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 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-316 next last
To: MamaTexan

So in 1834 Jack v. Martin overturned federal law at the request of the slave power, and thus states wrote state procedural protections for the process, then in 1842 Priggs v Pennsylvania overturned state procedural protections at the request of the slave power were overturned, so the state wrote procedures to require state noninterference. Then the slave power complained about that.

See the problem was the slave owners wanted to run not just their states, but also the other states. Eventually that didn’t work because the free states were more numerous, and the slave economy was limited by its demand that slaves be kept ignorant. When the slave power realized their fecklessness, they resorted to the unconstitutional remedy of unilateral secession, and then started a war, which they lost.


201 posted on 04/29/2012 9:21:08 AM 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 now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)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
So in 1834 Jack v. Martin overturned federal law at the request of the slave power

Read it again.

----

See the problem was the slave owners wanted to run not just their states, but also the other states. Eventually that didn’t work because the free states were more numerous, and the slave economy was limited by its demand that slaves be kept ignorant. When the slave power realized their fecklessness, they resorted to the unconstitutional remedy of unilateral secession, and then started a war, which they lost.

Emote, emote, emote, emote, emote, emote, emote, emote, emote, emote.

202 posted on 04/29/2012 9:29:32 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 201 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I didn’t mention feelings. Why did you? No logic or ethics to support slavery?


203 posted on 04/29/2012 11:16:26 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: MamaTexan

I asked what your position was, and you answered.

I don’t see why you see fit to use the word ‘emote’ several times.

Except that you are embarrassed by your own position. If you are, then you have it in your capability to change it, and then come up with any justification you want.


204 posted on 04/29/2012 11:20:31 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]

To: mek1959

I submit the onset of arbitrary federal power lands before 1860. One can place it with George Washington as he put down the Whiskey rebellion, with the Louisiana Purchase, or with the Second Bank of the United States.

When you point to one event over 150 years ago for your decision to feel oppressed today, it tells us about you, not about reality.


205 posted on 04/29/2012 11:24:30 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; mek1959; MamaTexan

It’s a debating tactic - and not a very clever one.

The irony is between the imputations, the fallacies, the non sequiturs, and their own emoting I’m amused by the glad-handing they’re doing. I’m also amused by the notion that these two arrogate unto themselves the singular clarity that no one else on the planet grasps. The rest of us have apparently been hornswoggled, brainwashed, or are just too much the dullard to get it.

mek1959 suggests that we are “theorists” - let’s put it to the test.

[Noun] Theory

1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

No, that can’t be us since we can’t substantiate (at least to their satisfaction) our understanding of the Constitution.

2. A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Now that may be closer to their liking since “tentative” implies a temporal quality that they feeeeel exists in our POV.

3. A belief that can guide behavior

There’s one that I’m sure they can hang their collective hats on! After all, doesn’t “belief” fall into the same soft~n~squishy category as faith, trust, and hope?

The problem with absolutists are that they are so....absolute. They’re invariably rigid and compartmentalized in their thinking and incapable of viewing the same thing from a different perspective.

mek1959 - I would suggest that it is you who is the theorist and I the pragmatist. You see the world in terms of how you believe it was meant to be and therefore how events should have progressed and I see it, in all of its foibles and failings how it has developed.

Your answers to the loaded got-ya questions regarding both the “right” to secession and the power to “preserve the Union” have been answered. Neither are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. So what? As MamaTexan so ably put it, “Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?” It is simply ludicrous to suggest that any government would preclude the ability to defend or preserve itself.

Lincoln did what he had to to preserve the union and his actions were affirmed by our courts. The confederates attempted to test their theory on secession and discovered that it contained a few flaws.

Attempting to assign blame for everything you dislike to one side of the dispute without acknowledging the contributions of both parties is simplistic and foolish.

This looks like a good place for mama’s helpful approbation, “blah, blah, blah!”


206 posted on 04/29/2012 12:48:14 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Your post reminds me of a quote Voltaire was purported to have said - "It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere." Go ahead, keep the chains on while "we" (and believe me, our views are held by millions more than the just me and MamaTexan) attempt to bind "men of mischief down by the chains of the Constitution." (psst...that was Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution in case you didn't know)

Why don't you just come clean here and admit you're a living constitutionalist. It's ok, we won't shoot you for your beliefs unlike a certain president who shot 400,000 people for a inaccurate, anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-inalienable right, anti-authority, set of beliefs. Hmmm...now who was that who did that. Wait, wait, it's coming to me.

No, your vaunted and cherished "fluidity" has led to a national (NOT federal) government that:

1. Has wracked up $16 or so trillion in current debt

2. Is working on $105 or so trillion in unfunded liabilities

3. And making grandmothers in wheelchairs take of their undergarments in order to board a plane.

Yes, these federalism crushing THEORIES based on "Universal Law" have worked out just great. But then again, as you're a living constitutionalist, and a pragmatist, I would suspect you're quite ok with the outcome.

So I'll end with the "gotcha" question for others who have yet to answer (except you, I'll get to that in a sec) on this thread. Here it is:

Please point to that section of Article II of the United States Constitution where the good people of the SEPARATE and SOVEREIGN States DELEGATED a power that they alone possessed as the repositories of Inalienable Rights to the Executive Branch of Article II to "Preserve the Union????"

Chirping crickets sounds in the background. You can stop looking...there is none.

You however rockr, you are the man because you answered CORRECTLY and HONESTLY..."Neither are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. So what?" FINALLY...a big government, pro-arbitrary power "conservative" comes clean. So what? I'm truly impressed, rarely do conservative living constitutionalists admit such. Seriously, I'm impressed.

Indeed, my question is a "gotcha" question to smoke out conservative living constitutionalists. I run into them all the time. Some actually see the error of their ways (like me and Dr. Walter Williams) recant our former big-government (just our kind of big government) ideas and reorient ourselves back to the Rule of Law. It doesn't sound like you're one of them...but I could be wrong.

Anyway, this is a "gotcha" question...and it works like a charm. So now that you've answered it honestly, take pride in your arbitrary power supporting living Constitution ideas. That's ok, we pro-inalienable rights people won't shoot you. Though we're pretty sure you'll shoot us if Texas or Oklahoma, or Idaho, or Montana decides they want to withdraw from the Union. You'll probably weave together something like this as you oil your guns:

"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.

Oh, wait...somebody already used this.

Great, now I'm dead because of some "Universal Law" that holds Unions together in perpetuity that nobody taught me about. Stupid me, I thought that our ratified Constitution was the Law...not some Universal Law. Crap! Can somebody call an ambulance? I've been shot by the Lincolnian living constitutionalists because people of our State, like me, thought we had Inalienable Rights and tried to withdraw from the Compact.

207 posted on 04/29/2012 4:08:23 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; rockrr
MamaTexan, post #135, referring to Northern Fugitive Slave Laws:
"The South waited until the promise to perform was broken repeatedly."

That is simply not true.
In fact, "the South" made no serious efforts -- zero, zip, nada -- to seek redress of grievances through normal constitutional methods such as congressional legislation, Supreme Court rulings or Executive Branch enforcement actions.
All of these options were readily available to the Slave Power, because until 1861 the slaveocracy strongly influenced, where it did not outright control, every branch of Federal government in Washington.

And the reason why "the South" did not appeal through normal channels is simple and obvious: Deep-South states like South Carolina had no standing in court, because they could not cite examples where their own slaves had escaped and not been returned as required by Federal law.

Furthermore, Northern Fugitive Slave laws were nothing new -- they had been around for many years without causing South Carolina a problem -- and nothing changed in November 1860.

And South Carolina had itself famously championed a "right of nullification", so it is here totally hypocritical to claim that same "right" when used by Northern states was suddenly a justification for secession.

In short, South Carolina's whole argument in it's Causes of Secession document regarding Northern Fugitive Slave laws is bogus to the max, simply a flimsy excuse intended to provide a patina of constitutional legality over what otherwise fell into Madison's category of secession "at pleasure."

*************

Now, I do intend to respond to each of your arguments in post #135, plus others following it, but am being called away too frequently to devote enough time now.

This could take a while....

;-)

208 posted on 04/29/2012 4:20:36 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Why don't you just come clean here and admit you're a living constitutionalist. It's ok, we won't shoot you for your beliefs unlike a certain president who shot 400,000 people for a inaccurate, anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-inalienable right, anti-authority, set of beliefs. Hmmm...now who was that who did that. Wait, wait, it's coming to me.

That would be "president" Davis.

209 posted on 04/29/2012 4:23:23 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
In fact, "the South" made no serious efforts -- zero, zip, nada -- to seek redress of grievances through normal constitutional methods such as congressional legislation, Supreme Court rulings or Executive Branch enforcement actions.

Maybe you should read the entire thread before making that determination.

Take you time, I appreciate your responses.

210 posted on 04/30/2012 12:57:51 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 208 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; rockrr; donmeaker; Sherman Logan
MamaTexan from post #135: "As Madison’s admonition that a man of his age should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not appears in his closing statement, there is no logic in the assumption his words were taken ‘out of context’."

Of course you're taking Madison's words out of context.
The full context clearly shows that Madison is not talking about the veracity or wisdom of his words, but instead about his ability, at his age, to perform adequately in the rough and tumble of public debate:

All he's trying to say is that the cause needs a younger spokesman.

MamaTexan: "§ 202. The violation of one article in a treaty may cancel the whole." ...Law of Nations , Book II, Chap. XIII

No Founder considered the new US Constitution as nothing more than a mere treaty.
Instead they called it a "compact" and a "union", intended to be even more "perfect" than the "perpetual union" of the old Articles of Confederation.
That's why their new Constitution provided numerous structures and methods for resolving conflicts amongst states, without the extreme necessity of dissolving the union.
Indeed, that was a major reason for a new Constitution.

When the Founders addressed the question of "disunion", which they seldom did directly, it was always in contexts similar to those of their own "disunion" from the British Empire -- only under extreme circumstances causing real "injury or oppression", only after all other lawful measures had been exhausted, and really, only after war itself had already been launched by oppressors against their citizens.
The Founders did not accept that disunion "at pleasure" was authorized by their Constitution.

But none of the necessary conditions applied in November 1860, nor did South Carolina secessionists even pretend they did.
Instead, secessionists cited only two reasons for secession: a phony reason, Northern Fugitive Slave laws, and the real reason: the Constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery Republicans.

So secession under those conditions was neither "necessary" nor caused by "injury or oppression."
Instead, it was secession "at pleasure" and was therefore not in accord with the Founders' Original Intent.

MamaTexan quoting from View of the Constitution of the United States by George Tucker.

We have covered this ground in previous threads:

  1. While Tucker was an early commenter on the Constitution, he was not a Founder -- he neither helped write nor voted to ratify the Constitution.
    So his opinions are just that -- opinions, not Original Intent.

  2. You continue to identify Tucker as a Supreme Court Justice. He was not.
    "On January 18, 1813, Tucker was nominated by President James Madison to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Virginia vacated by John Tyler, Sr.
    Tucker was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 19, 1813, and received commission the same day.
    On February 4, 1819, he was reassigned by operation of law to the newly subdivided United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, serving until his resignation on June 30, 1825."
MamaTexan: "I don’t recall claiming any injury or oppression was committed ‘by the federal government’."

So you concede my point, that South Carolina's secession had nothing to do with "Big Government" causing a constitutionally valid "injury or oppression" to a state.

Now, if you'll just concede my other points, we can wrap this conversation up in short order... ;-)

MamaTexan, referring to Lincoln's election: "Because his opinions and purposes were are hostile to slavery, just as they stated."

There is no Constitutional requirement that every American must support all slavery, in each its aspects.
Indeed, obvious opposition to slavery can be found in the Constitution itself -- i.e., allowing for laws abolishing the imports of new slaves.
Nor did Lincoln propose abolishing all slavery, instead he was opposed to slavery's expansion out of the South into western and northern territories.

So there was nothing in the least unconstitutional about Lincoln's election, or his proposals to restrict slavery's expansion.
That makes the actions of South Carolina's Slave Power secession "at pleasure", which was and is not constitutional.

MamaTexan: "Madison’s words concerned the actions taken by South Carolina over federal tariffs, and had nothing to do with the respective States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions."

  1. South Carolina secessionists cited no examples where other States alleged "failing to uphold Constitutional provisions" had caused any "injury or oppression" to South Carolina.

  2. Conditions cited in December 1860 had previously existed in one form or another for decades, without causing South Carolina's extreme response of secession.

  3. The Constitution provides several constitutional methods for states to resolve their issues lawfully, without resorting to the extreme measure of secession, and neither South Carolina nor any other Deep South slave-state had exhausted any of those methods.

  4. So South Carolina seceded "at pleasure", which was not our Founders Original Intent and was not constitutional.

MamaTexan, referring to the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion: "And gives Constitutional procedures for same. Please see post#90."

Your post #90 to Sherman Logan:

  1. Again quotes both St. George Tucker and William Rawle, neither of whom were Founders, both simply expressing their learned opinions, not Original Intent.

  2. Ignores the fact that Founders' actions in response to the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrate historically what the Founders intended by their Constitutional provisions for "rebellion", "insurrection" and "domestic violence."

Our Founders intended that obvious rebellion was to be met and defeated with military force, lead by the President.
After an insurrection is defeated, the insurrectionists should be treated with as much lieniency as possible.

MamaTexan, referring to South Carolina secessionists attitude toward nullification: "Since they were concerning TWO SEPARATE AUTHORITIES, it’s not ludicrous at all."

The simple fact is that secessionists asserted their own right to nullify laws they didn't like, but denied other states could nullify laws the secessionists did like.

But more to the point, South Carolina secessionists took no serious constitutional actions to redress their grievances before declaring secession.

MamaTexan, referring to the Slave Power's domination of Federal Washington, including the administration of President Buchanan:
"Wikapedia is a great starting point, but I have trouble trusting a ‘source’ that can be altered by anyone with a computer.
Political protestations aside, Dred Scott was a Constitutionally sound decision, so what was your point?"

My point is just that: the Slave Power ruled Washington almost continuously from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
It did so through the agency of willing Northern Democrat allies -- aka "Dough Faces" -- amongst whom President Buchanan and his Southern dominated cabinet were typical examples.

Further, the Supreme Court, as demonstrated in its 1857 Dred Scott decision, was also under slaveocracy control.

Plus, both houses of Congress -- thanks to the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule -- were dominated by Southerners and their Dough Face Northern allies.
Yes, the Slave Power did fade somewhat by 1860, but even as late as 1861, it could have blocked the new Merrill tariff in the Senate, had they been there to do so.

MamaTexan, referring to the Constitution's provisions for war: "Please see post #122."

In your post #122 you declare an unearned victory over Sherman Logan.
I call that "spiking the football in your own end-zone", and it's not uncommon on these threads... ;-)

I'm certain more will be said on this subject in a later post...

MamaTexan, referring to the minority Slave Power's dominant influence over Federal Washington:
"Ensuring equality of both the majority as well as the minority IS one of the primary purposes of a Republican form of government."

Careful selections of words are extraordinarily important in discussions like these.
For example, "ensuring equality" is not even one purpose of a "Republican form of government."
Protecting minority rights certainly is.
More importantly, we don't have just a "Republican form of government" since that word "republican" can be stretched to mean almost anything, including various "Peoples' Republics", which certainly do claim to "ensure equality."
What we have instead -- rather, what we were intended to have -- is a constitutionally limited Federal government.

Our government was intended to protect the rights of all its citizens, majorities and minorities.

But it also allows for the free-play of political alliances, parties, movements etc., and in this regard the Southern Slave Power was extraordinarily successful in the 72 years from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.
Through strong alliances with Northern "Dough Face" Democrats, the minority slaveocracy was successful in advancing its interests for many decades.

Indeed, the Slave Power only fully lost power in Washington when it capriciously and unnecessarily seceded and walked away.

MamaTexan: "After the Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter did revert to the State, in accordance with the Law of Nations. [I'd also like to note this also covers the causes for a justified war]"

That's a ludicrous suggestion, which I've addressed elsewhere and will resume later...

MamaTexan: "Had the federal government actually followed the Law of Nations, the Constitution and the precepts of a Republican government that they were ALL sworn to uphold, it would not have been necessary to declare war.
A war, I might add, whose foundation was both reasonable and proper."

Sorry, but at this point you begin to abandon whatever claim to sanity you previously maintained.
First of all, the Law of Nations is not the Constitution, and does not supersede it.

Second, "domestic violence", insurrection, rebellion and war were started and waged against the United States by secessionists beginning in November 1860, of which their assault on Fort Sumter in April 1861 was only the most egregious example.
But as the secessionists crimes increased, the United States continued to make no military response -- and no Confederate Soldiers were killed by any Union force -- until after the Confederacy's declaration of war on May 6, 1861.

At that point, there was no possibility of any long-term outcome except the Confederacy's Unconditional Surrender.

MamaTexan: "Odd how they were questioning what he was doing prior to that, though. Specifically, on Monday, February 11, 1861"

Careful, careful -- you know perfectly well that in February 1861, President Buchanan was still in office, and while disagreeing that secession "at pleasure" was constitutional, was determined to do nothing militarily to oppose it.

And obviously, once the Slave Power abandoned Congress in early 1861, then Congress lost all enthusiasm for protecting the slaveocracy's interests.

MamaTexan: "Lincoln was amassing troops prior to the Declaration of War. In fact that’s WHY war was declared."

First, nations often amass troops an no war results, the 1790s "Quazi-War" against France, to cite one example.

Second, secessionists began amassing their own troops before they even seceded.
For example, in November 1860, at a time when the entire US Army had about 17,000 soldiers, South Carolina before seceding, amassed 10,000 soldiers.
These were used to seize Federal properties, most notably Fort Sumter.

Then in early March 1861, while the US Army is still only 17,000 strong, the Confederacy raised 100,000 troops and Jefferson Davis ordered preparations for the assault on Fort Sumter.

And still the United States took no military actions to suppress the rebellion.

So, if South Carolina's raising 10,000 troops in November 1860 was not an act of war, and the Confederacy's raising 100,000 troops in March 1861 was not an act of war, and if seizures of Federal property, firing on Federal forces and the Battle of Fort Sumter were all not acts of war -- how then does President Lincoln's call for a mere 75,000 troops suddenly become an "act of war"?

MamaTexan, referring to an alleged necessity for Congress to declare war: "For the use of the militia, it is not only appropriate, but required"

In historical fact, neither Founders nor later Congresses ever issued a formal Declaration of War in cases of insurrection, rebellion or "domestic violence." So your claim that those are somehow constitutionally necessary is counter-factual.

MamaTexan, referring to Upper South states joining the Confederacy after the Battle of Fort Sumter:
"Did it occur to you they had no desire to have their own people become part of Lincoln's *75,000 troops*?"

Of course -- if I remember correctly, Kentucky declared its "neutrality", declined to either send troops or join the Confederacy.
But those Upper South states which did join the Confederacy did so with full knowledge that they were going to war against the United States, a war first started and then formally declared by the Confederacy.

They chose war, and they got it.

211 posted on 05/01/2012 6:11:30 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; MamaTexan
Political protestations aside, Dred Scott was a Constitutionally sound decision, so what was your point?

Well, no it wasn't.

It was historically inaccurate, since among other errors it claimed that blacks had never been part of the "people of the Unites States" that ratified the Constitution. In actual fact free blacks were full voting citizens in a number of states (disremember exact count), including North Carolina(!).

Some of these states later removed voting rights for free blacks, but that couldn't change their status when the Constitution was ratified.

Please see the dissents for real Constitutional analysis of the case.

It was also widely rumored that improper political pressure was brought to bear on some Justices to induce them to vote in favor of the majority decision.

The irony, of course, is that the decision was intended to bring an end to the slavery expansion debate, much as Roe v Wade was intended to bring an end to the debate on abortion.

All the South really succeeded in doing by "winning" the Dred Scott case was in destroying its longstanding alliance with the Northwest against the Northeast and in blowing up the national Whig and Democratic Parties. In fact, prior to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott case, there had not been a "North" in the sense of a of a consciously united region.

In fact, the South, by its aggressive promotion of what it saw as its own interested, created "the North."

212 posted on 05/01/2012 6:53:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
MamaTexan: "Political protestations aside, Dred Scott was a Constitutionally sound decision, so what was your point?

Sherman Logan:"Well, no it wasn't."

Thanks for pointing that out, and for making the cogent case.

I had overlooked it in my rush to make another obvious point: Dred-Scott fully demonstrates how supreme the Southern Slave Power actually was in the 1857 Federal government.
So there can be no legitimate claim that the South was not adequately represented, or that its interests weren't fully addressed in Washington.

Any talk about "Big Government" in Washington causing "injury or oppression" amongst sovereign slave-states is just nonsense.

213 posted on 05/01/2012 9:42:27 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
All he's trying to say is that the cause needs a younger spokesman.

Nice 'interpretation'. On the other hand, I took his words in a more literal sense: I'm old, I'm tired, and I'm not sure my memory is what it once was, and other people shouldn't trust it either.

-----

Instead they called it a "compact" and a "union", intended to be even more "perfect" than the "perpetual union" of the old Articles of Confederation.

The names are different, but the concept is the same....they are all agreements between parties.

Please show me the part of the Law of Nations that governs "unions' or 'compacts'.

-----

But none of the necessary conditions applied in November 1860, nor did South Carolina secessionists even pretend they did.

The facts in post #172 & 173 show that the northern states passed legislation contrary to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. When challenged, the City of New York, the State of New York, the US Supreme Court and the Appeals Court for the US Supreme Court ALL said the Article and the Act were constitutional....and the northern states proceeded to continue to legislate on it anyway.

Until the decision in Priggs came along a mere 7 years later, and POOF! all of a sudden the already settled law had the ability to be legislated on again by the federal government.

If the fact of unconstitutional actions at both the State and federal level is NOT 'injury or oppression', what IS?

-----

So his opinions are just that -- opinions, not Original Intent

While not, a 'Founder', he served in the Virginia militia and cavalry in the American Revolutionary War, rising to the rank of Colonel.

There are over 100 returns when Searching for his name in the 1774-1875 U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates at the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
He was communicated with quite regularly, so he must have had SOME insight into Original Intent, wouldn't you think?

You continue to identify Tucker as a Supreme Court Justice

I thought I had previously apologized for and corrected that in a later post. He was a Virginia District Court Judge appointed by Madison.

If I have not apologized for the error, then I apologize now.

-----

So you concede my point, that South Carolina's secession had nothing to do with "Big Government" causing a constitutionally valid "injury or oppression" to a state.

No I was questioning the fact you were saying I asserted something I never did.

As far as acts of federal oppression, please see earlier posts concerning Prigg.

-----

States failing to uphold Constitutional provisions

Again, 1834 Jack v. Martin and 1842 Prigg v. Penn

The southern states had no quibble with the Constitutionally SETTLED law, so there was nothing for them to 'contest'.

The northern states had the issue, thus the burden was THEIRS to have it changed.

-----

Our Founders intended that obvious rebellion

Show me:
1) Where the Founders showed ANY justification for armed conflict between the States, and
2) Just where Lincoln adhered to the Constitutional procedures concerning rebellions or insurrections.

-------

South Carolina secessionists took no serious constitutional actions to redress their grievances before declaring secession.

Show me where such an action is required.

Show me where a simple Declaration of Intent is not sufficient.

Show me the word 'succession' in the Constitution....AT ALL!.

-----

My point is just that: the Slave Power ruled Washington almost continuously from the Founding of the Republic until secession in 1861.

The POINT is we are a nation of Laws, or we are not.

Yes the right to own slaves was IN THE CONSTITUION.....this right can't be undone except by CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says it can be negated because someone doesn't want to 'perform the promise' that they'd made.

If the Northern states knew they could not deal with the idea of slavery, the should have just made the compact among them selves.

-----

For example, "ensuring equality" is not even one purpose of a "Republican form of government."

That's right. While the word 'ensuring' may have been poorly chosen, I did give a Founders illustration of the concept.

Protecting minority rights certainly is.

That's right....and the slave-owners were the minority.

-----

First of all, the Law of Nations is not the Constitution, and does not supersede it.

I never said it 'superseded it' I SHOWED where it was the blueprint for Constitutional construction and thus provided the rules for the compact.

With all due respect, you continue to make assertions without evidence. Nothing from the Library of Congress, no historical books or writings....nothing.

Just illustrating what happened, telling me I'm wrong, lecturing on history, and explaining your point of view.

Words

are

NOT

evidence!

I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

I've shown it was perfectly acceptable means of withdrawing from the Compact in a previous post where Tucker spoke about the States seceding from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Not one person on this board has offered a single shred of evidence to prove this was not the case with the exception of 'laws' passed well after the issue was 'settled' by force.

You would think if it was so commonly known that the northern states were so constitutionally correct, and the southern states were so horribly WRONG, that the web would be positively FLOODED with more information supporting that point of view than the mere trickle I've been able to find asserting the contrary one, wouldn't you?

------

I have offered evidence bot for my asserted points as well as in rebuttal. When others offer me that same courtesy, I will respond.

Until that time comes, good day.

214 posted on 05/01/2012 11:13:21 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 211 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Thanks.

One of the odd things about the antebellum political and cultural confrontation is that both sides sincerely believed they were on the defensive against attacks by the other side.

And they were both right.

Southerners, accurately, had a nagging sensation they were “on the wrong side of history.” Anybody following world events had to be aware that slavery was losing ground around the world, and that abolition was likely to come to America sometime. In self-defense they felt obliged to fortify their position.

Northerners, accurately, felt that the southern efforts to do so violated decades-old compromises, that southerners repeatedly used threats of secession to get their own way. Then when they couldn’t get what they wanted by means of fair political methods, they resorted to the underhanded and really quite unprecedented Dred Scott decision to force their views on the majority.

While various laws had been held unconstitutional before, I’m unaware of any major political issue based on settled law decades old that the Court insisted on forcing on a resistant majority of the country. It was widely believed at the time and since that the Court was fully prepared to use the 5th Amendment to declare state laws abolishing slavery to be unconstitutional.

Wouldn’t have worked, of course. But the decades of southern dominance in DC and the repeated caving in of northerners convinced many southerners that they could pull it off. That the despised Yankees would never develop the backbone to resist.


215 posted on 05/01/2012 3:47:14 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

_______________________

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure. -- Andrew Jackson, Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, 1832

216 posted on 05/01/2012 4:06:40 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

___________________

See Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, John Quincy Adams's "Oration on the 4th of July, 1831," Daniel Webster's "Reply to Calhoun," Feb. 16, 1833.

217 posted on 05/01/2012 4:15:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
MamaTexan from post #151, asserting the importance of the Law of Nations to our Founders:
"Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?"

Mere words, of course, can't restrain anything.

So the first question is whether the Law of Nations regarding the abrogation of simple treaties was intended by the Founders to fully apply to their new "compact", "union" and Constitution?

I see no proof they did so intend, and primary evidence includes those mechanisms provided in the Constitution itself to resolve conflicts among various states and Federal powers.
But no mechanisms were provided for secession, and no specific discussions on the subject are recorded, and so we must conclude that secession was not considered to be ever necessary, except under the most extreme circumstances.

In short, our Founders did everything possible to make secession both unnecessary and difficult, regardless of how the Law of Nations treats the subject.

But second, even if we grant the Law of Nations "authority" over the Constitution (which I don't), even the LON does not authorize breaking treaties "at pleasure"!
Even the Law of Nations requires there must first be a material breach of contract on one side before the other can abrogate the whole thing.
But in November 1860 there was no serious breech of contract, and no new breech of any degree -- serious or minor.
Nor had South Carolina officials made any serious attempt to constitutionally resolve their concerns.

Indeed, of the several famous late 1850s fugitive slave cases. not one involved a slave escaped from South Carolina.
So South Carolina secessionists had no legal standing to even complain about some Northern states Fugitive Slave Laws.

That's why the whole question of Northern states' Fugitive Slave Laws is bogus.
Secessionists obviously real reason for secession was the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln's Republicans -- a fact they didn't try to hide or deny.

But the election of Lincoln's Republicans in no possible way constituted a material breach of contract, and so in fact, South Carolina declared its secession "at pleasure", and that is not authorized by either the Constitution or the Law of Nations.

218 posted on 05/01/2012 4:17:29 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

____________________

"No man, no association of men, no State nor set of States has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together can only unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficiency of its constitutional laws, is treason-treason to all intents and purposes. Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the Federal Republican, that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is an abominable heresy -- which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of a Federalist. -- Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1814.

By 1861 a paper of the same name supported Virginia's secession, but in 1814 the paper clearly believed unilateral secession to be wrong.

219 posted on 05/01/2012 4:34:21 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

____________________

See James Madison's letter to Nicholas P. Trist of December 23, 1832, also his letter to Daniel Webster of March, 15, 1833 and his letter to Alexander Rives, also from 1833.

220 posted on 05/01/2012 4:45:46 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: x; MamaTexan
I don't want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.

Let me help you out:
James Madison's letter to Nicholas P. Trist of December 23, 1832

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.

snip

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.


Letter to Daniel Webster of March, 15, 1833

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten an abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

snip

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority; & by the same process, have converted the confederacy, into a mere league or treaty, or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have embodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

snip

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally competent in both; and that without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

snip

But whilst the constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express, or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle, leaves no choice but between anarchy and Despotism. Such is the Constitution of the United States de jure & de facto; and the name, whatever it be, that may be given to it, can make nothing more or less than what it actually is.


Letter to Alexander Rives, January 1, 1833

It is not usual to answer communications without the proper names to them. But the ability & motives disclosed in the Essays induce me to say in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in 98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.

snip

The course of reasoning in the Report on the Resolutions required the distinction between a State & States It surely does not follow from the fact, of the States or rather people embodied in them, having as parties to the compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the Compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest, and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether, from a compact with the rest.

snip

The characteristic distinction between free Govts. and Govts. not free is that the former are founded on compact, not between the Govt & those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Govt. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede, at its will from the rest is that the rest wd. have an equal right to secede from it, in other words to turn it, against its will out of its Union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable any where, and no where less so than where it is now most contended for.

A careless view of the subject might find an analogy between State secession, and personal individual expatriation. But the distinction is obvious and essential. Even in the latter case, whether regarded as a right impliedly reserved in the original Social compact, or as a reasonable indulgence, it is not exempt from certain condition It must be used without injustice or injury to the Community from which the expatriating party separates himself. Assuredly he could not withdraw his portion of territory from the common domain. In the case of a State seceding from the Union its domain would be dismembered, & other consequences brought on not less obvious than pernicious.

221 posted on 05/01/2012 5:28:09 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
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.

James Madison made a distinction between secession and revolution. What the colonies did was revolution, not secession.
222 posted on 05/01/2012 5:30:30 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression

See previous posts concerning the concept of 'morally justified by the extremity of oppression'

223 posted on 05/01/2012 6:15:13 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 216 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.

See previous posts for actions 'absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.'

224 posted on 05/01/2012 6:16:58 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 221 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Geeez...not this argument. Oh, well;

From Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1785:

Separation: n. the act of departing; disjunction. 2. The state of being separate, disunion. 4. Divorce, disjunction.

Secession: s. a act of departing

Declaration of Independence:

"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."

And again:

"We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Without the "opinion" of an inconsistent Madison...what's the distinction between the words secession and separation by the body-politic in the Declaration viewed through the lens of Natural Law and laws ordained by our Creator referenced in the document? In your own words please.

225 posted on 05/01/2012 6:24:15 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

We’re not ‘sposed to use our own words or mama get mad ;-)


226 posted on 05/01/2012 6:57:09 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
It is alarming how many big-government, pro-arbitrary power so-called conservatives are on Free Republic. While sticking to principles, as we are doing, is easy...it does grow a bit tiring having to explain the difference between the easily plain reading of our founding legal documents and commentary or opinions by others during that period. I never knew Madison was the sole spokesman, singular source for all hermeneutics associated with the Constitution. On this thread, he seems to be the definitive opinion.

Anyway, as you know, back in 1776, the people of the Colonies plainly, clearly, and simply stated in the Declaration that Natural Law and transcendent law of our Creator supersedes all other laws. They then assumed equal and separate standing leading to separation "at pleasure." They did not seek the approval of Parliament, the King or anyone else...they just declared it. This is the nonsense of it taking all parties to agree before a contract can be broken. In fact, I'm about to "withdraw" from one by declaration tomorrow in my business and I'm not waiting for the other party in the contract to agree to it. How absurd. Contracts are not perpetual, if so, then let's get the paddy-wagons out, round up all the people who walked away from their mortgages, deliver them back to their houses and MAKE THEM PAY! As unpleasant as it is, these people broke their contract without asking permission from all parties. Again, how absurd to think otherwise. In fact, the national government (sadly) is even helping these people "withdraw" from their contracts! Now, I/we may suffer consequences, may lose my business, may pay legal fees. But I'm not staying in it. So the war between the States was not settled by some profound legal mumbo jumbo related to universal law, perpetuity, unbreakable contracts without permission from all parties, etc. The war was settled because Lincoln decided to break his oath and act unconstitutionally. One person on this thread who I respect now for his honesty conceded that Lincoln had no authority to do what he did. He followed it with a "so what?" Fair enough, at least he was forthright enough not to hide behind what Lincoln did as somehow Constitutional. No, Lincoln won because he was willing to kill 700,000 fellow citizens. But in this case, might doesn't make right...it just means he won an unconstitutional war. That's all.

Fortunately, more and more people are awakening to the notion that a State can secede in 2012 at pleasure and hopefully some will in the near term. Though I fear some on this thread who are very Lincolonian will shoot people like me who may want to honor our Natural Rights and transcendent and Inalienable Right to self-governance without the "permission" of Congress. I only ask, that if you're going to shoot me for trying this, please make its a head shot and not a gut shot; I'm not fond of agony.

Back to contracts. Following Lincoln's notion of contracts in his 1st Inaugural Address, the 13 States should have waited for permission from England before the seceded! And this is the inconsistency of big-government pro-arbitrary Anybody But Obama so-called conservatives. They pound their chests about the moral superiority of declaring separation from England without "permission" and at their "pleasure;" but when the South decides to separate, all kinds of new theories about Universal law, perpetuity, odd contract law, with pleasure vs. injury emerge. They seem to be unable to see the inconsistency.

So, I'll end with the Voltaire quote I posted a few posts ago: "It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere."

227 posted on 05/01/2012 8:09:05 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Well said.


228 posted on 05/01/2012 8:12:04 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Gad what a drama queen. You’re not gonna cry, are you?


229 posted on 05/01/2012 8:17:32 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Well, I'm gonna have to retract my "respect for you" comment now! :)
230 posted on 05/01/2012 8:27:36 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Yea, I’m all torn up over that.


231 posted on 05/01/2012 8:34:14 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Thanks, though I don’t think pro-arbitrary power, anti-constitutional authority conservatives live rrocker share your sentiments.

As a Constitutionalist, I’m not well liked by the conservative living constitution crowd...even though I used to be one. Dr. Walter Williams helped me take off the blinders in 2000. And the pilgrimage continues.


232 posted on 05/01/2012 8:46:00 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

There’s a sort who always like to attach themselves to those who wield arbitrary power. Russia was full of them, and some people are surprised to see the likes of Stalin still celebrated there, despite the death and destruction that followed in his wake. But people often overlook the same tendency here.

One of the more amusing aspects of modern life is to watch people behave like Romans without being aware of it.

The Romans engaged in a form of state-worship; they regarded their caesars as deities, according them god-like prerogatives, and built temples to them.

Today we can sit back and enjoy a hymn to the state, the Battle Hymn of the Republic, as we gaze upon the marble image in the Lincoln Temple, I mean Memorial, and reflect upon the unfettered power he exercised as he laid waste to about half of the country. But of course it was done for a high moral purpose so in our national religion he occupies a position about equal to Christ.


233 posted on 05/01/2012 9:47:01 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“See the problem was the slave owners wanted to run not just their states, but also the other states.”

That’s what Karl Marx wrote- are you ‘borrowing’ his ideas again?


234 posted on 05/01/2012 10:00:51 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

One of the more interesting cases of secession conveniently ignored by the neo-yankee Lincoln cult is that of the Vermont Republic.

Vermont was disputed territory claimed by both New Hampshire and New York. The people of Vermont, including Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, didn’t choose to belong to either so they declared their independence of NH and NY and formed their own country. Vermont remained independent from 1777 to 1791, at which point it was admitted into the Union.


235 posted on 05/01/2012 10:16:53 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.


236 posted on 05/01/2012 10:24:48 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“I don’t want it explained, I want it PROVEN by historical documentation that anyone prior to 1850 said secession was unconstitutional.”

In a proclamation in December 1832, Jackson declared that the nullification movement was aimed at the destruction of the Union — that it led “directly to civil war and bloodshed” — and that, therefore, it was

incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.

Jackson insisted that individual states had no right to invalidate federal laws, or secede from the Union, at their own pleasure. He derided “the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.” “Look for a moment to the consequence” of this position, Jackson admonished. If any state can declare a law oppressive and unjust, and therefore null and void — for any reason, however specious — then “every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.”

As for secession, Jackson declared that the Union could not be sundered by any individual State, because the Union pre-dated the States themselves. He pointed out that the “decisive and important steps” to declare America a nation were made jointly, not by the whim of separate states. “Under the royal Government” of Great Britain, Jackson reminded us, “we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppressions began as united colonies. ... Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America.” Even under the weak Articles of Confederation, the States “agreed that they would collectively form one nation ... We were the United States under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the Federal Constitution.” Therefore, any State, which constitutes with the other states a Federal Union,

can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense.

President Jackson went on to warn, in dark and forbidding tones, the citizens of the state of South Carolina — the state in which he was born. “Disunion by armed force is treason,” he declared. “Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. ... The consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here and to the friends of good government throughout the world.”

So the short answer as to one person who asserted that secession was unconstitutional is “Andrew Jackson”.


237 posted on 05/01/2012 10:45:29 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

That would be Davis who was willing to kill to preserve slavery and oppression. Lincoln’s fault in your eyes is that he was not willing to die to preserve slavery.


238 posted on 05/01/2012 10:47:43 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Rather like the “Lost Cause Losers” odd affection for the incompetent pretender to the false position of so called confederate president.

Yes, those Romans. They were so stupid. Compared to the clever confederates who also liked slavery.


239 posted on 05/01/2012 10:50:59 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; donmeaker
MamaTexan referring to posts #168 to 173 -- Prig v Pennsylvania (1842): "In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none."

In 1842 Prigg v Pennsylvania the Supreme Court struck down Pennsylvania's Fugitive Slave Law, proving yet again that the Slave Power was in firm control of the Federal Government.

There was some ambiguity in the Supremes' language, which lead several northern states to rewrite their Fugitive Slave Laws forbidding enforcement of Federal law by state authorities.

This ambiguity was removed, and state enforcement of Federal Fugitive Slave Law reestablished by the Compromise of 1850.

The bottom line here is that as of the 1850s, the Federal Government and even most Northern state governments had done everything required to comply with the Constitution's fugitive slave provision.

So the South in general, and South Carolina specifically, had no legitimate claim of "breach of contract".

That's why the claim of "breach of contract" by South Carolina secessionists was just bogus.
Their real reason for secession was the 100% constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery Republicans, a reason secessionists fully acknowledged.

It means they seceded not constitutionally "for cause", but rather unconstitutionally "at pleasure".

240 posted on 05/02/2012 2:16:08 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
MamaTexan from post #175, referring to secessionists many acts of insurrection, rebellion and war during the period from November 1860 through their declaration of war on the United States on May 6, 1861:

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

I take it then that you concede another of my key points: that South Carolina secessionists had no legitimate claim of Northern states' "breach of contract", and that their only real reason for secession was the 100% constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery Republicans, in November 1860.

That means South Carolina declared secession strictly "at pleasure."
And that means it was not in accordance to our Founders' Original Intent, their declarations were unconstitutional, and the Federal Government was in no way obligated to recognize it.

241 posted on 05/02/2012 2:26:49 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; donmeaker
MamaTexan from post #175: "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."

It's odd that you don't seem to know about the 1789 Northwest Ordnance.

"On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 into law after the newly created U.S. Congress reaffirmed the Ordinance with slight modifications under the Constitution.

The Ordinance purported to be not merely legislation that could later be amended by Congress, but rather

    'the following articles shall be considered as Articles of compact between the original States and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent....' "

"...The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the boundary between free and slave territory in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River.

"This division helped set the stage for national competition over admitting free and slave states, the basis of a critical question in American politics in the 19th century until the Civil War...."

I would call that a very strong expression of our Founders' Original Intent regarding the power of Congress to set limits on the expansion of slavery.

242 posted on 05/02/2012 2:39:01 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Anyway, as you know, back in 1776, the people of the Colonies plainly, clearly, and simply stated in the Declaration that Natural Law and transcendent law of our Creator supersedes all other laws.

And they would probably be disgusted with the fact that the general diffusion of knowledge concept has been used to obfuscate the VERY principals they fought to uphold.

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782

-----

Good luck today, BTW!

243 posted on 05/02/2012 2:49:25 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 227 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Vermont remained independent from 1777 to 1791, at which point it was admitted into the Union.

That's interesting,. Thanks for pointing it out!

I'm adding it my list of things to look up more details on while I'm roaming around the Library!

244 posted on 05/02/2012 2:54:52 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 235 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
MamaTexan from post #183 regarding the alleged Law of Nations:

Our Founders' respect for the Law of Nations does not mean that it must somehow supersede the Constitution.

Nor does the Law of Nations authorize secession "at pleasure."

See my post #218 for more...

245 posted on 05/02/2012 2:59:18 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
It's odd that you don't seem to know about the 1789 Northwest Ordnance.

The term of the last elected president, Cyrus Griffin, ended on 2 Nov 1788. Since that date Congress never had quorum to elect the next president because of the organization of the new Government under the Constitution. Thus, between November 1788 and April 1789, the United States had no chief executive.

.....and Madison said it was unconstitutional because the general government had NO authority to hold a territory to a greater standard than a State.

With respect to what has taken place in the N. W. Territory, it may be observed, that the ordinance giving its distinctive character on the Subject of Slaveholding proceeded from the old Congress, acting, with the best intentions, but under a charter which contains no shadow of the authority exercised. And it remains to be decided how far the States formed within that Territory & admitted into the Union, are on a different footing from its other members, as to their legislative sovereignty.
James Madison to Robert Walsh 27 Nov. 1819

246 posted on 05/02/2012 3:04:14 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 242 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Nor does the Law of Nations authorize secession "at pleasure."

§ 160. Nullity of treaties which are pernicious to the state.
Though a simple injury, or some disadvantage in a treaty, be not sufficient to invalidate it, the case is not the same with those inconveniences that would lead to the ruin of the nation. Since, in the formation of every treaty, the contracting parties must be vested with sufficient powers for the purpose, a treaty pernicious to the state is null, and not at all obligatory, as no conductor of a nation has the power to enter into engagements to do such things as are capable of destroying the state, for whose safety the government is intrusted to him.
Law of Nature and Nations, Book II, Chap XII

247 posted on 05/02/2012 3:12:45 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 245 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Sherman Logan from post #215: "It was widely believed at the time and since that the Court was fully prepared to use the 5th Amendment to declare state laws abolishing slavery to be unconstitutional.
Wouldn’t have worked, of course.
But the decades of southern dominance in DC and the repeated caving in of northerners convinced many southerners that they could pull it off.
That the despised Yankees would never develop the backbone to resist."

Curious how few words would need to be updated to make yours a cogent comment on today's Democrats attitudes towards us "despised conservatives". ;-)

248 posted on 05/02/2012 3:26:12 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Our Founders' respect for the Law of Nations does not mean that it must somehow supersede the Constitution.

The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted 23 Feb. 1775 http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/alexander-hamilton-the-farmer-refuted

249 posted on 05/02/2012 3:29:05 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 245 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Quite true.

I suspect the reason is similar. The dominant group in the South were slaveowners, who to a very considerable degree based their lives on working for the defense and expansion of slavery.

Most northerners, OTOH, just wanted to get on with their lives and have the whole issue go away. There were exceptions, of course, the abolitionists. But right up to the outbreak of the War, abolitionists were wildly unpopular in most of the North.

Few conservatives derive their sense of personal worth from politics. Sort of by definition, we believe other things are more important. Government, and politics, should be limited. Liberals and radicals, OTOH, have no governor on their desire for power. Of course they routinely move the ball in their direction.

Sometimes they provoke a reaction they didn’t expect, of course. And that reaction often goes overboard in the other direction.


250 posted on 05/02/2012 3:37:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-316 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