Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
I'm sure you're right! The preservation of the union was indeed an admirable goal! But as Thomas Jefferson noted in his 1825 'Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of them' ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffdec1.htm - ever wonder why they don't mention Mr. Jefferson's SECOND declaration in our schools? ;>):
"Whilst the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers." (emphasis mine)
Mr. Jefferson obviously considered secession ("immediate rupture") to be an option available to the States. We thus might ask, how would we define "a government of unlimited powers?" I would suggest that a government not bound by the specific, written terms of the Constitution would 'fit the bill'...
;>)
Well it was the Federal Reserve, which is the controlling cartel member for the big banks, that caused the recession of '29. Hoover made thing much worse with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which caused a 60% drop in our export trade - not the sort of thing to pull us out of a recession.
I'm more inclined to think it's national sovereignty itself that is the real target. Just like in the WBTS there is a need to crush competing political authorities which might serve as obstacles to a common plan.
Very, very sorry I pulled your post. I totally misunderstood. Restored.
He also said the constitution was worth a "fair experiment". But how would we know if the experiment had failed?
Paul should wake up to the reality that there is still slave trade in the modern world and some of the people from some of those places even bring their slaves to America.
Then again, Islamic laws cannot be repealed by man.
That's right. And why not? After all, they had done it before.
But that doesn’t outlaw the practice - he was speaking in terms of government intervention, not families buying them.
It sounds like Mr. Jefferson saw as legitimate, but only as a last resort. As the federal government in 1861 was nowhere near as powerful as the federal government is now, it seems unlikely that Mr. Jefferson would have considered the Southern secession to be legit. I'm speculating of course.
BINGO! - from the supposedly "perpetual union" formed under the Articles of Confederation:
"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State" [emphasis mine] - http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html )
;>)
That's assuming that Mr. Jefferson would consider our current federal government "to be legit." In all honesty, I doubt it would measure up to the standards of the Constitution (and "the People") he was familiar with. Of course, the Constitution has changed (to quote Dr. Frankenstein, "It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!" ;>)...
To be technical, the Articles only referred to “the Union” being “perpetual.” It did not say anything like “these Articles shall be perpetual.” The Union has been perpetual since 1776. The Articles died in 1789.
An interesting idea, however, there would surely have been some slaveowners who refused to sell all their slaves to the government. The remaing slaves could then have been used to bear more children in captivity.
I wonder if Dr. Paul is aware that the South started the Civil War.
To be technical, the Articles stated that "[no] alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." As you know, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until 1790 - and was under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to ratify, even then. Therefore:
1) The union formed under the Articles was NOT "perpetual" - Rhode Island was not a member of the same union as the States ratifying the Constitution until 1790 (and therefore, the union has NOT been perpetual since 1776); and
2) That is why the language of the Preamble to the Constitution had been changed from "WE the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia" ( http://www.uni-erfurt.de/nordamerika/extdoc/constitution.htm ) to "We the People of the United States" - no one knew which States (if any) would ratify; and
3) The ratification of the Constitution by the first nine States ("Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same") therefore ammounted to the secession of those States from the supposedly "perpetual" union formed under the Articles. As noted above, unanimous agreement was required under the specific written terms of the Articles - not just the agreement of "nine States" as the new Constitution proposed.
Those are just the simple, historical facts...
;>)
I hope not given that it's not true. Lincoln started the war when he invaded another country.
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.