Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
Jefferson Davis certainly acted upon that principle of the tyrant in his dealings with Unionist East Tennessee. The majority of East Tennesseans wished to remain in the Union, voted twice to stay in the Union and regarded with doubt the election that finally rubber stamped the Tennessee secession engineered by the politicians and not the people. The people in my part of the world feared the slaveowners' tyranny coming from Richmond more than any tyranny that could come from Washington.
They didn't have a right to secede, which is why it's called the "Revolutionary War". They knew that their actions weren't legal and that they would have to fight.
Or maybe you think ALL tyrant rulers have the power to use military force to force governments on people who want independence.....
And what acts of tyranny were the southern states subject to?
"They didn't have a right to secede, which is why it's called the "Revolutionary War". They knew that their actions weren't legal and that they would have to fight."
Indeed. Which is why they wrote the Declaration of Secession, er, Independence, in which they said that the right to liberty comes NOT from governments (which will almost always try to deter people from freedom), but from God Almighty.
"And what acts of tyranny were the southern states subject to?"
As stated, when governments use FORCE to FORCE themselves upon those who wish indepedence, there is no clearer sign that tyranny is present. Such as King George, Lincoln, Chairman Mao, Krushchev, etc, etc.
Ironically, some years ago, you may remember that President Clinton visited Communist China. During his visit, Clinton asked what happened to the famous "student" in Tienamin (sp) Square who stood directly in the path of the tank, that was immortalized in news reels across the world. After responding that they were not sure what happened to the man, one of Mao's assistants told Clinton:
"We acted precisely as your President Lincoln."
Indeed.
It is no small irony that one of Lincoln's biggest fans was a man by the name of Karl Marx.
Bullshit China story aside, the question still remains, what tyranny were the southern states subject to? They had representation in Congress, a voice in national elections, the freedom to run their states pretty much the way that they wanted. It's not like the Founding Father's who had zero say in the government. On the contrary, the southern states had exercised a disproportionate level of influence on national policy since the adoption of the Constitution. The only 'tyranny' seems to be the 'tyranny' of the majority. I don't think that the Founding Father's had that in mind as justification for rebellion.
You are wrong about what Jefferson said.
Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in the union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, clarified what “the people” meant when he said that the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the war, even unionist politicians saw secession as the right of states. Maryland Representative Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede:
New York Tribune (February 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”
What Jefferson said was, "The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
So are you suggesting that the south stood for unlimited commerce and war? And even at that, Jefferson is clearly talking about separation with the agreement of both parties, not unilateral separation by one.
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution...
While Madison may not have viewed the Constitution and a permanent agreement, without possibility of withdrawl, he is on record as opposing the kind of unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states. Secession should be with the agreement of both sides, not just one. As he pointed out, the idea that a state could secede at will is as ridiculous as the idea that a state could be turned out of the Union against its will.
"The only 'tyranny' seems to be the 'tyranny' of the majority. I don't think that the Founding Father's had that in mind as justification for rebellion."
Fear of tyranny of the majority is EXACTLY the reason for a Constitution. The Constitution exists EXPRESSLY for that purpose, and I think that is PRECISELY what they would see as a reason for fight for liberty.
Our form of government was designed as a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy, or even a republic. One of my favorite jokes is one which illustrates the difference:
A democracy is 3 sheep and 5 wolves voting on dinner.
A republic is sheep, who vote for wolves, who then get to vote on dinner.
A constitutional republic is sheep voting for wolves, but NO ONE gets to vote on dinner, and the sheep carry GUNS!!!
The Constitution is a document whereby the sovereign States delegate, or enumerate, a few (only about 2 dozen) very specific, very limited powers to the federal entity. The powers delegated to the federal entity in NO WAY make the federal government SUPERIOR to the states. This is the definitition of a FEDERAL government. The founding fathers more often than not called it a federal system, or a confederation, or simply, the Union--- much like the European Union of today. As you know, those European states rule their citizens completely according (hopefully) to the wishes of their citizenry, NOT according to the wishes of Europeans as a whole. The EU has a few, limited powers. This was EXACTLY what our Constitution does.
The 9th and 10th Amendments are necessary to make this system absolutely clear. The federal government can do NOTHING if those powers are not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED IT by the sovereign States. During Madison's presidency, he would not sign a bill to give a paltry (I think it was) $5,000 in disaster relief to (I think) Florida after a hurricane hit the state, because he said that this was not a power given the federal government by the Constitution.
Your understanding of the powers of the federal government are INVERTED from that of the framers, thanks to Lincolnite brainwashing. NOTE: power flows FROM THE (people of) the STATES to the FEDERAL ENTITY, NOT from the federal government to the people of the states. All those US flags flying above State flags we see are pure brainwashing, and clearly NOT what the founding fathers believed AT ALL.
It is NOT the federal government's job to rule us. That is the job of the States. The federal government can deliver the mail, maintain a navy (but not even a standing army), they can make treaties with foreign countries,and about 20 other, very specific items, ONLY! In fact, every time I hear that the Supreme Court has overturned some State law, it is a clear indication that the Supreme Court justices have either never read the Constitution, or are guilty of treason against the people.
Now, some people call this a "narrow interpretation" of the Constitution. However, the last time I checked, the Constitution was written in English, and I speak English, so I see no need for "interpretation" WHATSOEVER!! This is PRECISELY what the founding fathers wrote, it is PRECISELY what they said, and other than a few very frustrated Whigs like Haliton (and his later progenies like Lincoln), who wanted to establish a national bank (finally accomplished by Lincoln) and make the president a lifelong job (basically, a king).
'Narrow intepretation' might be a polite way of describing it. But the only way I can see how you might arrive at that interpretation is by ignoring vast amounts of the Constitution you claim to have an uncanny understanding of. You claim that the central government is in no way superior to the states. Yet it is the Congress that determines if a state will be admitted in the first place. The central government tells the states what form of government they will have. The central government that tells the states who they may deal with and how they may or may not conduct their affairs outside their own borders and in their dealings with the other states. You cringe and cry 'treason' at the idea of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning a state law and ignore the fact that same Constitution that defines 'treason' differently from you also makes it clear that it is the U.S. Constitution and the laws and treaties made under it that is the supreme law of the land, overriding state and local constitutions and laws when lose laws conflict with it. And do you honestly expect us to believe that the U.S. Army is unconstitutional?
The Constitution does not limit the central government to explicit powers only, the concept of implied powers has been accepted since the first Supreme Court. The idea of the states being sovereign is true to a point, they are sovereign within their own borders but powerless when their actions impact the interest of the other states or outside the borders of the United States. That is the concept that the founders had. A nation that speaks with one voice, not 50. And a nation that looks out for the interests of all the states, not one. We are one nation, not a loose conglomeration of 50.
Here's some REAL understanding of Lincoln:
Lincoln as anti-secession hero
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/China/GC14Ad04.html
They have even less REAL understanding of Lincoln than you do.
bookmarking this old, but excellent post!
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.