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 ...
You shouldn’t be so disdainful of pelly’s education. Some of it shines through....here and there.
268
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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?
“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.
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?"
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?"
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?"
Wow, sorry for the repetitive posts everyone...that’ll teach me to edit...click post, stop, edit, correct typo’s, repost!
Nah..it’s cool. Besides, that’s the most attention pelly’s had in the last decade or two ;-)
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Some guy named Ben Franklin did a favorable book review on Amazon and gave it 5 stars. What more do you want?
/s
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.