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; rustbucket
MamaTexan from post #214, responding to Madison's remarks at the end of his Nicholist Trist letter:

No, you simply chose just those words you wished to make your point, and ignored those which supplied Madison's context.

Of course, that's not uncommon on these threads, and seriously, I do give you credit for at least trying to use actual historical data, with all the extra effort that requires.
Sadly, some posters here are not disciplined by facts, and feel free to project their Rorschach interpretations unhindered by reality.

But you are not unique in posting actual data -- our old Texas FRiend rustbucket also posted long quotes from original sources, making such exchanges interesting and fun.
Indeed, in my mind at least, old rusty is Madison and young MamaTexan is young Trist, picking up whenever JM leaves off... ;-)

Point being: rusty and I both understand the nature of, ahem, "maturity", perhaps a bit better than youngsters such as yourself, and might even be more willing to give old Madison some benefit of doubt. ;-)

251 posted on 05/02/2012 3:54:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
MamaTexan from post #214: "Please show me the part of the Law of Nations that governs "unions' or 'compacts'."

Is that not the point?
You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.

Here is an interesting discussion on how the Law of Nations related to the Founders' new Constitution.

So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.

And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.

252 posted on 05/02/2012 4:11:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
No, you simply chose just those words you wished to make your point, and ignored those which supplied Madison's context.

James Madison to Nicholas Trist;

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.

Please see previous posts for absolution 'by an intolerable abuse of the power created.'

253 posted on 05/02/2012 4:23:25 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 251 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; donmeaker
MamaTexan from post #214, referring to Prigg v Pennsylvania and Northern Fugitive Slave Laws:

See my post #240 for additional discussion...

The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.
This lead some Northern states to rewrite laws to forbid their state officials from enforcing those Federal Fugitive Slave laws which required runaways be returned to their owners.

This "problem" was corrected by the Compromise of 1850 after which by law, northern states were required to enforce Federal Fugitive Slave Laws, and return runaways to their owners.

Point is, in both Prigg v Pennsylvania and the Compromise of 1850, the Southern Slave Power demonstrated its control over Washington Federal Government, and through it over those Northern states who wished to protect runaways from Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

So the Constitution was still being enforced, despite wishes of Northern anti-slavery Republicans.

There is no evidence I'm aware of if any South Carolina fugitive slave was ever protected and refused to be returned on demand by any Northern state.

254 posted on 05/02/2012 4:46:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.

Vattel's Law of Nations [first English Edition] was printed in 1758.

I've showed 3rd party evidence where the Founders were using it in the Senate with the Franklin letter of 1775.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

----

From your link-No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

Once the dissolution of the Compact was acknowledged by the Ordinances of Secession, the Confederate States WERE a 'foreign country' according to the Law of Nations.

So I ask AGAIN - Where is the Constitutionally REQUIRED Declaration of War?

-----

So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.

You don't look very hard.

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Book I Chap. I, Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel

BTW - I've also shown where Tucker said it WAS a treaty.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

-----

And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.

Why? Because you say so?

Again, your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion.

255 posted on 05/02/2012 5:12:44 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 252 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
So, can we advance this conversation a little?

Suppose the good people of the State of Texas in December 2012 decide they want to exercise their Inalienable Rights, Natural Law Right, or transcendent Rights from their Creator to withdraw from the Union because they believe their Rights have been infringed upon by the national government in DC.

Do they have this right?

Or, do you believe, as most pro-big government living constitution conservatives seem to believe, that Texas must seek permission from the other States, Congress, the Supreme Court? And if they cannot obtain this permission, and press ahead with the withdrawal, should they be subject to attack in order to preserve the Union?

This boils this whole thread down to a practical question. Will you support a State withdrawing if the body-politic of that particular State believes their Rights have been infringed upon? Or, are you a big-government nationalist conservative?

Can't wait to read the responses. Believe me, I can predict some!

"C'mon you idiot, let's get real...that'll never happen!

"No, the State cannot withdraw without permission."

Etc, etc!

256 posted on 05/02/2012 5:24:09 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.

BS! That was a finding by the Appeals Court FOR the Supreme Court. Appeals Courts set LEGAL PRECEDENTS:

precedent
1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1573

This what's known as settled law. The question cannot be re-asked, if you allow it, there can never BE any 'settled law'.

At that point, the only LEGAL way to change it would be for the northern states to get the Constitution changed, but they knew they couldn't do that.

But that's exactly what the northern states did. They asked, and asked, and asked... until they found a Supreme Court [not an Appeals Court] to agree with them.

----------

I'd like to take a moment during this emotionally charged moment to make it quite clear I'm no cheerleader for slavery. I'm here on a quest, because over a decade ago, some blatantly Unconstitutional garbage was [yet again] spewed out by Congress.

I decided...THAT DAY., I was going to find out where my rights went.

After mucking about the Codes until my brain felt fried, logic dictated [SHOUTED really] to just go back to the beginning.

So I did.

What I found, for me, clarifies a great many of the Founders words concerning natural rights, the laws of Nature, natural law...etc.

We all know we came from England, so England's laws affect ours. What we were never told is that at about the same time, a Frenchman was coming up with basically the same ideas as Blackstone, but on a more natural, individual basis and how that individual relates within a nation, and how nations relate within each other.

The Founder's held both these works in high regard.

Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44

IMHO, in order to lessen English influence, they used Vattel more for the federal government. Blackstone, for all practical purposes was already in the states as it came with the colonists.

This still hold true. [Don't believe me? Go back to the law.com dictionary and look up the term Natural Law]

------

To believe these facts or not is purely your choice, but until you see where it all went wrong, without that 'slave power' thing rolling around in your head, you never WILL see it.

And, with all Due Respect, I have no desire to continue to engage in a virtual 'pissin' contest' because you can't.

I do appreciate your responses, but political persuasions DO NOT dictate Constitutional Law. That's what the damn thing was written to prevent.

I bid you adieu, Good Sir.
MamaTexan

257 posted on 05/02/2012 6:20:28 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 254 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Or, do you believe, as most pro-big government living constitution conservatives seem to believe, that Texas must seek permission from the other States, Congress, the Supreme Court?

LOL! No. As Webster basically put it, one side can't be held accountable for a contract the other side fails to observe.

And it's been pretty much ignored for quite some time now.

------

Will you support a State withdrawing if the body-politic of that particular State believes their Rights have been infringed upon?

Yep, that's another 'gotcha question'. LOL!

That's one of the biggest problems. No one has yet to show me where government gets the authority to define what the Inalienable Rights of the People are!

That was kind of what makes them Inalienable..... right?

;-)

258 posted on 05/02/2012 6:28:04 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 256 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Precisely MamaTexan...sorry for hijacking your post to ask the question. I knew what your answer would be.

Check your email, I sent you a message. Let me know.

259 posted on 05/02/2012 6:31:12 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
You've already expressed your feeeelings on this but I am curious - what do you think is the potential for this happening? How many of those "millions more than the just me and MamaTexan" are going to lead the charge?

When can we expect your opening salvo?

260 posted on 05/02/2012 6:51:19 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
And you once again expose your flawed thinking about Inalienable Rights, Natures Law, etc...I NEVER once said there would be an opening salvo; I just want to withdraw without being attacked.

At some point, a State or States will make a declaration, terminate relations with the national government in DC, evict national government facilities from their sovereign country and get on with independence. Of course, they'll have to settle shared debts and such.

At that point, the only ones who will fire the "first salvo" will be the national government to "preserve the Union." Oh, wait, where have I heard that before.

Sadly, it will be people like yourself who will drum up new theories about "universal law" or odd notions of contracts, or perpetual contracts to support the anti-constitutional actions of your national government. As for me, I want to PEACEFULLY seek independence, not attack the national government.

Wait...please be assured that I'm not going to cry because after all "Gad, what a drama queen" I am! What an excellent, profound and well reasoned response. Geez.

261 posted on 05/02/2012 7:02:08 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: mek1959; BroJoeK; All
Sorry. I was so aggravated while making the last post I just now realized I'd forgotten to provide the web page for the Congressional Journal.

Last entry before adjourning on May 10,1794.:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1

262 posted on 05/02/2012 7:31:27 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 256 | View Replies]

Eessh!

MARCH 10th 1794.

Guess I'm still aggravated.

263 posted on 05/02/2012 7:48:05 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 262 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
At that point, the only ones who will fire the "first salvo" will be the national government to "preserve the Union." Oh, wait, where have I heard that before.

The last time someone attempted to unilaterally break the compact it was the initiators - the southern fire-eaters - who opened fire. I suspect that the same same sort of hotheads and hooligans who will initiate their treason again at some point.

264 posted on 05/02/2012 8:28:54 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; MamaTexan
Thanks for the ping and your kind words today, BroJoeK. I am indeed old and tired as MamaTexan characterized Madison in his letter to Trist. MamaTexan, I have the vague memory that I posted to you years ago about the identity of a lesser goldfinch. If that was not you, then this is just another demonstration of my failing memory.

The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.

From Prigg v Pennsylvania [my emphasis and explanatory insertion below]:

The clause [the Article IV, Section 2 clause in the Constitution regarding the return of fugitives from service or labor] manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control or restrain. The slave is not to be discharged from service or labor, in consequence of any state law or regulation. Now certainly, without indulging in any nicety of criticism upon words, it may be fairly said, that any state law or state regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the right of the owner of the slave to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service and labor, operates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom.

That doesn't seem all that ambiguous. The Prigg case stemmed from the 1837 arrest of fugitive slave Margarette Morgan by Edward Prigg, an agent for the slave owner. Prigg had been tried and convicted under Pennsylvania's 1826 law that had, as part of its provisions, punished people who returned fugitive slaves who had escaped to Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court in the Prigg case ruled the 1826 Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.

This "problem" was corrected by the Compromise of 1850 after which by law, northern states were required to enforce Federal Fugitive Slave Laws, and return runaways to their owners.

As I remember, Northern states were not compelled to return slaves by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. The Federal government was tasked with the return of the fugitive slave. Under that law, Federal commissioners determined whether the person in question was a fugitive slave. The Federal commissioner was typically presented with a court affidavit from the home state of the slave that gave a description of the slave, pointed out that the slave had escaped, and said that the slave owed service to the claimant. If the commissioner ruled that the person was the one being sought, then the northern state had no jurisdiction in the case, and its personal liberty laws did not apply. At that point, the status of the person being charged as a fugitive slave instantly changed to that of a slave under the laws of the home state of the claimant.

Point is, in both Prigg v Pennsylvania and the Compromise of 1850, the Southern Slave Power demonstrated its control over Washington Federal Government, and through it over those Northern states who wished to protect runaways from Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

I understand the wish of some states to free slaves and not have slavery in their states. I am glad, of course, that slavery no longer exists in this country, and I wish that it had never started here. But states that objected to the return of fugitive slaves were bound by the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution to which the original Northern states had agreed. As you have probably noted in the past, the Constitution was supreme law of the land, and any state laws that violated it were unconstitutional and void.

I'm sorry, BJK, but I will be off the board for a week or so.

265 posted on 05/02/2012 9:44:14 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
MamaTexan, I have the vague memory that I posted to you years ago about the identity of a lesser goldfinch. If that was not you, then this is just another demonstration of my failing memory.

When it comes to bird identification, your memory is apparently still good....if that helps. LOL!

-----

The Supreme Court in the Prigg case ruled the 1826 Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.

Which is true, but they also said the federal government had the authority to legislate on the subject, which is false.

To prevent the federal government from claiming that authority is precisely why the Founders put in such a strange place, and not under the powers of Congress.

The problem is that an earlier case in 1835, Jack v. Martin, the appeals court found the federal government didn't have the authority to regulate it either, BUT the clause and the Act of 1793 made it uniform, so the clause and act together were judged to be perfectly constitutional.

Enforceable by all [via the Fugitive slave act of 1793], yet actionable by none [via the 10th Amendment of the Constitution].

There was no authority for the federal government to hear any case again based on the issue of slavery....period.

As the north continued to pass laws contrary to the already established rules of evidentiary procedure [established with colonial law] to make special rules concerning slavery and despite the Constitutional precedent, they broke the contract

When the federal government decided to re-hear the case on a subject already established to be beyond the legal scope of their authority THEY broke the contract.

It wasn't so much the South left the Union as the Union left them.

-----

I understand the wish of some states to free slaves and not have slavery in their states. I am glad, of course, that slavery no longer exists in this country, and I wish that it had never started here.

To that, I heartily agree.

---------

Sorry to ramble on about things you may have already read, or we might have discussed before. Maybe MY memory isn't what it used to be. LOL!

Don't know if you'll be gone because of travel or not, but safe journey!

266 posted on 05/02/2012 11:07:00 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 265 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
The war was settled because Lincoln decided to break his oath and act unconstitutionally.

He violated more than the Constitution.

CHAP. XV. / OF THE FAITH OF TREATIES
§ 221. He who violates his treaties, violates the law of nations.
He who violates his treaties, violates at the same time the law of nations; for, he disregards the faith of treaties, — that faith which the law of nations declares sacred; and, so far as depends on him, he renders it vain and ineffectual. Doubly guilty, he does an injury to his ally, he does an injury to all nations, and inflicts a wound on the great society of mankind. "On the observance and execution of treaties," said a respectable sovereign, "depends all the security which princes and states have with respect to each other: and no dependence could henceforward be placed in future conventions if the existing ones were not to be observed.

-----

That piece was beautifully done, BTW!

267 posted on 05/02/2012 12:02:30 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 227 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

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

I have to give you credit for acknowledging Karl Marx as a fellow traveller in the neo-yankee hate fest against the South. You all ought to consider inducting him as an honorary member in the Bloody Shirt Society.


268 posted on 05/02/2012 8:39:36 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Most northerners, OTOH, just wanted to get on with their lives and have the whole issue go away”

The North had large population of 48ers, European radicals from the failed revolutions of 1848. 48ers were one of the founding groups of the Republican Party.

They were far from peaceful, many having fought in revolutionary armies. They were as enthusiastic for war as the abolitionists. A large number served in the Union Army and several became General officers.


269 posted on 05/02/2012 9:08:21 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

You are correct.

However, it is fair to point out that a great many, possibly a majority, of the “radical” 48ers that came to America were no more radical than the American revolutionaries of 1776.

An unfortunate meme has been floating around that the men of 1848 were all pre-commies. They were not. A significant majority were classical liberals opposed to the absolutism of their rulers, a position fully compatible with American values.


270 posted on 05/03/2012 4:27:58 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
There is one particular "floater" that is playing "I wish I may, I wish I might" in spreading that meme. If wishes were wagons he'd still be a pedestrian.
271 posted on 05/03/2012 11:37:33 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“An unfortunate meme has been floating around that the men of 1848 were all pre-commies. They were not.”

Maybe not pre-commies, but there was a strong leftist streak that persists to this day in the communities they established. The leftism in Wisconsin and environs traces back to the 48ers.

“However, it is fair to point out that a great many, possibly a majority, of the “radical” 48ers that came to America were no more radical than the American revolutionaries of 1776”

Oh, I think there is a very big difference between the two camps. Russell Kirk among others points out that the American Revolution began as conservative enterprise- it was an attempt by the colonials to protect their rights as Englishmen. They didn’t start out seeking to overturn anything, they wanted to preserve their rights, which were being trod upon by Parliament and the King. Only after their repeated requests were rebuffed did they decide upon independence.

The 48ers in contrast were cultural as well as political revolutionaries. Theirs wasn’t a fight for independence, it was a fight to revolutionize society. When they came to the US they came with their ideology intact, and wanted to make the US conform to it.


272 posted on 05/03/2012 9:11:53 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I merely acknowledge that if Marx said the sun came up in the morning that does not automatically mean it doesn’t.

Facts are facts. People wrong on some things may be right on others. That you pretend that because Marx said something means it must be wrong shows you are poorly educated.

Fact: The south pretended secession and made war to support and further the cause of Slavery, in which the southern ruling class was heavily invested, and thankfully lost.
Fact: The northern states fought to put down the southern insurrection and thankfully won.


273 posted on 05/03/2012 10:45:38 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

But of course any dispute between the states was to be settled by legal means, with the supreme court acting as original jurisdiction, per Article 3.

Congress had rights to regulate commerce, and slaves transported across state borders were commerce, just as slaves transported across the US national borders were commerce, which congress had authority to regulate after 1808.

So Priggs, and other cases involving the states were to be resolved by the courts, with the courts agreed by taking the case.

State courts set their own rules of evidence, and SC had no authority to intervene in PA rules of evidence, nor would SC have any right to declare themselves oppressed by PA rules of evidence. They were welcome to keep their slaves out of PA, as much as they wanted to avoid being subject to PA law. Once in PA, they were subject to rules of evidence in PA to determine if the subject was indeed a fugitive, or if the documents and testimony were fraudulent or forged, at least until the SCOTUS ruled to the contrary.


274 posted on 05/03/2012 10:59:58 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
The 48ers in contrast were cultural as well as political revolutionaries. Theirs wasn’t a fight for independence, it was a fight to revolutionize society.

Quite true. However, the societies they were rebelling against were not the liberal (in the original sense) Whig society of significant freedom the American colonists were attempting to conserve. The 48ers fought against the true Right Wing, the King and Church absolutism that the Whigs in England had triumphed against in the Glorious Revolution.

The men of 48 weren't fighting to keep their rights, because they had no rights. The 48er revolutionists were largely, though not exclusively, fighting to acquire the rights the American revolutionists were fighting to retain. But the American Revolution could be conservative only because a previous revolution, that of 1688, had acquired those rights. IOW, the conservative European societies the men of 48 rebelled against deserved to be overthrown.

Some conservatives seem to be under the mistaken impression that conservatism is always a good thing. This is nonsense on stilts. It depends utterly and entirely on what is being conserved. The conservation of evil and oppression is never a good thing.

Islamists really are fighting to conserve what they see as true Islam. Does that make their cause just? Of course not.

American conservatism is, from a long-term historical perspective, the most radical ideology in history. All other ideologies dispute over which group will be given the power to domineer over others. Only the true American ideology American conservatism attempts to conserve tries to keep any group from domineering, allowing the people to lead their own lives as they see fit.

This has never been fully or perfectly implemented, of course, and is in the process of slipping away, but it is what the American project stands for.

275 posted on 05/04/2012 5:43:59 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“That you pretend that because Marx said something means it must be wrong shows you are poorly educated.”

I pretended nothing of the sort, but it would be too much to expect you to follow the logic of an argument. You need to address your own weak ability before assuming others are as poorly educated as you are.


276 posted on 05/04/2012 7:13:24 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I agree with you that it’s a mistake to conflate Continental European conservatism with that of America or even its parent England.

But I don’t think that affects my point that 1776 was an independence movement, whereas 1848 was both a social and political revolution.

1776 was a revolution that replaced monarchy with self government. It was a political revolution, but it left daily life intact. There was no “class struggle”.

1848 was another matter. It was an attempt to overthrow the old order, socially as well as politically. The 48ers encompassed a wide variety of beliefs, from Whigs all the way to the likes of Marx and Engels.

Just as it’s a mistake to equate Continental conservatism with that of America, it’s a mistake to equate the 1848 revolutionaries with those that led to the creation of the American culture.

“American conservatism is, from a long-term historical perspective, the most radical ideology in history. “

I don’t know that I’d agree with you here; like Russell Kirk I believe that American conservatism is the absence of ideology; when what you have is an ideology it’s something other than conservatism.


277 posted on 05/04/2012 7:49:38 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

You pretended that exactly


278 posted on 05/04/2012 8:24:04 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“You pretended that exactly”

Then you should have no trouble linking to a post where I did that.

But you haven’t, which isn’t a surprise. Making false accusations is more your style.


279 posted on 05/04/2012 8:33:32 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I get your point about the American revolution differing in character from that of 1848. I contend, however, that it was more a difference of emphasis than of type.

The American Revolution was not solely one of a conservative nature. There were Americans who wanted the revolution to go farther, towards the direction of what we would call social revolution. An example being Shay’s Rebellion in MA, but such outbreaks occurred in most states. The Constitution was in fact largely proposed and adopted to provide the government with a more effective way to oppose and put down such rebellions.

I think it is pretty clear, however, that the American revolutionists would have been on the barricades had they been living in 1848 Europe. Since these revolutions were crushed, we don’t know whether they would have followed more closely the American or French/Russian path.


280 posted on 05/05/2012 4:19:13 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

You shouldn’t be so disdainful of pelly’s education. Some of it shines through....here and there.


281 posted on 05/05/2012 11:48:43 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

268


282 posted on 05/06/2012 6:52:04 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

The state can not withdraw unilaterally, per Texas v. White. If they pretend to, they can not with impunity declare or prosecute a war on the US.

The Union predated the Constitution, indeed, the Declaration of Independence.

Secession could take place, legally, by legislation, supreme court case, or successful revolution followed by treaty with the US.


283 posted on 05/06/2012 6:58:53 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“268”

What is that? Brevity is the soul of wit?

Or are you hoping that I’ll manage to find something in that post that you can’t, in order to rescue your foolish comments?

Here’s my post 268:

“I have to give you credit for acknowledging Karl Marx as a fellow traveller in the neo-yankee hate fest against the South. You all ought to consider inducting him as an honorary member in the Bloody Shirt Society.”

And this is what you say you see in that:

“you pretend that because Marx said something means it must be wrong”

You lack reading comprehension. There is nothing in my post that says anything like that. I don’t use the Genetic Fallacy in my arguments.

In fact I never said one way or the other what I thought about Marx’s theory that the South was planning to invade Yankeedom, I just pointed out that you repeat it and admit you believe it.

But in fact it was a stupid theory. Lincoln didn’t explain his call up of 75,000 troops on the theory that the Confederacy was about to launch a war of conquest. He did it because his intention was to force the 7 seceding states of the Deep South back into the Union. For all their faults the Lincolnistas weren’t stupid. It takes clueless Karl Marx or some dimwitted modern neo-yankee to swallow the Confederates Are Going to Invade malarky.

When I fault Marx for saying stupid things I do so because they are inherently stupid, not because he said them. Your problem is one of being no brighter than the oafish First Comrade and repeating the baloney he wrote 150 years ago.


284 posted on 05/06/2012 9:17:09 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; mek1959

“The Union predated the Constitution, indeed, the Declaration of Independence.”

Of course donny is just repeating Lincoln’s excuse for sending armies to wage total war against recalcitrant citizens.

But let’s take a look at the actual state of affairs a full decade after the Continental Association of 1774, which Lincoln is basing his pre-Declaration claim on:

“When Adams went to London in 1785 as the first representative of the United States, he found it impossible to secure a treaty for unrestricted commerce. Demands were made for favors and there was no assurance that individual states would agree to a treaty. Adams stated it was necessary for the States to confer the power of passing navigation laws to Congress, or that the States themselves pass retaliatory acts against Great Britain. Congress had already requested and failed to get power over navigation laws. Meanwhile, each State acted individually against Great Britain to little effect. When other New England states closed their ports to British shipping, Connecticut hastened to profit by opening its ports.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#cite_note-35

What we have above is future President John Adams suggesting that the individual States should each pass retaliatory acts against Britain. I guess he didn’t get the Union uber alles memo.


285 posted on 05/06/2012 9:48:13 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Of course there is a difference between asserting that a Union existed, and asserting that the Union had specific powers. Adams acting as ambassador was the ambassador for the United States. That you falsely confuse the two shows that you have no honest case.

Previously I provided text of a proclamation by Andrew Jackson which also stated that the Union preexisted the Constitution.


286 posted on 05/07/2012 1:33:34 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Lincoln’s call for 75,000 soldiers came after the pretended confederacy called for 100,000.

Any specious argument you put forward about Lincoln’s plan to put down the insurrection is doubled and redoubled when applied against the pretended confederacy and its plan to further the insurrection by military force.

All for slavery, legalized theft, legalized kidnapping and legalized rape. The southern gentlemen must be so proud.


287 posted on 05/07/2012 2:29:48 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“Lincoln’s call for 75,000 soldiers came after the pretended confederacy called for 100,000.”

Which not so cleverly evades the point that Lincoln was calling up an invasion force whereas the Confederacy was planning its defense. A point Marx and his neo-yankee echo chamber choose to ignore.

“All for slavery, legalized theft, legalized kidnapping and legalized rape. The southern gentlemen must be so proud.”

Oh, I suppose they are as proud as the yankee slave traders whose fortunes still echo along the Newport coast. But then the North has always chosen to whitewash its role in the slave trade, it’s bad for the mythology to speak of such things.

Speaking of pride, I notice you never get around to commenting on Lincoln’s plan to remove all blacks to colonies in Central America and Africa. Is that because you approve of that policy even though it was unsuccessful? Or is that failed policy simply an embarrassment that you prefer to ignore?


288 posted on 05/07/2012 9:20:15 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“Of course there is a difference between asserting that a Union existed, and asserting that the Union had specific powers. Adams acting as ambassador was the ambassador for the United States. That you falsely confuse the two shows that you have no honest case.”

Good luck getting that argument to work.

The Adams letter clearly shows the nature of the Union that existed in 1785, a full ten years after Lincoln says the Union came into existence; and the Adams letter demonstrates the inability of the Union to command the States to do something they didn’t want to do.

The States had a lot of independent power; that’s the real nature of the Union that pre-existed the Constitution, and that the 10th Amendment was intended to guarantee for the States under the Constitution.

Of course national ‘statists’ and lovers of centralized power managed to override Constitutional restrictions and turn that part of the Bill of Rights into a dead letter, a situation I imagine you applaud.

“Previously I provided text of a proclamation by Andrew Jackson which also stated that the Union preexisted the Constitution.”

Proving only that Jackson believed it, not whether he was correct in doing so.


289 posted on 05/07/2012 10:00:52 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
It's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."hows that working out for you?"

290 posted on 05/08/2012 9:59:58 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Hey Pelham, excellent rebuttals!

As I'm sure you appreciate, it's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."hows that working out for you?"

291 posted on 05/08/2012 11:19:38 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Hey Pelham, excellent rebuttals!

It's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary power so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."how's that working out for you?"

292 posted on 05/08/2012 11:20:08 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Wow, sorry for the repetitive posts everyone...that’ll teach me to edit...click post, stop, edit, correct typo’s, repost!


293 posted on 05/08/2012 11:22:31 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Nah..it’s cool. Besides, that’s the most attention pelly’s had in the last decade or two ;-)


294 posted on 05/08/2012 8:21:32 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Re: plan to remove African Americans to Liberia: That plan was successful, except for the word “all”. Some were able move, and build a life. Some stayed and built a life.

Lincoln had substantial humility, and knew that he didn’t know all the answers. He sought to do right, as G-d gave him to see the right. Unlike Jeff Davis, who sought to do wrong despite knowing he was doing wrong.


295 posted on 05/08/2012 9:07:53 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Of course the Union was preexisting. That was the purpose of the Articles of Confederation. That was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, which declared the independence of each state simultaneously with pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Was Adams the ambassador of Massachusetts? No? Of what was he ambassador?

George Washington was by appointment of the Continental Congress as General of the army of what state?

The flag with the stripes and stars, carried over the Continental Army, what state was that the flag of?

Of course the Union existed prior to the constitution.

Of course Jackson’s proclamation doesn’t prove he believed it, because he might have falsely issued a proclamation. Just as some nominally educated people pretend to not know that the Union preexisted the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence.


296 posted on 05/08/2012 9:18:20 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Of course the Union was preexisting. That was the purpose of the Articles of Confederation. That was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, which declared the independence of each state simultaneously with pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Was Adams the ambassador of Massachusetts? No? Of what was he ambassador?

George Washington was by appointment of the Continental Congress as General of the army of what state?

The flag with the stripes and stars, carried over the Continental Army, what state was that the flag of?

Of course the Union existed prior to the constitution.

Of course Jackson’s proclamation doesn’t prove he believed it, because he might have falsely issued a proclamation. Just as some nominally educated people pretend to not know that the Union preexisted the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence.


297 posted on 05/08/2012 9:18:45 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“Of course the Union existed prior to the constitution.”

That has not been in dispute. The Articles of Confederation, created by the colonies/states, preceded the Constitution. And the Articles state:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled”

‘Each state retains its sovereignty, etc..’

Of course Lincoln, ever the lawyer, argued that the Union began with the Articles of Association in 1774; what actually began in 1774 was the Continental Congress, and those Articles of Association began by stating “We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects,...”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp

Doesn’t exactly sound like an independent Union, despite Lincoln’s attempt to make it so; it was the beginning of the Continental Congress, but that Congress was created by the colonies/states; they existed before it did; how the Union they created pre-existed them is something only Lincoln and his acolytes can know.


298 posted on 05/09/2012 9:53:20 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; rockrr; donmeaker; Sherman Logan
Sorry, I've been pulled away, let's see, where were we?

MamaTexan post #155 referring to Emerich de Vattel's book, Law of Nations: "I've showed 3rd party evidence where the Founders were using it in the Senate with the Franklin letter of 1775.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it."

There is no disputing that some Founders referenced the Law of Nations in 1775.
The issue is whether in 1787 those who wrote and ratified the new Constitution considered the Law of Nations as superior to and having authority over their Constitution?

If you have such evidence, please provide it.

MamaTexan: "Once the dissolution of the Compact was acknowledged by the Ordinances of Secession, the Confederate States WERE a 'foreign country' according to the Law of Nations.
So I ask AGAIN - Where is the Constitutionally REQUIRED Declaration of War?"

Please provide evidence that any Founder ever granted the Law of Nations authority over the US Constitution.

The US Constitution does not specify when a declaration of war is required, and our Founders themselves never used a Congressional Declaration of War in cases of insurrection, rebellion or "domestic violence".
Indeed, they fought an undeclared "quazi-war" against France, clearly demonstrating that a formal declaration of war is not necessary for every conflict.

MamaTexan referring to the Law of Nations definition of a Federal Republic: "You don't look very hard.
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic."

Close but no "cigar".
First of all, again: the alleged Law of Nations (which is not a law, it's a book) has no authority over the US Constitution.

Second, if you wish to throw the Law of Nations at me, just beware, it's a two edged sword:

And third, just as with the Founders' Original Intent in the US Constitution regarding "withdrawal" or "disunion", none of the conditions laid out by Emerich de Vattel's Law of Nations were satisfied in November 1860, when Deep South slave-holders first began to declare secession from the United States, and simultaneously to commit many acts of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence" before formally declaring war on the United States.

MamaTexan denying Vittel's Law of Nations' lack of authority over the US Constitution: "Why? Because you say so?
Again, your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion."

Please provide evidence showing where anyone ever considered that Emerich de Vattel's book the Law of Nations has authority over or supercedes the US Constitution.

299 posted on 05/12/2012 8:16:45 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Some guy named Ben Franklin did a favorable book review on Amazon and gave it 5 stars. What more do you want?

/s


300 posted on 05/12/2012 9:09:03 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | 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