Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What did the Declaration of Independence Establish
The Founders Revolution ^ | April 13, 2012 | Scott Strzelczyk

Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by 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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at foundersrevolution.net ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; declaration; declareindependence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-316 next last
To: BroJoeK
of the many Federal properties seized by secessionist forces, some even before formally declaring secession, none of those properties fell into this category of items to be retained by a state because "she did... before possess..." them.

And I'm still waiting for the listing of said seized properties that isn't from the Lincoln Museum or available only via purchase.

-----

But second and more important, since when did this particular "Law of Nations" become part and parcel of the United States Constitution?

Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?

Since the quote from America's Blackstone, George Tucker, seemed insufficient for you, here's

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript Idee sur le gouvernment et la royauté, is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.

Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law

and

There has been a difference of opinion among writers, concerning the foundations of this law. It has been considered by some as a mere system of positive institutions, founded upon consent and usage; while others have insisted that the law of nations was essentially the same as the law of nature, applied to the conduct of nations, in the character of moral persons, susceptible of obligation and laws. We are not to adopt either of these theories as exclusively true. The most useful and practical part of the law of nations is, no doubt, instituted or positive law, founded on usage, consent, and agreement. But it would be improper to separate this law entirely from natural jurisprudence, and not to consider it as deriving much of its force, and dignity, and sanction, from the same principles of right reason, and the same view of the nature and constitution of man, from which the science of morality is deduced. There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries

151 posted on 04/24/2012 10:42:41 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
At my Conservative Resource Center, the Declaration is offered with a brief Study Guide, to explain the function of the different parts (Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide), and to fight back against the deliberate misinterpretations by those on the Left, who always quote phrases from it, completely out of context.

Of course, the Left always misrepresents facts; never argues from a rational foundation. The reason need be no mystery. From the Jacobins, Marxists, etc., on, the Left has been--and is--at war with reality.

William Flax

152 posted on 04/24/2012 11:00:34 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?

Hey, that's pretty good! I think I'll remember that the next time a Lost Causer demands that someone show him the part of the US Constitution that prohibits secession....or demands the "citation from Article II of the Constitution where the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to "preserve the Union?"

Thanks!

153 posted on 04/24/2012 2:19:15 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
demands that someone show him the part of the US Constitution that prohibits secession....or demands the "citation from Article II of the Constitution where the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to "preserve the Union?"


§ 266. 4th general maxim: what is sufficiently declared, is to be taken for true.
On every occasion when a person could and ought to have made known his intention, we assume for true against him what he has sufficiently declared. This is an incontestable principle, applied to treaties: for, if they are not a vain play of words, the contracting parties ought to express themselves in them with truth, and according to their real intentions. If the intention which is sufficiently declared were not to be taken of course as the true intention of him who speaks and enters into engagements, it would be perfectly useless to form contracts or treaties.
CHAP. XVII.Of the Interpretation of Treaties. Law of Nations

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.
US Constituion Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791

§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
James Madison, Federalist #45

-----

It would be nice if you had something useful to contribute instead of flapping around like a sick chicken.

For all your squawking, I notice you STILL haven't bothering to answer the questions.

Please point out the Article and Clause of the Us Constitution that allows the federal government to prevent secessions or to 'preserve the Union'

If you can't do that, please don't waste my time with a reply.

154 posted on 04/24/2012 3:03:09 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You know the answer as well as I do. The constitution contains no express provision for emergency or crisis situations. But then it doesn’t need to. As many Lost Causers like to say, “The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact”. The government has all the posers granted to it necessary to defend its existence. See: Ex Parte Milligan


155 posted on 04/24/2012 3:12:32 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

posers=powers ;-)


156 posted on 04/24/2012 3:37:23 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
You know the answer as well as I do.

Then that which is not included is therefore excluded. The End.

Unless you believe the Constitution is a living document.

157 posted on 04/24/2012 4:18:56 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
You know the answer as well as I do.

Then that which is not included is therefore excluded. The End.

Unless you believe the Constitution is a living document.

158 posted on 04/24/2012 4:19:06 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The end of what pray-tell?


159 posted on 04/24/2012 5:32:54 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Define “living document”.


160 posted on 04/24/2012 5:33:23 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

No argument I see.


161 posted on 04/24/2012 9:47:42 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

In the case of any person accused of being ‘property’ the personal liberty law provided for a legal process to determine facts. That legal process involved testimony, rules of evidence, and due process protections of individual rights, based on the principle of “innocent until proved guilty”.

And you are honestly against that? You support people that were against that? Really?


162 posted on 04/24/2012 9:53:55 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I figure the ‘advise’ part worked with the league of nations, whereby reservations were developed, and the league of nations treaty would not be passed without the reservations. When the reservations were not included, the president rejected the advice, and so the treaty was not passed.


163 posted on 04/24/2012 9:56:40 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Define “living document”.

The fact you've been here 10 years and even ask that question shows just how weak your argument has become.

164 posted on 04/25/2012 4:06:53 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
And you are honestly against that?

My feeeeeelings on the matter are immaterial.

The question is were they Constitutional? The US Supreme Court said they were not.

-----

Again, if the northern states had a problem with the Constitutional provisions that they had previously agreed to, the burden was on them to get them changed.

165 posted on 04/25/2012 4:13:48 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The fact you’ve been here 11 years and can’t even answer that question shows just how weak your argument has become.


166 posted on 04/25/2012 4:58:55 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Hence the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment.

The purpose of the trial was to determine if such a person was indeed in the class of “owed service or labor” with a presumption that it was not.

What court case was it that held that the personal liberty laws were constitutional?


167 posted on 04/25/2012 5:54:36 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, per your link, Thankyou!


168 posted on 04/25/2012 7:01:11 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

And Prigg v. Pennsylvania held that the recovery of fugitive slaves was exclusively a federal matter, that state officials could neither help nor hinder. Subsequent legislation by the free states gave similar guidance to state officials.

Without the cooperation of the state officials, the southern hotheads were unable to kidnap enough fugitive slaves. So that became the complaint of the slave power: That the northern officials, enjoined from either helping or hindering by both SCOTUS case law and state law, were actually following the law.

So in the event, it was the southern slave power that wanted to change the constitution to enslave all citizens to serve their interests, contrary to the limits handed down by Prigg v. Pennsylvania.


169 posted on 04/25/2012 7:11:26 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
And Prigg v. Pennsylvania held that the recovery of fugitive slaves was exclusively a federal matter, that state officials could neither help nor hinder.

Thank you, that was exactly the point.

This is the very interesting part:

Nor does it matter that the rule to which I have adverted as being exclusive of the right of the States to legislate upon the provision does not appear in it. It is exactly to such cases that the rule applies, and it must be so applied unless the contrary has been expressly provided.

Doesn't matter? Says who? What happened to the 'things that are not included are therefore excluded' rule?

It was there in 1835
that the law of the United States was constitutional; that the slave was not entitled to trial by jury, or by any other mode different from that prescribed by the law of congress; and he was accordingly taken back to Virginia. This was the unanimous opinion of the court.

PRESCRIBED. Past tense. If the judge meant 'as may be' proscribed by Congress, that would have been what he said.

What was prescribed by Congress and agreed to by all the States?

and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate,
Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

ANY recognized legal entity. Federal, State local could make the determination right there....period.

-----

There was a reason the Founders put that Article under the States and it is NOT enumerated under the powers of Congress, as there was no way for the federal government to feasibly enforce it.

The federal government assumed a jurisdiction it never possessed, and drove another nail in the Constitution.

170 posted on 04/25/2012 12:43:25 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I find it interesting how similar the arguments are for Prigss vs. Pennsylvania and the Obama administration arguments re: Arizona SB1070. Just as the southern slave power wanted no state officials mucking with their slave catchers, the Obama administration doesn’t want state officials reporting illegals to the federal government. Of course they will be fingerprinted first, and if an illegal commits a crime after release by the federals, it will look bad.

Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.

In Pennsylvania in Priggs, it seemed that the rules were to establish if the person in question was legally a slave. Rules banning or punishing perjury would seem to support that. I don’t see how the young child of the woman would be legally returned to Maryland, having been born in a free state, and never been a slave. If it was me, I would have convicted Priggs on kidnapping for that, at least. I would have been also interested in understanding how many state officials he had sought help from before deciding to violate Pennsylvania law.


171 posted on 04/26/2012 11:37:25 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.

I've illustrated the Original Intent of the Article V clause and you STILL don't see why the finding in Priggs is bogus, do you?

Despite flying in the face of the over 200 year old Rule of Exclusion, the whole 'purpose' of the finding in Priggs was that the implementation of the clause needed to be uniform.

So let's recap exactly where it was at that point, shall we?

-----

The fact that the clause is not under Article I, Section VIII 's Powers of Congress means the Congress cannot legislate it.

Despite the fact the clause IS under Article V, nothing in it enumerates the ability of the States to legislate it.

After the passage of the Act in 1793, every legal authority was bound to enforce it.

In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none.

That's why the 'uniformity' argument in Priggs is so transparent....How much more UNIFORM did they think it was going to get?

-------

Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.

Perhaps it would have been better if the northern states upheld their promised agreements and performed per the terms of the Compact they signed.

Perhaps it would have been better if the northern states upheld the Supreme Law of the Land instead of constantly trying to make 'terms' and' conditions' on already settled law.

The Founders made it simple -
Slave runs away
Slave caught by owner
Owner takes slave to judge and presents case
Judge accept or denies
The end.

No appeals, no making of special rules, no trial by jury...nothing.

Just yes or no.

If you'd bother to reading the Jack v. Martin case from 1835, you'd know that.

172 posted on 04/27/2012 4:03:23 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Sorry. I need to add a bit to my last post.

The fact that the clause is not under Article I, Section VIII 's Powers of Congress means the Congress cannot legislate it.

Despite the fact the clause IS under Article V, nothing in it enumerates the ability of the States to legislate it.

//////////////

But the fact it was IN the Constitution meant the power had to be somewhere.

This left an ambiguity, and in cases of ambiguity, Congress gets to decide.

After the passage of the Act in 1793, every legal authority was bound to enforce it.

//////////////////

In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none.

---------------

Again, my apologies. I really shouldn't try to expound on Constitutional Law before I'm awake. :-)

173 posted on 04/27/2012 7:03:35 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
MamaTexan: "I'm still waiting for the listing of said seized properties that isn't from the Lincoln Museum or available only via purchase."

First of all, there are many different Civil War Almanacs available in paperback, at very reasonable prices.
I recommend the one I have, by John Fredriksen, but others are available even cheaper.

Second, there are no complete Civil War Timelines available online, at least that I can find.
However, this site comes as close as any:

1860 election, November 6, 1860 to fall of Fort Sumter, April 14, 1861

Third, I have myself typed up and posted on FR timelines of the more significant pre-civil war actions, but didn't save and now cannot find them.
However, I could do it again, if data in the link above does not satisfy your curiousity.

The key point is this: in every seceding state there were large numbers of Federal properties seized by force, some even before a state officially seceded.
These Federal properties included dozens of forts, armories, arsenals, barracks, customs houses, ships, naval yards, lighthouses and three US mints with millions in coins.
And by definition, forceful seizures of a nation's military assets are acts of rebellion or war.

That all those properties still belonged to the Federal government is proved by

  1. the US Constitution Article 4, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"
  2. by common sense (regardless of your alleged "law of nations"), and
  3. by the fact that secessionist representatives in Washington offered to pay for them -- an offer that was refused.

Other secessionist acts of rebellion included arresting and detaining Federal officers, threatening violence against Federal forces and firing on Federal ships -- all this before assaulting Fort Sumter in April 1860.

Indeed, it was secessionists obvious rebellion, not secession itself, which fueled Northern war-fever.
So secessionists assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter was only the most egregious of many events that fired Northern passions to enforce the law and suppress the rebellion.

And, of course, secessionists then sealed their fate by formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

174 posted on 04/27/2012 7:12:36 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
1860 election, November 6, 1860 to fall of Fort Sumter, April 14, 1861. However, I could do it again, if data in the link above does not satisfy your curiousity.

As I have never had any curiosity concerning governmental actions after Lincoln's election, your efforts would be wasted.

The election itself was sufficient.

From your link:

Abraham Lincoln wins the 1860 presidential election on a platform that includes the prohibition of slavery in new states and territories

Please show me the Constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in new states and territories.

I've shown in a previous post where the House of Representatives themselves admitted they had no such authority to regulate slavery in the States. If the legislature didn’t possess the authority, neither could the executive.

-----

Also from your link-

November 7, 9 Charleston, South Carolina authorities arrest a Federal officer.

I've looked through the Compilation of the Official Documents of the Union and Confederate Armies , and I can find nothing in them to indicate an arrest of any kind.

****

Nov 5th - Col Gardner [Brevet Colonel, U. S. Army, Ft Moultrie] requests permission to have munitions moved to Ft Moultrie, SC.

Nov 8th - Craig [Col of Ordinance in War Dept, Washington, D.C] acknowledged request and says the issue has not and will not be made without further orders.

Nov 10 - Humphries [Military Storekeeper Ordnance, Commanding, Charleston Arsenal] mentioned ‘the shipment of them was interfered with by the owner of the wharf’.

Nov 13th – Craig [War Dept, Washington, D.C ]
Respectfully referred to the Adjutant-General for the information of the Secretary of War, with the remark that I am not aware by what authority Colonel Gardner undertook to give such an order.

****

If such an arrest WERE made, perhaps it was because the local officials knew the ‘federal officer’ was moving munitions without lawful authority.

I’ve also checked the footnotes on Wiki 216 Hansen, 1961, p. 38 and 217 Long, 1971, pp. 3-4.

A search for Hansen brings up only 2 instances during the proper era, and both concern battles fought in the middle of 1861.

Long gives almost 100, 000 returns, and NONE concern the proper era.

------

That’s all the homework I’ll be doing to verify your facts.

I’ve given verifiable and easily accessible sources, usually in multiple form. Most are from the governmental archives themselves.

History books written 100 years after the war should certainly not be taken as bona fide historical fact, particularly since the ‘victors’ write the history books.

-----

The key point is this: in every seceding state there were large numbers of Federal properties seized by force, some even before a state officially seceded.

The key point is that you have yet to prove your assertion Federal properties were seized by force before a state officially seceded.

175 posted on 04/27/2012 9:38:34 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

No state ever officially (legally) seceded.


176 posted on 04/27/2012 11:12:21 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
No state ever officially (legally) seceded.

LOL! You can't prove someone didn't do something.

Prove you never picked your nose.

177 posted on 04/27/2012 11:24:40 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

And so the true mamatexan shines through...


178 posted on 04/27/2012 12:04:20 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Your attempt to restart the argument without any acknowledgment to the previous notations given shows a shallow disregard for the entire process of debate.

Your entire argument consists of "No they didn't"

You haven't even mentioned the Constitutional Articles and clauses that were requested of you days ago. You act as if a power was given, when indeed it was not. [See multiple Rule of Exclusion posts]

You simply believe the South was wrong because you were always taught they were, and from scanning your posts, you've no wish to look at evidence that suggests anything else.

-----

And so the true mamatexan shines through...

I'm sure most adults can empathize with another adult who's been confronted with incessant childish behavior, so your insult was wasted.

Good day. I won't let the puerile outbursts goad me into replying again.

179 posted on 04/27/2012 12:52:07 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Likewise you are so preoccupied with imputing values and biases to others that you fail to see how muddled your own “arguments” are.

“Remove the mote from thine own eye, and then you may see clearly to remove the mote from thy brothers eye”


180 posted on 04/27/2012 1:17:36 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Since the southern states signed on to the constitution, that means they signed on to the clause that forbade corruption of the blood.

Asserting that a slave is a slave due to his mother being a slave is a form of corruption of the blood.

So the slaves that were born after the constitution should have all been free anyways.


181 posted on 04/27/2012 10:12:52 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Since the southern states signed on to the constitution, that means they signed on to the clause that forbade corruption of the blood.

1) The 'corruption of the blood' clause was there when the northern states signed it too, and they had no problem with the fact slavery was hereditary until a couple of decades later.

2) The 'corruption of the blood' clause was to prevent punishments from being handed down from one generation to the next. Slavery wasn't a punishment, it was legal condition.

3) The 'corruption of the blood' clause was for people, and slaves weren't considered 'people' by the Constitution.

--------

I see you haven't commented on the Priggs case or the Article 5 clause.

Why do you switch the subject instead of continuing the discussion?

182 posted on 04/28/2012 3:04:35 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
by common sense (regardless of your alleged "law of nations"),

LOL! "Alleged"?

You totally disregard the evidence presented in the words of TWO signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and two other men who would later become an Associate Supreme Court Justice of the Pennsylvania District Court [appointed by Washington], and a Supreme Court Justice of the Virginia District Court [appointed by Madison], who was also the same man whose work helped win the recent RKBA Heller vs. the District of Columbia.....

and then try to disregard them all by claiming some insight under the guise of 'common sense'?

Like I said......LOL!

183 posted on 04/28/2012 9:16:57 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I guess you missed my previous comment on the Priggs case.


184 posted on 04/28/2012 4:07:37 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Your comment number 3 is false. Certainly they were considered persons.

To be fair, comment 3 is in accordance with Taney’s Dred Scott decision that held that negros could not be covered by the protection of law because they would be covered by the protection of law. It was bad law then, and bad policy. It cost some 700,000 lives to correct that bad decision.


185 posted on 04/28/2012 5:02:52 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Texas v. White held, as a matter of law, that the southern states did not legally secede.

In response to an assertion that it did, the supreme court held that they didn’t, and that their pretense to that effect had and has no legal effect.


186 posted on 04/28/2012 5:06:08 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

You gotta give credit where due - mama is quite unabashed in her vigorous and enthusiastic support for the Particular Institution. Most Lost Causers attempt to tiptoe their way around the foundation for the confederacy.


187 posted on 04/28/2012 6:03:22 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

True but at least she can prove that she did pick her nose ;-)


188 posted on 04/28/2012 6:04:42 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Texas v. White held, as a matter of law, that the southern states did not legally secede.

Prigggs vs Penn held, as a matter of law, that Congress could solve a problem that needed no solution. So?

Your previous post was the only one in all this time that even gave a nod to covered subjects, and all the emoting and anti-sourthern drek is getting tiresome.

A discussion involves a point being made and rebutted, not hopping around from subject to subject spouting Cliff notes from history class.

If you cannot discuss this using rules [such as the Rule of Exclusion] and law [like finding the word 'secession' in the Constitution] and recognize the progessionary pattern of encroaching government by using historical records, then I really have no evidence you will accept.

Congratulations. You are now property of the US government.

189 posted on 04/28/2012 6:21:35 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

I’m taking that day off!

I never work on Friday the 13th...

...too much bad stuff can happen!


190 posted on 04/28/2012 6:31:57 PM PDT by Randy Larsen (I hate Rinos and Romney is one of the worst Rinos ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I guess you missed my previous comment on the Priggs case.

And you missed mine with the link to 1835. This is where an appeals court affirms a Supreme Courts decision and affirms the same decision by state and city courts of New York.

No one got to 'decide' if someone is a legal slave. It's based on prima facia evidence....just like any other case.

From the link
It was nevertheless decided, upon solemn argument, that the law of the United States was constitutional; that the slave was not entitled to trial by jury, or by any other mode different from that prescribed by the law of congress; and he was accordingly taken back to Virginia. This was the unanimous opinion of the court. Mr. Justice Thatcher dissented, but not on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress. The same decision has been made in Pennsylvania, and also by Judge Thompson in a late case in the circuit court of the United States. In addition, if I may be permitted to refer to the decisions of the tribunals of this state, the distinguished and learned individuals who preside over the supreme court of this state and the superior court of the city of New-York, upon mature deliberation, arrived at the same conclusion.

I cannot therefore consent to overturn a doctrine which is founded upon principle, and is sustained by authority; and am accordingly of opinion that the judgment of the supreme court ought to be affirmed.

-----

Making special rules is exactly what was unconstitutional about Priggs. There is NO power there for it to be legislated by the States

Priggs determination also had the added liberal benefit of letting the Supreme Court say Congress could regulate that which was already regular.... basically opening the door to redetermine already settled law.

WHY is that so hard for you to understand?

191 posted on 04/28/2012 6:44:27 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

So is it your position that Priggs should have been convicted of kidnapping? In particular, regarding the young child who he abducted, who had never been a slave, I agree with that position.

It is a sad irony that the first person in Virginia held as a slave for life, got that status based on his acts. Others got that ‘status’ based on state law. Like so many statist positions, they were inflicted with the status of a criminal for the convenience of others, and not for any act of their own.


192 posted on 04/28/2012 10:34:25 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Mamatexan, your factual expose' is unassailable...though the big government types on this thread will emote about it; not counter it.

As you know, I withdrew from this thread but have been watching your posts; impressive indeed.

In the end, our big-government pro-arbitrary powers apologists on this thread will be the very ones who come running to our side when the Lincolnian doctrines blossom fully and the national government (it hasn't been federative since 1865) collapses; as they all do. And when it collapses, the national DC'vers, as occurred in 1860 will weave a fanciful web of deceit about this or that theory of "contract" or "perpituity". In fact, here is the mangled mishmash of Lincolns "views" about "universal law" and "implied perpetuity."

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

And the fanciful fallacious story they will weave will offer even more "security" in exchange for a little more liberty. And when this happens, some group of people, operating through there States will exercise their Inalienable Right to withdraw from the COMPACT "at pleasure." And the pro-big government pro-arbitrary power "conservatives" on this thread who don't abandon their "theories" about Lincoln's supposed authority, will be the first one's to pick up a gun and shoot the the people attempting to withdraw from the COMPACT. The Constitution means nothing to these people except as a propaganda tool. How do I know this?

I have asked repeatedly on this thread to point to ONE sentence, paragraph, section, Article in the entire Constitution...heck I'll go to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights that the PEOPLE of the SEPARATE STATES working through those sovereign STATES DELEGATED a shred of their RIGHTS to the Executive to "preserve the Union? What do I get, a letter the inconsistent Madison wrote (by the way, this is a well known letter...no new information here) about separation for "injury" only but never "for pleasure." And that letter is supposedly the "smoking gun" for the entire group of people we refer to as the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers.

The reason I don't engage in a "quote battle" between the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers is because I don't need to. I always win the debate (even though the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary power side rarely concedes) by asking the simplest of questions...where is the RULE OF LAW AUTHORITY for Lincoln? There simply isn't any. And the anti-inalienable rights crowd knows this so they start up the rhetoric machine and pump out "theories" or favorable quotes from the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. I point to legal binding static documents...the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary power side goes to "theories," "opinions," and "views." That's called obfuscation friends.

I'll close awaiting the citation from ANY of the legally binding founding documents that delegated this authority to the Executive to preserve the Union or the Union's perpetuity? As vicious and unpleasant the issue of slavery was, there are much bigger issues to discuss surrounding the period 1860-1865 such as THE RULE OF LAW, not some "Universal Law" Lincoln refers to. Seriously folks, does it not bother you at all that he goes to Universal Law, whatever the heck that is, for part of his justification? I prefer discussing Authority, or Inalienable Rights, or Self Determination or Arbitrary Power and many others that emerged from this period.

Oddly, I used to be just like you defenders of Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior...even while working as a Senior Legislative Assistant for two conservative Republican Members of Congress back in the 1980's. And then I began asking myself uncomfortable questions about the issues above and I realized I did not understand the Rule of Law, the cornerstone of the Constitution. I do now!

So, I will patiently continue to watch MamaTexan eviscerate the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary powers types here and maybe pop back in from time to time. She is right you know, ignore her at your own peril.

In closing, I'll post a quote from a recent President who was also pro-arbitrary power; I suspect you probably supported this president:

Cue Jeopardy music in the background...

Which pro-unconstitutional power, pro-arbritrary power president said this?

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

You have :30 seconds and while you're answering this, can you give me the citation to the question I asked above?

193 posted on 04/29/2012 5:07:02 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
So is it your position that Priggs should have been convicted of kidnapping?

No. As the conviction was based on unconstitutional laws passed by the state, there was no 'kidnapping'....which is exactly what part of the decision in Priggs said, BTW.

-----

In particular, regarding the young child who he abducted, who had never been a slave

The child of a slave was born into slavery whether the child was born in a free state or not.

-----

The inability to legislate on slavery AND the fact a child of a slave was born INTO slavery are the LEGAL concepts agreed to by the northern states when they signed the compact.

-----

Sorry if the facts make you uncomfortable....and you STILL haven't even acknowledged the 1835 decision.

You know, the one that set the LEGAL PRECIDENT concerning the implementation of the Article V clause.

-------

It is a sad irony that the first person in Virginia held as a slave for life, got that status based on his acts. Others got that ‘status’ based on state law. Like so many statist positions, they were inflicted with the status of a criminal for the convenience of others, and not for any act of their own.

Emote, emote, emote, emote, emote.

194 posted on 04/29/2012 6:21:52 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
You know, the one that set the LEGAL PRECIDENT concerning the implementation of the Article V clause.

"precedent" Perhaps you noticed a red line appeared under "precident" when you typed it. That would have been the automatic spell-check alerting you to the problem.
195 posted on 04/29/2012 6:27:42 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

LOL! You'd think saying things like the above quote and oxymoronic concepts like trying to 'regulate your way to freedom' or 'spend your way to prosperity' would give a rational person a reason to pause and examine the situation.

-----

Thanks for the words of encouragement [both here and abroad], BTW. The writing on the 27th was impeccable. I was really needing a boost at the time.

:-)

196 posted on 04/29/2012 6:33:13 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"precedent" Perhaps you noticed a red line appeared under "precident" when you typed it. That would have been the automatic spell-check alerting you to the problem.

If I were typing in a word document, perhaps, but the spell checker on the posting box doesn't even recognize the word 'Freeper', so what?

Did you have an actual contribution to make to the conversation, or did you just stop by to nit-pick on the misplacement of a single vowel?

197 posted on 04/29/2012 6:42:29 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
You're welcome friend.

If anything good can come from this thread, it's the hope that readers of it will pause, take off the republican or Heritage Foundation filters and take a honest look at the period. I did years ago after I got out of the belly of the beast. Sadly, I watched first hand the arbitrary power Washington DC could wield after 1865 and unfortunately, I was involved in it myself. As I mentioned on an earlier post, not ONCE did anyone in my Congressional office, including my boss, the Member, ever pause and ask whether or not what were about to do was authorized by the Constitution or violating the Bill of Rights...NOT ONCE. And neither did any of the other Congressional offices. And this anti-constitutional, pro-arbitrary power approach to national governance finds its birthplace squarely in the period of 1860-1865; the death of federalism.

And this is why I'm so definitive about my position and why absolutely NOTHING the big-government and pro-arbitrary power conservatives throw at me sways me a bit. I actually lived pro-arbitrary power every day during my tenure on the "Hill." It's hard for the "theorists" on this thread to assault my first hand experience. Just as it's impossible for them to cite anything from the Article II of the Constitution that empowered Lincoln to Preserve the Union. Unless of course they refer to the hidden Article 8 of the Constitution that Lincoln found! :)

It's also been a blessing running across you on this thread and when my wife and I get to Texas, maybe you can direct us to some good BBQ there!

198 posted on 04/29/2012 8:00:00 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
maybe you can direct us to some good BBQ there!

That, good Sir, would depend on how you and yours like your sauce.

Thin and tomato-y or thick and sweet.......and/or hot!

[grin]

199 posted on 04/29/2012 8:42:42 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

My holding is that Priggs should have been convicted, that Pennsylvania had passed good laws on the procedure to be followed, which Priggs ignored, and thus lost his special rights as a slave catcher.

By not getting agreement of a magistrate, Priggs had no more right to kidnap people and take them across the border than Harriet Tubman had to free people from slavery and help them escape across the border.

Alas, the Slave Power didn’t want to have their divine right to enslave limited by state procedure, and so demanded the decision of Priggs v. Pennsylvania.


200 posted on 04/29/2012 9:05:52 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-316 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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