which the exclusive legislative power granted to congress, expressly extends. Their punishment, in all other cases, exclusively, belongs to the state jurisprudence.
The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.
"But isn't he still recognizing the right to secede? He says it cannot be removed except by the dissolution of the bonds of union?," you ask. "Does he not reserve the right of administration to be foolish? Or of a citizen to be bad?"
He does not write that "no correct citizen" could wish for dissolution; rather, he states that "no good citizen" could wish for it. To wish for dissolution, in other words, is to be inherently a bad citizen. Thus, we can imagine that the union is not to be broken by legal secession, but may be against the desire of the sovereignties by calamity, such as invasion, treachery, or unimaginable calamity.
Which goes back to my point that those who are fighting for the right to secession are not fighting for the Constitution but are fighting for their ‘right’ to destroy it.
They think that gaining a majority in a state gives them the right to throw the Union and the Constitution that formed it into legal peril. It is a mob rules type of mentality whereas they could be a very temporary simple majority even but use that power to throw the entire United States into peril.
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.That's right... Washington foresaw that some day the bonds of union might be broken, but when they were broken, they would be broken by the whole people, not a secessionist minority. Until that time, the Constitution was obligatory... and how can the Constitution of the United States of America be obligatory to someone not a part of the United States of America?
Which state has authority to deny secession?
Each of the original states voluntarily surrendered its authority to secede when it ratified the Articles of Confederation, and joined the Union. States formed under the Northwest Ordinance were created by the Federal government, and had authority to secede only under terms set by the Federal government. Which two cases cover all of the states, except for Texas and Vermont.
Not that it matters. The South didn't secede, it rebelled. Had it just seceded, there would have been no war.
So, if some unilateral secessions are legal, how does Congress distinguish between legitimate secessions, and insurrections?
It's when you move from holding conventions, voting on secession, and petitioning Congress for recognition of said secession, and begin shelling Federal troops and installations.
If the Confederacy had wanted a peaceful secession, they could have had one. They preferred war.
Funny how those of your particular stripe always just automatically assume that only YOU can properly read and interpret plain English text.
The Confederate democrats acted as outlaws in their views of disavowing the Union. Never did they respect the Union or show any reverence to the ‘rule of law’.
We could easily see that still here today the way there defenders try to defend the right of secession as if Universal.
It is no different today with the unHoly alliance between libertarians and liberals. Robert KKK Byrd was considered a Constitutional sholar. Dennis UFO Kucinich carries around a copy of the Constitution as well and tries to claim the same. And libertarians try to claim to be Constitutionalists as well yet they side with Code Pink types on moral issues and other issues all of the time.
The Code Pink type leftist always think it there right to be against the Union. Like traitors they see it as there right to disavow themselves from the President and actively work to undermine the Union. So do the libertarians and confederate democrats as we see in the arguments of this thread.
It always seems as if there is a small faction of those who try to claim to be Constitutionalists who actually align with the left-wing progressives and Marxists and Code Pink types. Ron Paul is a perfect example as well.
These confederate democrat types are a serious threat to conservatism being that they always pretend to be right-wing and to care about freedom. They do not. They seek to undermine freedom and not uphold it.
Lincoln was a great President and a great man.
Care to state where in it the Constitution it is allowed?
Even the Confederate Constitution didn't have it written in.
No nation could survive as a nation if any State could just leave whenever it felt like it.
Now, if you 'secessionists' are so keen on it, get it WRITTEN into the Constitution.
Another Virginian, James Madison, said that secession was nonsense.
The 'states' didn't become 'states' until they, as members of the congressional congress,declared independence as the united states of America. Before that, they were simply 'united colonies'.
The individual has a right to dissolve the government, but that is the right of revolution, not secession.
Remind me what government were they seceding from in the American revolution?
Were not the 13 colonies a minority of the British Empire?
“The individual has a right to dissolve the government, but that is the right of revolution, not secession.”
James Madison said there was no difference between the right of revolution and secession.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html
PS The right of secession/revolution is not necessarily an individual right unless that individual has their own land independent of anyone else and is willing to remain confined to that land. (this is why borders are important)
Basically when you join a union you gain the right to leave your domain into other peoples domain under the terms of spesfic conditions.
So are you going to start your totalitarian BS on yet another thread here, idabumpkin?
“The ‘states’ didn’t become ‘states’ until they, as members of the congressional congress,declared independence as the united states of America. Before that, they were simply ‘united colonies’. “
According to the articles of confederation(1777) they retained their independents.
Are you alleging that when replaced the Articles with the Constitution in 1788 with the our states not only lost their independents but lost their “inalienable right” to ever regain that independents?
Why would our founders enter into such an insane contract after fought such a bloody war to get out of anther contract with had no legal “exit clause”?
Well the truth is as they said countless times again and again didn’t. The right to revolution/secession is inalienable, the mere mention of it in the constitution adds the foolish idea that it could be prohibited.
Just like most of the rights not mentioned in our constitution and thus reserved to the people and their States.
They were not seceding though from the British Monarchy but revolting. Thus that is why we call it the American Revolutionary War. This is a no-brainer but you seem to miss that point. It was not an act of legal secession as you would like to claim but an act of Revolutionary War as it is properly called.
I’m right there with you. Very well stated.
Pure libertarian garbage. You could of course then decide to ignore any laws at all. Prostitution on your land is ok, slavery ok, etc.....
Individual rights t oyou equates to anarchism. Pure libertarian garbage.
“”Would you care to quote the article and section that says secession is illegal?”
Care to state where in it the Constitution it is allowed?”
10th Amendment.
“Even the Confederate Constitution didn’t have it written in.”
Of course not Secession/Revolution was an inalienable(not cedeable) right, and a free constitution of civil government only specifies ceded powers, leaving the residual to the people.
As the 9th and 10th amendment were added to make perfectly clear for people like you.
“No nation could survive as a nation if any State could just leave whenever it felt like it.”
No nation has the right to exist if all of it’s members do not have a vested mutually beneficial interest in remaining members, and thus disinclined to leave.
As for your assertion, the existence of Russia and Canada are proof positive that a nation can exist if its members are allowed to leave whenever they feel like it.
Just governments don’t need rule by the sword.
“Now, if you ‘secessionists’ are so keen on it, get it WRITTEN into the Constitution.”
Why, you write ceded and cedeable rights into a Constitution. Inalienable rights which are not cedeable under any circumstance do not need to be written into any Constitution.
Unless of course you just need a reference to remember what is naturally true. One would think the Deceleration of independents and our founding history would be enough for you.
Of course by the same measure one would think the 10th and 9th amendments would also be enough for you. But apparently nothing is...
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.