What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

The Founders Revolution ^ | April 13, 2012 | Scott Strzelczyk

[mek1959]

This Friday, April 13th is the birth day of Thomas Jefferson. In recognition of his birthday I thought we’d revisit the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. On the surface the meaning of the Declaration may be self-evident, but the true meaning of many of the sentences and phrases escapes most people.

The Declaration of Independence stated to the world that the thirteen colonies were separating from Great Britain. In other words the colonies were seceding from Britain. The first paragraph says “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

[mek1959]

Again, point to that section in Article II where the Executive was given ANY and I mean ANY authority to preserve the Union? Crickets. So, your assertion that he was “defending his oath to uphold the Constitution” again, what part, please cite if for me, what part of Article II to We the People, operating through our STATES delegate to him that Authority to shoot 400,000 fellow citizens to “preserve the Union? Where is it? Crickets again. In your Lincolnian thinking, would you shoot the people of Texas, or Nebraska if they wanted to withdraw from the Union. Would you honestly be ok with that? I implore you to reconsider the myth of Lincoln, he was willing to kill 400,000 people to accomplish something he was NEVER told to do.

This was a textbook case of arbitrary power and that you’re ok with it relegates you to the serf status you deserve and everything the national government throws at you (including Obamacare if the SC upholds it). Not me, I took the blinders off years ago...thank you Dr. Walter Williams.

[mek1959]

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting with this link...there’s only a few things in the presentation I would take issue with. Namely, Lincoln’s justification to go to war with the States. The issue of slavery was an despicable and abhorrent stain on our history, there is no denial of this. But there was an actual Constitutional remedy to this; an Article V Amendment (cue music...”but that would have been so difficult!). But no, we couldn’t do that, we had to shoot and kill 400,000 people and destroy countless billions in property. I don’t recall Great Britain going to war against itself to end slavery or am I missing that part of history.

Additionally, that wasn’t even Lincoln’s stated reason for going to war; it was to preserve the Union which again, there simply is NO delegated power, from the consent of the governed, to “preserve the Union. None, nada, zip. Of course there is no authority to arrest State legislators, or suspend habeas corpus or arrest and imprison political opponents or a former Congressman (all inconvenient truths).

So, I generally agree with his teaching on natures law and the Declaration generally...but have serious objections to his understanding of Lincoln.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Executive was given authority to uphold the Constitution.

Washington used it.

Jackson would have used it.

Where in the Constitution does it say a State can stop obeying Federal laws?

This discussion was on the meaning of the Declaration, which was universal in nature.

Lincoln was right, Williams is wrong.

[mek1959]

Wrong again.

Point 1 - Is or is not the Constitution an WRITTEN set of delegated authorities? Anything other than a YES answer is wrong and you do not understand authority.

Point 2 - Since the Constitution is a WRITTEN set of delegated powers to the three branches of Government, they were created to define the the LIMITS of a government. Anything other than a “I agree” answer is wrong and you do not understand authority nor the writing and ratification of the Constitution. It’s really that simple.

Point 3 - Since the Constitution is a WRITTEN set of limits on the national government, there is NOTHING written that grants the Executive ANY authority to shoot 400,000 people, suspend habeas corpus, arrest State Legislators, political opponents. Failure to understand this and assent to this makes you a serf at the beckoning of a national government. And Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Henry and most others would be ashamed of how you’ve embraced a inaccurate view of the Declaration and the Constitution.

fortheDeclaration is WRONG (completely and utterly) and Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, Lee are right...along with Dr. Williams.

[mek1959]

"Where in the Constitution does it say a State can stop obeying Federal laws?" Oh, I forgot to respond to this...ummm, let me think for 1 nano second on this, that pesky 9th and 10th Amendment. Geeez...do you even read what you write? "Obey" Federal Laws? Have you actually read Article VI and the clause "in pursuance thereof?" Do you have any idea what the Framers and Ratifiers meant by this? The supremacy clause was NOT a broad grant of power to the federal government. Only serfs believe this.

[Big Giant Head]

I’ve read here some years ago, it is compared to a marriage, as in one spouse saying “I’m not happy, I want a divorce” and the other spouse beating them until they decide not to get a divorce.

Sure a state can secede, if they’re strong enough to withstand the beating. Even if the beating is unlawful, it still happens.

Beyond that, you’re 100% correct mek1959.

[mek1959]

Excellent way to look at it. I simply find it so troubling as Jefferson stated in the Declaration that "accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." we indeed seem exactly at this point. We're willing to believe a lie propagated by a clever series of myths about the the South withdrawing from the compact, and "suffer" the evils thereof rather than take the blinders off. This must be very disappointing to the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers. I'm certain we would have had a 2nd Declaration of Independence or a break-up of the Union by now if they were alive. Just sad to read how much "Declaration" has swallowed inaccurate history. What he/she believes simply is not accurate.

[Daffynition]

Many of us on FR signed up for this Hilldale course and are enjoying it...thought you'd like to see the lecture on the DoI. Maybe not.

Welcome to Week 8 “Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution”

[Ditto]

I don’t recall Great Britain going to war against itself to end slavery or am I missing that part of history.

There was no slavery in the British Isles proper. The only slavery they had in the empire was on small islands in the West Indies where the slave owners had no power to resist and the 'freed slaves' had no ability to go elsewhere. Their only option was to go back to the same jobs. Nothing changed in reality.

It was a far different situation than in the United States.

[mlo]

"The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses."

It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch."

There's a lot more to the declaration than that.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Confederacy rebelled because they didn't like the results of an election.

Laws are meant to be enforced, they aren't suggestions.

When the States formed the Union, they agreed to abide by the conditions that were stated in the Constitution, which was meant to be stronger then the Conferation.

I know that secession is not granted in the Constitution and wasn't even stated to be allowed in the Confederate constitution, no government could survive if any State could just leave for any reason.

Washington upheld federal laws with force.

Jackson was planning to.

Lincoln was forced to.

The only people who had a real complaint about their rights being violated were the millions of slaves that the South was willing to die trying to keep in slavery.

[mek1959]

So, the $64,000 question which I doubt you will answer.

If the PEOPLE (the only true sovereigns) of the State of Texas or Oklahoma decide they no longer want to be part of the Union...would you be willing the shoot them and kill them to force them to stay in the Union they do not want to stay in?

You won’t answer, but I think based on your understanding of the Constitution, inalienable rights and the Rule of Law, yes, you would be willing to shoot and kill people in Texas and Oklahoma if they wanted to go their own way. How sad.

[MamaTexan]

Only people who support a “perpetual” Union will do the shooting, just as they did in 1860.

The States not only seceeded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, their right to do so was acknowledged.

And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII

[MamaTexan]

When separatist movements take a more peaceful route and ask for consent from the rest of the country

LOL!

Having to ask permission to leave a voluntary association would negate the entire concept of sovereignty.

[MamaTexan]

That was the view Lincoln was upholding against the Confederate rejection of that truth.

Oh, you mean the TRUTH that slavery was legally established on the continent at the same time the colonies were being formed?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Declaration of Independence was being written?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Declaration of Independence was being signed?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Declaration of Independence was sent to the King of England?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the American Revolution was fought?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the first Constitutional Convention was held?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common practice when the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Constitution was signed?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the War of 1812 was fought?

You mean the TRUTH that Congress acknowledged slavery was legal in the States and could not be prohibited by the national government?
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States 1860-1861 Wednesday, December 12, 1860.

-------

Lincoln's actions had NO relationship with the truth.

It was ALL about Lincoln's ego, Lincoln's 'legacy', and how he justified his unconstitutional exercise of power by using a legal contract for a moral purpose.

And so many people still don't realize the unCivil War didn't 'free' anyone......

it just enslaved us all.

[MamaTexan]

Washington upheld federal laws with force.

Washington followed the Constitution:

Article 4 section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

'On Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive' is the STATE governments, not the federal one.

The Governor of Pennsylvania at the time was Thomas Mifflin.

Western Pennsylvania rebelled against the Federal excise tax on whiskey in 1794. Never having fully trusted George Washington, Mifflin refused, when asked by President Washington to call out the Pennsylvania militia to enforce this Federal law. Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance. Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.
Allison-Antrim Museum

Even Alexander Hamilton acknowledged Mifflin could either allow the federal troops into the state or leave the Compact:

A proclamation was issued by the President, commanding the insurgents to disperse, while quotas of militia were called for from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. These Governor Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, who seemed to be in sympathy with the insurgents, hesitated to call out. He was, however, forced either to do so, or to break with the central government, and the militia volunteered in greater numbers than were wanted, even members of the "Society of Friends" joining the force.
John C. Hamilton

--------

You really should stop regurgitating the same pablum most children are spoon-fed via the public school system and try learning a bit of history for yourself.

[mek1959]

MamaTexan...you are the BOMB! Way to go with HISTORICAL FACTS. But never you mind, fortheDeclaration will have no problem shooting you and your fellow Texans should you decide to voluntarily withdraw from the Union.

All Lincolnians have no problem forcing their unconstitutional will by using national government troops and shooting people like me...and probably you MamaTexan

Liberty 1
for the Declaration 0

I suspect he will not return, he lost the debate in facts.

[fortheDeclaration]

And you need to stop getting your information from crackpot sources.

Washington did follow the Constitution and put down the Whisky rebellion by force (or the threat of force)

Jackson threatened the same against South Carolina.

Madison stated that no State had a right to secede from the Union.

No State has any right to ignore Federal laws which are for the benefit of all the States.

Nor, does any State have a right to steal weapons, which all of the States paid for.

[fortheDeclaration]

Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance. Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.

Lincoln didn't order the State Militia, he asked for volunteers.

Maybe you need to follow the context of the precedent a little more closely.

[fortheDeclaration]

The TRUTH of the Declaration of Independence!