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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-316 next last
To: MamaTexan
Give up...he's a Lincolnian and that's all there is to it. Allow me to test my hypothesis that he is, maybe I'm wrong and just misreading him.

Ok, fortheDeclaration, let's for the sake of discussion agree that I'm a racist (which I'm not, and for proof, my family was involved in the underground railroad in Peterboro, NY and I take GREAT offense at your accusation of be being otherwise) and let's further say that I agree with you that the South only wanted to secede because of the slavery issue. Ok, are we all in agreement now?

Let's fast forward to 2012 and 12 States want to withdraw from the compact. These 12 States hold State conventions to reflect the will of the PEOPLE (the only TRUE Sovereigns, unless of course you believe in the divine right of Kings which if you support Lincoln, you might). And lets say a super-majority of the PEOPLE decide they want their State to separate from the Union because their inalienable right to let's say property was being infringed or they BELIEVED it was being infringed. Maybe Washington DC doesn't.

They've tried every other peaceful means for redress and have been met with opposition from the national government. And the assembled legislators of these 12 States meet and solemnly agree to withdraw and forward correspondence to that fact to Washington DC.

Does President fortheDeclaration:

A. Assent to the wishes of the PEOPLE of those States and begin proposing and establishing embassies in this new country?

B. Begin war preparations against this new country with the intention of slaughtering as many PEOPLE of those States as necessary to compel them to stay in the Union AGAINST THEIR WILL? Even though the Declaration of Independence is what caused a separation between the PEOPLE of the 13 Colonies operating through their assemblies in 1776?

My suspicion is you will embarrassingly answer "B" and join the other tyrants of history who stopped people who sought freedom but could not attain it because of the likes of Lincolnian thinkers like yourself. And also because you contend that a State has no right to secede even though this was fully understood by the Ratifiers (read below). Your defense of your position is a video lecture you saw from Hillsdale College. Perhaps you should read Professor Kevin Gutzman's new book "James Madison and the making of America" before you write so authoritatively about what Madison did or did not believe about the Union and the Compact.

This is not hard fortheDeclaration, you are making it so. You have no facts to support your contention that Lincoln had Article II authority to wage war against the South. So you do your best to try and weave together an argument, again, buttressed with ZERO, ZIP, NADA Article II delegations of authority to do what he did. By the way, your latest post was very Lincolnian, very similar to his 1st Inaugural Address, you have read that I assume. He wasn't all that anti-slavery was he? And wow, his elucidation of contracts was well, stunning.

And again, I contend, you would be willing to slaughter me and my family if we lived in a State that joined other States and decided to withdraw from the Compact.

By the way, a little tidbit of history the guys at Hillsdale left out, are the ratification documents of NY, Rhode Island and Virginia. You've read them I assume and by the way, if not, they're VERY easy to find. Here's paragraph 4 of NY's (it will give you a little insight into how the Ratifiers thought about that quaint silly and anti-Lincolnian notion of secession):

"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Did you catch that first line? That the powers of government may be resumed...? They obviously weren't referring to the yet to be created new federal government were they? Hmmmm...so who could they have been referring to. I'll let you answer that.

Finally, I am not a "neo-confederate" friend. Though I am impressed it took you a while to get to name calling. Most people who lose arguments on FACTS jump to this much earlier. So I'm impressed you had the self-control. I don't think I'll benefit from that if I'm with a State that is seeking to secede...I continue to believe you'll shoot me.

That said, I am however:

1. Pro-Inalienable Rights

2. Pro-authority (Lincoln had none)

3. Pro-Rule of Law (Lincoln not so much)

4. Pro-habeas corpus (Lincoln not so much)

5. Pro-first Amendment (Lincoln not so much)

6. Pro-self governance (Lincoln not so much)

These are the FACTS and they cannot be disputed. That you don't like them tells me that you're probably a big-government conservative and no friend of Jefferson OR Madison (or Henry, Mason, Lee etc).

51 posted on 04/17/2012 4:46:25 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
defend the nation from rebellion,

Ummmm...we're not a "nation," we're a Union as in "to form a more perfect Union." Might want to read Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755 to better understand WHY the Framers chose the work "Union."

You've got your history all wrong, so did I until Dr. Walter Williams helped me take the blinders off. I know, I know, you think he's wrong to.

52 posted on 04/17/2012 4:57:14 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion

Public opinion, not governmental force.

A Union of the States seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

------

In fact, he previously notes:

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.

Intolerable abuse....like refusing to uphold Constitutional provisions, placing punishing tariffs on [mostly] Southern goods, and threatening to obliterate the entire economy of a agrarian based society?

--------

You might also bother to note he is talking of a single As for Madison, clearly you have only read what you want on the subject to defend your false view.

ROFLMAO! False view? That's rich, particularly coming from someone who's idea of research is doing a verbatim copy & paste.....from a BLOG!

53 posted on 04/17/2012 5:34:51 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 49 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion

Public opinion, not governmental force.

A Union of the States seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

------

In fact, he previously notes:

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.

Intolerable abuse....like refusing to uphold Constitutional provisions, placing punishing tariffs on [mostly] Southern goods, and threatening to obliterate the entire economy of a agrarian based society?

--------

As for Madison, clearly you have only read what you want on the subject to defend your false view.

ROFLMAO! False view? That's rich, particularly coming from someone who's idea of research is doing a verbatim copy & paste.....from a BLOG!

54 posted on 04/17/2012 5:35:29 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 49 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
so did I until Dr. Walter Williams helped me take the blinders off.

I LOVE Dr. Williams. If only HE were our 'first black President'

[sigh}

-----

Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled argument. LOL!

55 posted on 04/17/2012 5:40:40 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 52 | View Replies]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at some of these comments. The colonies SECEDED from Britain. The states abolished their govt by adopting the Constitution. The people are the sovereigns (popular sovereignty) and are above the state and federal govts. The South seceded from the Union... so it wasn’t a rebellion.

If you don’t believe the South could secede then you obviously don’t believe the colonies could secede from Britain. You don’t believe in the consent of the governed. You don’t understand delegated sovereign powers — certainly not in the sense the founders and framers did (i.e. read Vattel on this subject as that is who they relied on).

It also means you give consent to unlimited submission to a national government. It means you believe in one large consolidated, all-powerful centralized government. As history has proven repeatedly these regimes fall... every single one of them.

It also means that the federal government, as the agent of the people and by extension the states, can determine the extent of the powers delegated to it. That is akin to giving your teenager instructions, rules, and a time to be home on a Friday night... but when the teenager comes home he says I have the power to interpret those things... I am the final and sole arbiter of that... And, naturally, the teenager says I could stay out past 11pm, I could drive more than 50 miles, I could drink and drive, I could speed because I’ve determined those are the powers you delegated to me.


56 posted on 04/17/2012 6:47:11 PM PDT by TJ1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Are you coming back to respond to the facts that have been submitted by me, mamatexan and TJ1776?


57 posted on 04/17/2012 9:44:47 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
What facts? The Southern states how no grounds to leave the union-period

They were in rebellion and Lincoln was constitutionally correct in putting down the rebellion.

Now, what you neo-confederates need to do is get down on your knees and thank God that the North won because you live in the greatest country in the world.

Now, Furthermore, I have posted the letter from Madison which showed he did not believe the States had any right to secede.

I have linked to the lecture on the constitutionally of Lincoln's actions by Hillsdale college.

Sorry, it was not a 'noble' cause, it was a cause to spread slavery and you guys try to wrap yourselfs around the constitution which you despise and the freedom it represents as well as the Declaration, whose universal truth, you originally disputed.

58 posted on 04/18/2012 3:15:31 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
You guys sure love to spew out nonsense.

The States had agreed to follow the Constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows States to leave the Union.

Now, what you are is a anarchist, as well as the rest of the neo-confederate cabel.

I never said you were a racist, but nice red herring.

The PEOPLE are the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

So, why don't you get your little group of malcontents together and hold a State convention and see how constitutional it would be to withdraw from the Union?

If it is constitutional try and do it!

59 posted on 04/18/2012 3:22:23 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Willams is a good economist, not a good political theorist.

More word games.

Yes, to form a more perfect union, meant a stronger union then the Articles of Confederation, which meant more unity, not less.

We are the American People, not the Texan people, New York People.

60 posted on 04/18/2012 3:25:52 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I gave you the evidence from Madison's own hand.

That is why I 'cut and pasted'. Your precedent post was a joke, it had nothing to do with the right of the President to raise troops to put down a rebellion.

Andrew Jackson had every plans to go into South Carolina and hang Calhoun if they did not pull back their nullification nonsense.

61 posted on 04/18/2012 3:29:26 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TJ1776
No, the Colonies didn't secede from England, they REVOLTED from England!

You should cry because your post in simply nonsense.

No Government grants the right to secede, that is why the Declaration was written, to show the just cause for ending a Government, when that government is attacking rather then defending individual rights.

The American Revolution isn't called the American secession!

You guys really have a hard time with definitions and reality.

62 posted on 04/18/2012 3:34:23 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
What I gave you were some links so you could actually learn something, which you clearly have no intention of doing.

Still have questions about Madison's rejection of secession?

Did you know Robert E. Lee didn't think the States had a right to secede either?

Or do you need me to show you that as well.

Your comments only show how shallow and incomplete your knowledge is.

I hope you aren't homeschooling anyone!

63 posted on 04/18/2012 3:37:54 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
You really do have a hard time reading English don't you.

Madison was stating 'public opinion' to remove the notion that secession was a legimate option and that he and Jefferson supported it

If it isn't secession, then it is rebellion and can be put down by force. LOL!

64 posted on 04/18/2012 3:48:33 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Yes, I am a Lincoln man, a far greater man that that traitor Jefferson Davis.


65 posted on 04/18/2012 3:49:11 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
So I guess I back to my original two points which you ignore time and time again. Where EXACTLY in Article II, did President Lincoln have ANY, one iota of AUTHORITY to Preserve the Union? Where forthedeclaration? How about suspending habeas corpus? Arresting State legislators, imprisoning political opponents? Where? You truly are a serf who serves a feudal king, this time 535 of them. You mock Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Jefferson, Madison with your positions. You name call when facts are presented. You're the type of person that binds people down with incorrect history. Did you even read the ratification documents? Crickets. You would have been mocked by the majority of Founders as would Lincoln for the anti-inalienable rights position you both hold. You have NO understanding for freedom and a firm grasp on unlimited submission to your national overlords. You will eventually lead to a tyranny that my children and grandchildren will suffer unless of course I and the millions across the UNION can stop people like you. Which I believe in the end we will, because we stand for FREEDOM, not UNLIMITED SUBMISSION to a national government.

Point two, will you shoot me and my family or authorize the shooting of me and my family, or support a government who would shoot me if I'm part of a State that desires to secede? Please answer with yes or no so I can see just how strongly you are committed to your ideology. Yes or no, will you point a gun at me and shoot me to "preserve the Union?" Talk is easy, but if my side is successful, and a few States decided to go their own way and form a new Union...will forthedeclaration not just talk about his support for Lincolnian policy, but will you actually shoot me? Talk is cheap friend...will you live out your political theory and kill me to preserve the Union?

66 posted on 04/18/2012 4:11:22 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I gave you the evidence from Madison's own hand.

And you ignored where Madison's own hand wrote-

or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.

67 posted on 04/18/2012 4:27:43 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 61 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

bump for later....


68 posted on 04/18/2012 4:29:31 AM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Your comments only show how shallow and incomplete your knowledge is.

You feel free to be insulting, ignore questions directed to you, and continue to harp on a single letter of Madison's while blatantly disregarding his continued provisos contained in other correspondance:

James Madison to Charles Eaton Hayne 27 Aug. 1832
It is true that in extreme cases of oppression justifying a resort to original rights, and in which passive obedience & non-resistance cease to be obligatory under any Government a single State, or any part of a single State might rightfully cast off the yoke.

I noted you also managed to select one that doesn't contain his protestations of ill health and age:

[also from the above letter]
I have sketched these few ideas more from an unwillingness to decline an answer to your letter than from any particular value that may be attached to them—You will pardon me therefore for requesting that you will regard them as for yourself & not for publicity which my very advanced age renders every day more and more to be avoided. Accept Sir, a renewal of my respects & regards

Talk about selective knowledge.

69 posted on 04/18/2012 6:02:45 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 63 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

So, for the sake of ideological purity we can all rally around mittens, right?!

/sarc


70 posted on 04/18/2012 6:31:42 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

You care to explain this non-sequitur?

I contend that attempts to split the US geographically when our divide is ideological rather than regional are unlikely to succeed.

And your response is an anti-Romney remark?


71 posted on 04/18/2012 6:35:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
It is true that in extreme cases of oppression justifying a resort to original rights, and in which passive obedience & non-resistance cease to be obligatory under any Government a single State, or any part of a single State might rightfully cast off the yoke.

I don't know any American who would disagree.

Many, including myself, will disagree rather vehemently that there was any oppression at all of southern states prior to their secession, much less that it met the standard here posed by Madison of "extreme" oppression.

No southerner was imprisoned or executed or oppressed in any other way. Except of course for their slaves.

Of course secession and revolution are sometime justified. But that does not mean they are always justified whenever someone takes it into their mind to rebel.

The Constitution specifically authorized suspension of civil rights during times of invasion or insurrection, thus explicitly stating that some insurrections are illegitimate and should be suppressed by military force.

72 posted on 04/18/2012 6:49:15 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Just curious. When you secede, what will you do to that large minority of citizens who resist secession, possibly by force, in your state?

Will you use lethal force to put down their insurrection? If not, how can you maintain your secession against violent resistance?

If you will use lethal force against those who resist secession, how is your position morally different from that you posed?


73 posted on 04/18/2012 7:05:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I'm assuming you read my earlier post where I described my secession scenario. This isn't a tough question when you embrace little "r" republicanism.

1. I believe a "super majority" would be necessary for a State, based on the CONSENT of the governed of that State to withdraw from the compact.

2. Those who oppose the consent of the super-majority have a few choices.

A. Stay and put up with the governance of the new sovereign State

B. Leave

C. Work politically to overturn the existing power.

D. Attempt to secede themselves and break apart.

E. Take up arms against the new sovereign State.

So, there you have it, 5 options for any individual to take. I personally would have no problem with Texas breaking into 300 little sovereign city-states sharing a common defense pact (something the duchy's in Italy didn't do to well when Spain came a knocking). So little "r" republicanism offers an UNBELIEVABLE number of options for self-governance and the free-market to EXPLODE. The Founders understood this clearly.

Now, I understand the Founders (and other historical figures all the way back to Plato) have fallen on hard times these days with big-government progressives AND conservatives. And this has led to very heated power struggles for generations and most have come to put most of their hope in getting "their guy" into office. Never realizing that they're just pawns in a BIG-GOVERNMENT chess game between the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation! ( in jest I'm sure you understand)

Be that as it may, the issue of secession has emerged again, mainly by modern day Jeffersonians and as expected, the legacy of Lincoln emerges as well. And the debate rages on between the two camps yet only 1 can lay claim to the 10,000 year understanding of Inalienable Rights. Hint - it ain't ole' honest Abe. It simply cannot be disputed, Lincoln's anti-constitutional actions in the 1860's fertilized the ground from which a HUGE oppressive national government emerged. And perhaps people should read a little more into Lincoln's law practice before they Knight him. He's not quite as white as the driven snow as we've been taught by the big-government propaganda machine.

74 posted on 04/18/2012 9:32:27 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Many, including myself, will disagree rather vehemently that there was any oppression at all of southern states prior to their secession, much less that it met the standard here posed by Madison of "extreme" oppression.

Please point out the caveat in the 1850's Constitution where the Right to property extend to only that which is popularly approved.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
Essay on Property, James Madison.

I wonder what Madison would have thought of the NULLIFYING laws passed by the northern States that were contrary to the Constitution.

--------

The Constitution specifically authorized suspension of civil rights during times of invasion or insurrection, thus explicitly stating that some insurrections are illegitimate and should be suppressed by military force.

Article 4 section 4 has been fully examined in post #36.

75 posted on 04/18/2012 10:04:46 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 72 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

You might want to reconsider your claim to Plato as a precursor of the idea of human rights.

Plato was a strong proponent of an utterly totalitarian government with hereditary philosopher-kings as absolute rulers.

He trotted off to Sicily and spent some time trying to be the power behind the throne of a powerful tyrant.

He was, in fact, the forerunner of all the intellectuals since who have been in love with the idea that if only they were given absolute power they could solve all man’s problems.

Your idea that “unalienable rights” has a 10,000 year history is ludicrous. You can search all the classical authors, and through Chinese and India history, and wherever you look you will find not a trace of the idea that “all men are created equal.”

Its germ is found in the Hebrew prophets, was expanded in the NT, and didn’t really begin to develop fully until the Reformation, when people began to realize that we are all equal because we are all equally children of God.

It’s not only not an old idea, it is utterly unique to western civilization.


76 posted on 04/18/2012 10:08:12 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

That’s quite the recipe for chaos you have there.


77 posted on 04/18/2012 10:22:25 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
It simply cannot be disputed, Lincoln's anti-constitutional actions in the 1860's fertilized the ground from which a HUGE oppressive national government emerged.

Too true.

Yet they're refuse to acknowledge the fact the South tried to extract herself for the simple purpose of self-preservation. To them, preventing the annihilation of an entire economy isn't a 'good enough' reason.

Nor can they ever seem to verbalize just how much IS 'enough'. They are so blinded by the immorality of slavery, they can't see the underlying issue - property.

So now that 'they won', our money has no value, our property confiscated without due process, our children can be arbitrarily taken by the State, we don't own our real estate [even after it's paid for], we have to have governments permission to drive, to work, to improve our own homes...... the list of unconstitutional actions is endless.

All because they unleashed the beast from its Constitutional cage.

One has to wonder if the concept of ENOUGH even exists to them, or are they merely the contemporary lap dogs of our perverted government.

78 posted on 04/18/2012 10:30:54 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 74 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

And a facade of “order” is better? What do you think is going to happen when the house of cards comes down?

And what I suggested is certainly not chaos...just change. Scary to some, liberating to others.


79 posted on 04/18/2012 12:01:00 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Mama, think of the Stockholm Syndrome and the picture will become much clearer about why people suspend reality like they do now. We’re all Patty Hearsts now! :)


80 posted on 04/18/2012 12:03:43 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
That letter clarified exactly where Madison stood regarding secession.

Yes, in cases of OPPRESSION, resorting to original rights, one can throw off the government.

That is not secession, that is revolution and Lincoln believed the same.

Now, you show me where the South was being oppressed!

They still held the Senate and House, where due to counting slaves as part of the population, they were overrepresented.

The slaveowners feared that restricting slavery would end it, as the Founders hoped it would.

Now, that is true history, not the nonsense you are trying to peddle.

81 posted on 04/18/2012 12:20:08 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
What you present is the fallacy of the False Dichotomy. No, a facade of order isn't better than chaos but I reject your characterization that what we have is only parenthetical order. I don't care much for many aspects of the Ø'bozo regime, but it isn't as bad as you would have us believe.

And we still have the process of redress (through the voting booth).

What do you think is going to happen when the house of cards comes down?

The chaos that you appear to advocate...

82 posted on 04/18/2012 12:31:02 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
There is no right to secession based on any interpretation, no nation could survive if it just gave that as a right.

How about counties seceding from States, or cities from counties?

If any Constitution would have contained the words 'secession' in it it would have been the Confederate constitution, and it didn't have it either.

Gee, who is 'cutting and pasting' now?

The military is subordinate to the civilians in the Federal Government as well.

What does that have to do with anything?

You are defending those who attempted to leave the Union to keep their slaves.

And they were very clear that they believed that the idea of the Declaration of Independence of all men being created equal was a false one.

The American People are ONE People that operate under a federal system of checks and balances.

Only when a government attacks individual freedom do the People have a right to throw off their government.

That was not the case for the South.

Jefferson explained why the colonies were revolting and appealed to those rights being violated, which many Englishmen such as Edmund Burke, agreed with.

The South was in rebellion, Lincoln had, as President, every constiutional right and indeed it was his duty, to put down the rebellion.

The ones who had a right to rebel based on the Declaration of Independence were the slaves.

But I bet you wouldn't be so supportive of that now would you?

83 posted on 04/18/2012 12:32:48 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
My championing of my ideas have absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama...in the slightest. It has to do with decades, perhaps generations of unconstitutional, perhaps anti-constitutional by elected officials who have been put into power by We the People who are largely ignorant of their responsibilities to know history...so it doesn't "repeat itself." So, this current administration has nothing to do with it.

My quip in response to your comment about chaos was just that, a quip. Don't read more into it than that.

And as far as "not as bad as you would have us to believe," well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally feel that $16 trillion in debt, arbitrary governance, and $105 Trillion of unfunded liabilities are "bad!" Maybe you don't...so be it. I guess we'll see. As for me, I'd prefer to be prepared while thinking of solutions.

84 posted on 04/18/2012 1:03:37 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: mek1959; rockrr
Only people who support a “perpetual” Union will do the shooting, just as they did in 1860.

Look up the history. Who fired first?

In 1860 secessionists were out to establish their own country, their own government, and they wanted it to lay claim to as much territory as they could (with the proviso of course, that states and territories that didn't allow slavery wouldn't be welcome).

Therefore, they weren't averse to subverting other state and territorial governments and beginning a war. And they did just that. Or did you miss that day in history class?

No, the vast majority of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers (as well as Locke, Cicero, Plato, Augustine and Aristotle) understood the Inalienable Right to self determination and self governance.

So they believed that whenever you were dissatisfied you could simply throw off the rest of your country and declare yourself independent? Somehow I don't think so.

Self-determination and self-government take place in a context of law and responsibility and mutual obligations. Believing that any passing grievance justifies rebellion or secession isn't something wise men would agree with.

So far as I can see neither Plato, nor Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor St. Augustine justified unilateral secession from a representative republic. So far as I've been able to find out, we don't know how they would have reacted to a situation like that in America in the 1860s.

Take a minute if you will and read the Principles of 98 to see what two of them said they intended to do with the Aliens and Sedition Act.

Nothing too shocking or obscene, I hope (though with Jefferson I kind of wonder).

Take a minute to find out how Washington reacted to the Whiskey Rebellion, or Jefferson to Burr's conspiracy or violations of his embargo.

Politicians can talk a pretty "state's rights" game when they are out of power, but they behave very differently when they're actually in office.

85 posted on 04/18/2012 3:05:03 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

If the US cannot interfere in any state without approval of its legislature or executive, how then can it guarantee each state a republican form of government? That would seem to require, by definition, the federal government being able to override a state government that attempted to set up a monarchy or oligarchy.

The part about application of the legislature or executive, is related to domestic violence within the state, not to the preceding clauses about guaranteeing a republican form of government, or protecting against invasion.

86 posted on 04/18/2012 6:38:24 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

So funny how all my points are simply ignored. And, the term the founding generation used was “separation”. It is equivalent in meaning to secession. So, if it makes you feel better we absolutely have the right to separate. Just like joining the union was voluntary so is leaving. Just like a union between a man and a woman can end if only 1 of the parties wishes not to stay. But of course, following your logic the man or woman that doesn’t want to remain in the marriage has every right to beat into submission the one that wants to leave.

I’ll simply restate... you believe in unlimited submission to the federal government. You do not believe in “consent of the governed” which is the ideal of popular sovereignty. You believe the federal government is not the agent of the people and the states, that the federal government is not suppose to act as a fiduciary and public trustee. You believe the federal government is to act like a ruler, to subjugate citizens to whatever arbitrary whims it devises, to reduce them to subjects under despotism. And the citizens are suppose to simply take it... to say “Thank you sir, May I please have another”. Well you might like being bent over and smacked by the cabal in DC... but I do not.

And to those that say you cannot just throw off government... reread the Declaration of Independence. It is precisely that right that the people reserve. To alter or abolish it. Period. End of Story.

Why do so many people object to the idea that the people, the sovereign individuals can determine their own governance? Is that radical? Hardly. It is about the people ruling themselves, not 545 kings in DC. Are you simply afraid to take responsibility. Are you afraid of failing.


87 posted on 04/18/2012 8:36:00 PM PDT by TJ1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: TJ1776; x

So funny how you forgot to address x in the “To:” line. No matter, I added him in for you.

Yes, you have the right to rebel against the government. You also have the right to feel the consequences of such rebellious acts.


88 posted on 04/18/2012 9:17:35 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

In the main the Declaration of Independence said that a people were the judge of their own political destiny and that power derived from people consenting to be governed by rulers of their own choice.


89 posted on 04/18/2012 10:26:01 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The part about application of the legislature or executive, is related to domestic violence within the state, not to the preceding clauses about guaranteeing a republican form of government, or protecting against invasion.

The invaded state, instead of relying merely on its own strength for defence, and instead of gratifying its revenge by retaliation, may prudently call for and gratefully receive the strong arm of the Union to repel the invasion, and reduce the combatants to the equal level of suitors in the high tribunal provided for them. In this course, the political estimation of neither state could receive any degradation.
William Rawle

-----

The purpose of the protection against invasion provision was primarily to insure the federal government would protect all the States equally in the event if invasion. Too bad there are no Constitutional instructions about what to do when the 'protector' is the one doing the invading.

The possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government in affording it's protection to one part of the union in preference to another, which may be invaded at the same time, seems to be provided against, by that part of this clause which guarantees such protection to each of them. So that every state which may be invaded must be protected by the united force of the confederacy.
St. George Tucker

-----

Since all the States all have the Republican form guaranteed in their respective Constitutions, I find the conjecture that they would attempt to set up a monarchy or oligarchy both ridiculous and nonproductive.

90 posted on 04/19/2012 1:37:32 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 86 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Having to ask permission to leave a voluntary association would negate the entire concept of sovereignty.

Having the right to withdraw from your country anytime you wish for any reason or no reason would negate the entire concept of a country or nation or patriotism.

"Sovereignty" of states or regions or localities in your sense is a recipe for civil war. The idea that some part of a country can walk out on debts and obligations whenever it wants and take away as much territory as it dares is one that inevitably leads to armed conflict.

91 posted on 04/19/2012 3:04:37 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: x
Having the right to withdraw from your country anytime you wish for any reason or no reason would negate the entire concept of a country or nation or patriotism.

You make that statement as if it were some type of fact instead of merely your opinion.

The States, with the exception of a few enumerated powers delegated to the general government, were sovereign. That IS a fact.

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
View of the Constitution of the United States

-----

The idea that some part of a country can walk out on debts and obligations whenever it wants and take away as much territory as it dares is one that inevitably leads to armed conflict.

Oh, please. With millions in lost property and almost 3/4 of a million dead all to 'protect' a fort that had sat half built for over 20 years, that old 'they couldn't leave because they owed us' dog just won't hunt.

There is absolutely NO logical reason an ambassador from the Union could not have been sent to the Confederate government to discuss compensation.

It was never about the money, it was about the POWER..... nothing more.

92 posted on 04/19/2012 3:50:54 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 91 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The States, with the exception of a few enumerated powers delegated to the general government, were sovereign. That IS a fact.

No, that's an opinion, a interpretation. St. George Tucker wasn't the only interpreter of the Constitution and his reading wasn't the only one.

If federal law prevailed in those areas delegated to the federal government, it doesn't make much sense to say that the states were "sovereign" in the sense that independent nations are -- all the more so since admitting new states (and presumably de-admitting existing states or territories) was left up to the federal government.

There is absolutely NO logical reason an ambassador from the Union could not have been sent to the Confederate government to discuss compensation. It was never about the money, it was about the POWER..... nothing more.

It was about respect and dignity. If you can't see where that enters in, that's your problem.

93 posted on 04/19/2012 4:30:08 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: x
No, that's an opinion, a interpretation. St. George Tucker wasn't the only interpreter of the Constitution and his reading wasn't the only one.

St George Tucker was the FIRST interpreter of Constitutional Law. His View of the Constitution was an annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. He was appointed to the Virginia Supreme Court by President James Madison, and excerpts from his View of the Constitution was admitted as legal defense to the US Supreme Court in recent [and successful] RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller.

So I DO believe I'll be taking his word over yours.

-----

It was about respect and dignity. If you can't see where that enters in, that's your problem.

No, It was about the Constitution....you know, the Rule of Law, not the rule of Men.

If you can't see where that enters in, that's your problem.

94 posted on 04/19/2012 5:19:35 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Mama Texan 1

X (big government serf) 0

Give up Mama Texan and bask in your victory, these are big-government conservatives who believe in unlimited submission to the national government. Sadly, when our view triumphs over the tyranny of this national government, they’ll be the first one’s claiming they were on the side of liberty all along...we just misunderstood them.

As I’m sure you know, big government conservatives are VERY similar to big government progressives...they just like their type of big government.


95 posted on 04/19/2012 5:46:35 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Mama Texan 1

X (big government serf) 0

Give up Mama Texan and bask in your victory, these are big-government conservatives who believe in unlimited submission to the national government. Sadly, when our view triumphs over the tyranny of this national government, they'll be the first one's claiming they were on the side of liberty all along...we just misunderstood them.

As I'm sure you know, big government conservatives are VERY similar to big government progressives...they just like their type of big government.

96 posted on 04/19/2012 5:47:04 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Sadly, when our view triumphs over the tyranny of this national government, they'll be the first one's claiming they were on the side of liberty all along...we just misunderstood them.

You're right, the house of cards WILL fall.

Those who think a 250 year old and Constitutionally acknowledged institution was worth shredding the Founding documents over are the same who whine and fuss about government suppression of our Inalienable Rights. Just today, Pelosi said the 1st Amendment needs to be 'modified'.

They will never, EVER see that the previous disregard for Constitutional Law and precepts is EXACTLY why the federal government feels free to act as it does.

Maybe if they would have let us leave, they would have had somewhere to run too when it all hits the fan.

------

A Constitutional tidbit - the 2nd source most quoted by the Founders was the Spirit of the Laws treatise by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. Here's my favorite:

In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.

Book VI

---

I've enjoyed myself immensely. Thanks again for starting the thread. It looks like it might even make it to 100 posts! :-)

97 posted on 04/19/2012 6:07:49 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 96 | View Replies]

To: x
Oh my gosh, now we're debating "concepts!" Ummm...once again, we're not a NATION, we're a UNION as in "to form a more perfect UNION" (not NATION). And there is a difference. And we're certainly NOT a country; geez, how little people know about the founding.

And why can't a State withdraw? Because "X" believes they can't? Or because in "x's" opinion, it negates a concept...so what. Why does that make it wrong or unconstitutional?

Finally, the UNION is NOT owned by the people of the 50 states (though you probably believe it is), nor is it owned by the national government. It is OWNED by the people of that particular State, privately and corporately by their consent through their STATE constitutional form of government. Again, that you believe all the "territory" is communal or owned by the national government betrays a very unhealthy devotion you have to socialism (cure music "We are the World). So "x," the PEOPLE of that State can do whatever they want to do with the land within the boarders of that State. Though I doubt you believe that. You'd seem to prefer begging your masters in DC for permission.

Geez, and we wonder why the Constitution is no longer authoritative, or we're 15 Trillion in debt, or the EPA can come in a take property. It only takes serf think by people like "x" to give the thugs in DC what they want. You've been played like a fiddle "x" by the little kings in DC.

98 posted on 04/19/2012 6:17:11 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: x

“You cannot reason someone out of something he has not been reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift


99 posted on 04/19/2012 8:00:59 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mek1959; x; MamaTexan; Sherman Logan; TJ1776; fortheDeclaration; Ditto; rockrr
mek1959: "Oh my gosh, now we're debating 'concepts!' "

With all due respect to MamaTexan, who makes an effort to be both factual in presentation and somewhat neutral in tone...

I see our Neo-Confederates (dare I say, "Neo-Cons"?) are out in force, in full-throated defense of their false history, their bogus narratives, their misdirections of arguments, unfounded accusations, baseless claims and fanciful conclusions -- all wrapped in the self-righteousness of "true conservatism" and "strict construction Constitutionalism."

It's stuff and nonsense.

Here are some basic facts about the Civil War -- or as I like to say, the Secessionists' Declared War Against the United States:

  1. Our Founders' Original Intent, expressed explicitly and implicitly, was that secession is constitutional, but only if it meets certain conditions such as mutual consent or necessity caused by "injury or oppression".
    Secession "at pleasure" is not constitutional.

  2. Secession not according to Founders' Original Intent cannot be considered constitutional, and if combined with unlawful actions (i.e., use of force, threats of violence, etc.) immediately falls into the constitution's categories of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence."
    For example: 1794 Whiskey Rebellion -- President Washington reviews troops to be lead by Virginia's Governor Light-Horse Harry Lee (REL's father) against the Whiskey Rebellion:

  3. In November 1860, no material conditions existed for a constitutional and lawful secession, and no effort was made by Deep-South secessionists to respect Founders' Original Intent.
    So they seceded "at pleasure".

  4. In November 1860, the Federal Government was still under firm control of Southerners and sympathetic "Dough-face" Northerners (i.e., President Buchanan).

    What changed then was only Deep-South slave-holders' perceptions of some possible future Federal threats against slavery, these perceptions resulting from the election of Lincoln's minority Republicans.

  5. Beginning the process in November 1860, Deep-South slave-holders' formal Declarations of Secession were followed (and often preceded) by many unlawful acts of insurrection, rebellion and war against the United States.
    These included seizures of many Federal properties, plus threats and acts of violence against Federal personnel.

  6. Outgoing "Dough-face" President Buchanan did not agree that Deep-South secessionists were constitutional, but he took no actions either to oppose secession, or to stop acts of rebellion against the United States.

  7. So secessionists' acts of rebellion increased, culminating in the April 1861 firing on and seizure of Federal Fort Sumter.

  8. When President Lincoln responded by calling for 75,000 troops to restore seized Federal properties and suppress the insurrection, the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

  9. Prior to that Declaration of War, no Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force.
    So the war they formally declared on May 6, 1861 was then still a fantasy of the Confederacy's own creation.

  10. After Fort Sumter, and the Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States, four states of the Upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- voted to join the Confederacy and the war.
So the bottom line is: where the Deep-South first unconstitutionally declared secession, and then declared war on the United States, the Upper-South voted simultaneously to secede and thus join the already declared war.

Finally, our "Neo-Cons" often compare their secessionists of 1860 to our Founders in 1776.
The comparison is laughable, the contrasts are stark.

100 posted on 04/19/2012 10:58:43 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-316 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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