Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $20,300
23%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 23% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Idabilly

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Author of the Civil War

    07/13/2012 1:39:09 PM PDT · 143 of 485
    Idabilly to Ohioan; arrogantsob; rustbucket
    arrogantsob:The Continental Congress preceded the states

    Ohioan:The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.

    Virginia ratification convention:

    Mr. John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

    For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,--as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states.

  • The Author of the Civil War

    07/13/2012 1:14:00 PM PDT · 142 of 485
    Idabilly to arrogantsob; Ohioan; Bigun
    The “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison, wrote to Alexander Hamilton describing the nature of the Union formed by that constitution as “once in the Union always in the Union”. There was NO “conditional ratification” which could be revoked.

    The State in question:

    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. ( New York ratification ordinance, July 26, 1788)

    Here is the Mr. Madison that you've tossed aside:

    Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833:

    It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.

    James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830:

    The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

    31st of May, 1787

    The use of force against 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

    8th of June, 1787

    Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress

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

    I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves. - Thomas Jefferson

  • The Author of the Civil War

    07/12/2012 6:53:11 AM PDT · 108 of 485
    Idabilly to PeaRidge; rockrr; central_va; x
  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/10/2012 8:33:46 AM PDT · 249 of 273
    Idabilly to rockrr
    Or have you already rebelled?

    How can I/my State have some sort of rebellion? Since all authority the federal government has is in trust. We are the sovereign authority - it is they that have rebelled against us.

    It goes like this: The United States vs The several States. The very government the States created for their mutual benefit has turned against them. It now has become a rouge government fully equipped with( it is a "tax" ) rubber stamping supreme court.

    Have you fired on any forts?

    Are you behind the fort walls?

    Didja build a gate on the Idaho state line to keep out the riffraff?

    Good idea! How is Seattle, btw ?

    C’mon idabooby - what’s your plan for the grand rebellion?

    Just go ahead and reelect that POS and see.

    "Where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. The States then, being parties to the constitutional compact and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

    Amen!!

  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/10/2012 7:33:23 AM PDT · 247 of 273
    Idabilly to rockrr
    there are those who think secession is OK in the rhetoric sense, I doubt that few would subject themselves and their families to that sort of foolish misery.

    And staying loyal to the Union would bring freedom and prosperity?

    You'd rather willingly except servitude than fight for your God given rights? I'd rather my family live free from governmental interference - knowing that freedom is never free. This Country was built around several premises – Individual Liberty, personal responsibility, etc. Just look how far have we come. Foolish misery you say.

    Without freedom we have nothing..

  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/09/2012 1:19:07 PM PDT · 242 of 273
    Idabilly to ForAmerica
    Appears that you're stuck behind enemy lines. I would gladly trade some of these transplants for your family. Prisoner exchange?
  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/09/2012 1:19:06 PM PDT · 241 of 273
    Idabilly to ForAmerica
    Appears that you're stuck behind enemy lines. I would gladly trade some of these transplants for your family. Prisoner exchange?
  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/09/2012 12:29:20 PM PDT · 233 of 273
    Idabilly to PT57A
    I was defending the South against CoadToad’s characterization of Southerner’s as immoral.

    Personal views on slavery and State secession can be viewed separately. None of my family owned slaves but they all fought for the South just the same. Do I defend slavery? Not at all. I merely defend the right of secession.

    Having said that - I would/can not condemn Americans that did own slaves during that period. If we go down that path then we're no better than the liberals that rename every school with cesar chavez. Are you one of those that believe that cesar chavez best George Washington? The latter being one of those slave owning southerners

    Seriously, are you calling Lazamataz a fag?

    I think he was playing with you. Perhaps he thinks you're cute? We can only ponder

  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/09/2012 11:34:10 AM PDT · 228 of 273
    Idabilly to PT57A
    And you have a guy named Lazamataz who wants to "hit" a guy named Ethyl and you're calling me the fag?

    So, you're in the closet and he is open about his gay tendencies?

    You're gaydar must be busted because either you're a closet homo or you're pointing it in the wrong direction.

    I find that many South hating bigots are either gay or commie... or both.

  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/09/2012 11:13:15 AM PDT · 224 of 273
    Idabilly to PT57A
    The irony in your use of “non sequitur” has obviously escaped you

    That was a posting name for someone that supported gay rights. Your posting style is indistinguishable, if I may say so myself. Your hatred of the South and your limp wrist gave it away...

  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/09/2012 8:41:52 AM PDT · 188 of 273
    Idabilly to PT57A
    So Southerners are corrupt, thanks for clarifying the matter.

    Sure you don't have one of those same sex marriages to tend to?

  • Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War

    07/08/2012 1:57:56 PM PDT · 177 of 273
    Idabilly to raulgomez05
    Was Abraham Lincoln one of these racists?

    From Abraham ( the colonizer ) Lincoln:

    “Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while we suffer from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.”

  • Oklahoma State Rep to File Bill to Nullify Individual Mandate

    07/08/2012 6:30:52 AM PDT · 28 of 35
    Idabilly to hsrazorback1
    Anyone else here foresee secession as a real possibility when the showdown of states’ rights vs. fed jurisdiction takes place in the next 10 years?

    Just as soon as people understand that segments of the Country will never change. Without Freedom -- everything else is simply blind allegiance to something that no longer exist.

    I'm afraid that Americans have grown tolerant of tyranny. This thing that is masquerading as President should provide enough proof. Unless we separate soon the fungus of socialism will have firmly embedded itself into every neighborhood, city, and State. Sadly, the only free about this Country these days is the ability to move about from place to place. This fungus moves around for lower taxes, better schools, less crime, etc - and within a few years they vote in what they ran from. I see it every single day.

  • Oklahoma State Rep to File Bill to Nullify Individual Mandate

    07/07/2012 8:02:08 AM PDT · 2 of 35
    Idabilly to ForGod'sSake; central_va

    Ping

  • Oklahoma State Rep to File Bill to Nullify Individual Mandate

    07/07/2012 7:59:41 AM PDT · 1 of 35
    Idabilly
  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/29/2012 8:42:02 AM PDT · 51 of 64
    Idabilly to Dead Corpse
    War. We can’t muster enough candidates with principles to prevent this kind of crap. Do you REALLY think we can muster enough people to vote to secede?

    I think we can in several States. War? That depends on them.

    Socialist idealism has been flooding into the open hatches -- our ship is grossly leaning to the starboard side. This ship has lost buoyancy and is taking on water. It is sinking. Do we man the lifeboats and save ourselves? Do we go down with the ship?

  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/29/2012 7:03:32 AM PDT · 49 of 64
    Idabilly to Happy Rain
    Secession was made illegal by Abraham Lincoln

    Just like Obama is making private wealth illegal ? Not only am I stuck here without Constitutional governance - I cannot enjoy the fruits of my own labor. Talk about slavery.

    As I think I've mentioned before, I am not interested in begging for my rights. You can wish for total despotism to your heart's content. I will not except it. You can tell me all about Saint Lincoln and his flying carpet - I will ignore you.

    "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/28/2012 9:56:19 PM PDT · 30 of 64
    Idabilly to Salamander
    Liberal Idiot Mascot Pictures, Images and Photos

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

    Photobucket

  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/28/2012 9:21:09 PM PDT · 20 of 64
    Idabilly to Melas
    If might state were to attempt secession, I would work against it in every possible way.

    You forget, sir, that you are a "Obamanos" and Idaho is a Conservative State. If you bless my State with one of your Union-restoring excursions you're going to find one big boot up your ass....

  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/28/2012 8:54:42 PM PDT · 15 of 64
    Idabilly to Vince Ferrer
    because I am the one obeying and want my leaders to obey the constitution. They are the secessionists

    The Constitution has been on life support shortly after it was enacted. Today it was pronounced dead. Our founders would have seceded long ago. They fought one hell of a war for less.

    "We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation." Thomas Jefferson

    "When a government is founded upon the voluntary consent, and agreement of a people uniting themselves together for their common benefit, the people, or nation, collectively taken, is free, although the administration of the government should happen to be oppressive, and to a certain degree, even tyrannical; since it is in the power of the people to alter, or abolish it, whenever they shall think proper; and to institute such new government as may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But if the government be founded in fear, constraint, or force, although the administration should happen to be mild, the people, being deprived of the sovereignty, are reduced to a state of civil slavery. Should the administration, in this case, become tyrannical, they are without redress. Submission, punishment, or a successful revolt, are the only alternatives. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1b.htm

  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/28/2012 8:20:27 PM PDT · 3 of 64
    Idabilly to cowboyway; central_va; dcwusmc; MagnoliaB; Cvengr; southernsunshine; Salamander; PeaRidge; ...
    What is left but secession?
  • "Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers" - Abel P. Upshur

    06/28/2012 8:13:19 PM PDT · 1 of 64
    Idabilly
  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/08/2012 7:39:53 AM PST · 97 of 106
    Idabilly to donmeaker
    I am so saddened by the war forced on the US by the slavers.

    What do your children say about only having one set of Grandparents?

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/08/2012 7:24:26 AM PST · 96 of 106
    Idabilly to donmeaker; Happy Rain
    Your false G-d lost.

    Your sense of family values is lost.

    I've never met any Conservative that proclaimed himself to be roman pagan. If worshiping broomsticks and cooking mouse tails in your cauldron isn't libtarded enough -- you other chosen hobby of marrying first cousins definitely takes the cake.

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/07/2012 8:35:01 AM PST · 85 of 106
    Idabilly to GunRunner; central_va
    Pathetic neo-Confederate tripe.

    Neo-yanks repent everybody’s sins except their own.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK1EOle6OQw&feature=related

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/07/2012 7:56:38 AM PST · 84 of 106
    Idabilly to GunRunner
    Or is it your contention that the Confederates would have abolished slavery after they won the war? Nice try.

    Fact:

    Your chosen side only disliked slavery because of their deep seated hatred for any category other than "lily white.""

    "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over." Lincoln

    "are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white." Lincoln

    “I plead the cause of free white men,” “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.” David Wilmot of Pennsylvania

    "See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” Abe Lincoln

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/06/2012 1:17:05 PM PST · 56 of 106
    Idabilly to GunRunner
    The end result however, is that Lincoln's actions led to the liberation of blacks

    The end result was the enslavement of all Americans.

    Slavery was enshrined as an untouchable principle in the Confederate Constitution. No idiot neo-Confederate can change those facts.

    "No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." --Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861

    "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Abe Lincoln

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/06/2012 11:02:54 AM PST · 38 of 106
    Idabilly to GilesB
    OK - but the environment that bred the Civil War was the disagreement about slavery.

    The war to preserve federal revenue was almost waged several years earlier. When two sides don't like each other all that's left is the excuse (..tariffs, slavery, evil southrons, siding with the enemy in 1812, nasal voiced, sucky food, socialism, 48ers, etc )

    Your answer simply states your opinion about Lincoln and his motivation for issuing the emancipation proclamation, but says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of his action

    In the Conkling letter before mentioned, I said: “Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free Negroes.” I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, or for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and reunion, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me (…). The Living Lincoln. p.613-615

  • Libertarianism and the Civil War

    03/06/2012 8:46:17 AM PST · 5 of 106
    Idabilly to Wyoming Cowboy
    *~*Keep Em Flyin*~* Pictures, Images and Photos

  • The Original Secessionists

    03/05/2012 8:57:36 AM PST · 297 of 303
    Idabilly to KrisKrinkle; MamaTexan; rustbucket
    They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government". They say that the people (in one case referring to the people of the United States and in another referring to the people of the several states) may resume or reassume the "powers". They're not saying the States can leave the Union. They're saying the people can replace the Federal (or for that matter the State) government.

    When the States ratified the Constitution they never intended it to be any sort of national government. It was an agreement between individual sovereign's - united by compact. Most of the great legal minds ( before that ambulance chaser from Illinois changed the nature of government from "consent of the governed" into "consent or be shot" ) agree that the State government is/was government proper.

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

    The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent 52, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.

    http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d03000.htm

    ----------

    Chief Justice Ellsworth:

    "I want domestic happiness as well as general security. A General Government will never grant me this, as it cannot know my wants, nor relieve my distress. My State is only as one out of thirteen. Can they, the General Government, gratify my wishes? My happiness depends as much on the existence of my State Government as a new-born infant depends upon its mother for nourishment."

    Fisher Ames:

    "A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

    Judge Iredell:

    "If Congress, previous to the Articles of Confederation, possessed any authority, it was an authority, as I have shown, derived from the people of each province, in the first instance." "The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the States." "I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority, which originally resided either in Congress or in any branch of the State governments, was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province, in the first instance, and afterwards became citizens of each State; that this authority was conveyed by each body separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces or States jointly."

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

    Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a series of Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distinguished citizen of Virginia, under the signature of "Locke," in February, 1833:

    You all say, that it is absurd to pretend that a State can be in the Union and out of the Union at the same time; and that it is monstrous in a State to contend for all the advantages of the Union, as to certain laws, while she refuses to submit to the burthens imposed by other laws. Nothing in nature can be more perfectly self-evident than all this. It is not surprising that a man of General Jackson's measure of intellect and information should be deceived by such a superficial view of the subject: but we had a right to expect better things from a veteran in politics, like yourself. Remember, sir, that a law beyond the Constitution is no law at all, and there is no right any where to enforce it. A State which refuses to submit to such a pretended law, is strictly within the Union — because she is in strict obedience to the Constitution; and it is strange to say that she "refuses to submit to the burthens" imposed by any law which is not law at all. Here, then, you have a picture of Nullification. It secures to the State the right to remain in the Union, and to enjoy all the advantages which the Constitution and laws can afford — submitting, at the same time, to all which that Constitution and laws rightfully enjoin; while it "arrests the progress" of usurped power, by destroying the obligation of every pretended law which the Constitution does not authorise, and which, therefore, is not law. If this is not the meaning of the resolutions of 1798, I have much misunderstood them. It is precisely upon this point that the public mind of Virginia has been most strangely misled by the authority of the President's name, and the speciousness of your paragraphs. — You owe the people a heavy debt of reparation, which I hope you will live to pay.

    This leads us to the second object of the resolutions of 1798, which is "to maintain within the limits of the respective States, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them." I have already shown, in my second letter, that these authorities, rights, and liberties are not merely those which belong to every sovereign State, and which may be enjoyed as well in a state of separation as in league with others, but also all the authorities, rights, and liberties which the States are entitled to, under the Constitution, and as members of the Union. No State, therefore, can possibly effect this object of the resolutions of 1798, by any proceeding which either withdraws her from the Union, or weakens her just influence in it.

    South Carolina says that an unconstitutional law is void, and so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina says that each State has a right to decide for itself whether a law is constitutional or not, and so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina, in the exercise of this right, has declared that the Tariff Laws are unconstitutional and so say the Virginia Resolutions of 1828 and 1829 (I have forgotten the date) and so, Mr. Ritchie, say you. How, then, can you countenance the President, in subjecting the citizens of South Carolina to the sword, for not submitting to what you yourself believe to be a sheer usurpation on the part of the Federal Government? Do, sir, in pity to our oppressed spirits, answer this question. You will not answer it, sir — because you cannot answer it without convicting yourself of inconsistency. This I will prove — for I do not mean to allow you any refuge from this dilemma. South Carolina is either right in her proceedings, (principles and all,) or else she is wrong. If she is right, then, there can be no pretence whatever for making war upon her: if she is wrong, how does that fact appear? It is admitted that the other States, co-parties with her to the Constitution have not said so. — Congress alone, and the President, or rather the Federal Government, has said it. Do you, sir, acknowledge any such right in the Federal Government? Is it not perfectly clear, that if such right exists the Federal Government is an appellate tribunal, with power to decide, in the last resort, upon the constitutionality of its own acts? Of what avail is the right of a State to pronounce that an unconstitutional act of Congress is really so, if Congress may overrule that decision? Is not this, sir, the very essence of that consolidation against which the Virginia Resolutions, Madison's Report, and your own valuable labours, have so long contended? It is impossible, then, for you to justify Congress and the President, except by asserting, either that Congress may overrule the decision of South Carolina, upon a question touching their own powers, and, by the same rule, may overrule the decision of every other State, and thus become the sole judges of the extent of their own powers; or by asserting that they may constitutionally enforce an unconstitutional law. Can you, sir, escape this difficulty, without abandoning every principle for which you have professed to contend for thirty years? I am exceedingly anxious to know in what manner you will do it. For myself, I can discover but one possible loop-hole of retreat, and even that I will endeavour to close upon you. — I reserve this, however, for a succeeding letter.

  • The Original Secessionists

    03/02/2012 5:51:28 PM PST · 287 of 303
    Idabilly to donmeaker
    The people of the states retained their ‘right of revolution’ but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.

    Sovereigns don't retain the 'right of revolution' - since that is their basic natural right - they retain their sovereign right to 'alter or revoke its commission'..without asking 'Mother May I?' ...

    John Taylor of Caroline:

    Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation.

    And so it proved.

    Augh...And any government that may exercise to do whatever it professes to be necessary and proper to promote whatever it professes to be the general welfare is, by definition, a government of unlimited powers.

    "Nullification and Secession are both rights; and the difference between them is simply this: Nullification proposes to preserve the Constitution, by annulling every act of the Federal Government, which the Constitution does not authorize; it proposes to preserve the Union, by annulling those usurpations in some mode which shall not withdraw the State from the Union, nor embarrass the regular action of the Government within the Constitution. Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers, when all other means of redress have failed. Nullification, therefore, is the primary right and the primary duty of the State; Secession is the ultimate right, when Nullification has failed.----Abel P. Upshur

    Sic semper tyrannis!!

  • The Original Secessionists

    03/02/2012 4:52:26 PM PST · 286 of 303
    Idabilly to donmeaker
    No doubt that our government depends on the consent of the governed, but that consent is expressed through elections of various officials, such as the president, and the powers of those officials are limited, even if the people would consent to giving them more power, such powers would have to be granted by amendment, legislation, or by court case.

    I think you're missing the point. The federal government has no sovereignty of it's own - all the sovereign authority resides in the people and their respective States.

    Federalist #81

    It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union

  • The Original Secessionists

    03/02/2012 4:04:28 PM PST · 281 of 303
    Idabilly to donmeaker
    All states since Vermont were created by the Federal Government. The states did not leave the Confederation, rather the UNION transformed from the form of the Confederation to the form of our current Constitution. States petitioned the US Government from Vermont on for permission to join the Union.

    You're truly confused.

    The PEOPLE created the States. Furthermore, every State that was born after the Constitution was adopted has the same rights and privileges as the original thirteen Nation States.

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

    These speculative notions may be regarded as having received the most solemn sanction in the United States of America; the supreme national council of which hath, on the most important occasion, which hath ever occured since the first settlement of these states by the present race of men, declared, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations upon such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most "likely to effect their safety and happiness."[9] Such is the language of that congress which dissolved the union between Great Britain and America. Few are the governments of the world, antient or modern, whose foundations have been laid upon these principles. Fraud, usurpation, and conquest have been, generally, substituted in their stead.

    When a government is founded upon the voluntary consent, and agreement of a people uniting themselves together for their common benefit, the people, or nation, collectively taken, is free, although the administration of the government should happen to be oppressive, and to a certain degree, even tyrannical; since it is in the power of the people to alter, or abolish it, whenever they shall think proper; and to institute such new government as may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But if the government be founded in fear, constraint, or force, although the administration should happen to be mild, the people, being deprived of the sovereignty, are reduced to a state of civil slavery. Should the administration, in this case, become tyrannical, they are without redress. Submission, punishment, or a successful revolt, are the only alternatives.

    http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1b.htm

  • The Original Secessionists

    03/02/2012 3:13:25 PM PST · 280 of 303
    Idabilly to KrisKrinkle; MamaTexan
    They don't say that "they (the STATES) reserved the right to “resume” the powers of government".

    The people and their States never relinquished the natural right of self government. If someone delegates authority that doesn't equal any ambandament of their personal sovereignty. To say it another way -- just because your employer let you use the company condo on the beach - that doesn't promote you into condo ownership.

    Perhaps Federalist 43 can shed some light:

    On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.

    A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.

    ----

    Gotta love that Thomas Jefferson!:

    "I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves."

    This letter by Thomas Jefferson would be viewed by many small r's on this forum as treason. Just goes to show ya how successful brainwashing can be:

    Dear Sir,—I wrote you a letter yesterday, of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will contain matters not intended for the public eye. I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic

    Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.

  • The 21st Century Plantation

    01/26/2012 11:15:19 AM PST · 7 of 7
    Idabilly to bthockey; wardaddy; dixiechick2000
    Albert Taylor Bledsoe:

    This was, in deed as well as in word, to "establish and ordain liberty." Hence the most violent contest, of the Convention of 1787 ceased to agitate the bosom of the new Union. This admirable arrangement was proposed by Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and recommended on the ground that, in a Republic, it is always necessary to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The same principles and policy governed the Conven tion in its attempt to adjust and settle the great antagonism between the North and the South. -r. Madison was so deeply impressed with the importance of arming each of these sections with a defensive power against the other, that he proposed "the numbers of free white inhabitants" as the basis of representation in one House of Congress, and the whole population, including blacks as well as whites, as the basis of representation in the other. This distribution of power would have given the North a majority in one branch of the Legislature, and the South a majority in the other. But the proposition failed. Mr. Madison did not urge it, indeed, because, as he said, it presented a cause of quarrel which was but too apt to arise of itself.

    After the States were made equal in the Senate, each having two representatives in that body, the North had the entire control of it. As there were eight Northern States, (Delaware was then considered a Northern State), and only five Southern States; so the North had a majority in the Senate of 16 to 10. Hence, if the South was to have any defensive power at all, it should have had a majority of representatives in the other branch of Congress. Accordingly, Southern members insisted on the full representation of the whole population of the South, as well as of the North, in order that their section might have a majority in one branch of the common Legislature. The North, on the contrary, insisted that the slaves should be entirely excluded from the basis of representation; which would have given that section a decided majority in both branches of Congress. Thus, while the South contended for a power of self-defence or protection; the North aimed at no less than absolute control and dominion. The South would not submit. The North and the South were then, as they afterward appeared to De Tocqueville, "more like hostile nations, than rival parties, under one government." The fierce contest for power between them resulted in the compromise of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution. In proposing this clause, Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, said it could not be justified on principle, whether property or population were regarded as the basis of representation, but that it was deemed "necessary as a compromise" between the North and the South. As such it was seconded by Mr. C. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, and as such it was adopted by the Convention. This clause was, then, a compromise, not between abstract metaphysical principles of government, but between the opposite and conflicting claims of the two rival sections. Did the North, then, "truckle to the slave power"?

    It is certain, that she grasped at and gained a majority in both branches of the common Legislature. For, in spite of the clause in question, the North had a majority of 36 to 29 in the House of Representatives, as well as of 16 to 10 in the Senate; a share which certainly ought to have satisfied any ordinary lion. But it is the fate of a democracy to be governed more by words than by ideas, more by "telling cries" than by truth. The cry has always been that the slaves, who had no wills of their own, were represented in Congress; and that this "singular provision," this "strange anomaly," had resulted from a base "truckling to the slave power." But for this provision, says Professor Cairnes,* there seemed to be nothing in the Constitution, "which was not calculated to give to numbers, wealth, and intelligence, their due share in the government of the country." Did the general clause, then, which places idiots, paupers, free negroes, and infants of all ages, in the basis of representation, provide for nothing but a representation of "the intelligence and wealth of the country?" The truth is, that none of these clauses were represented in Congress; they were merely considered in the difficult question of the distribution of power among the States *The Slave Power, and the Sections. The only persons really represented were the voters, who had the legal right to choose their own representatives.' It was in this way, and in this way alone, that the Convention sought to secure a representation of the "wealth and intelligence" of the country. But who cared for the truth? The telling cry, that slaves were represented in Congress, inflamed the passions of the North, and served the purpose of demagogues infinitely better than a thousand truths. Hence the world has been filled with clamors about "the slave representation of the South."

    Hence the world has been filled with clamors about "the slave representation of the South." The deceivers are, however, careful to conceal the fact, that all classes of "persons," except the slaves, are reckoned at their full value in constituting the basis of representation. The women and children of the North alone, many of whom were born in foreign countries and had never been naturalized in America, have been the source of far greater political power, than that which has resulted from the whole population of the South. Is it not much nearer to the truth, then. to say that the South has been governed by the women and children of the North, than that "the North has been governed by the slaves of the South"? Immense, indeed, has been the advantage of the clause in question to the South! Only let Mr. Ludlow, or one of his school, estimate this advantage, and it is sufficient to astonish the world! It gives to "every poor white" at the South, "however ignorant and miserable," "ten times the political power of the Northerner, be he never so steady, never so wealthy, never so able."* How wonderful the disparity! And, considering that "all men are created equal," how infinitely more wonderful, that the wealthy and the able Northerner should have so long and so patiently submitted to such an amazing inequality! What! The rich Northerner, the merchant prince, or the great lord of the loom, only the one-tenth part of the *History, political power of the "poor white" at the South! Is it possible? Mr. Ludlow proves the whole thing by figures; and "figures," it is said, "cannot lie."

    Let us see, then, this wonderful proof of the wonderful fact. "Suppose," says Mr. Ludlow, "300,000 be the figures of population required to return a representative, then, whilst 300,000 freemen of the North are required for the purpose, 30,000 Southerners, owning collectively 450,000 slaves, or 15 on an average (many plantations employing hundreds) are their equals politically, and every poor white," however ignorant and miserable, has his vanity gratified by standing at the ballot-box the equal of his richest slave-holding neighbor, whilst each of them is equally invested with ten times the political power of the Northerner, be he never so steady, never so wealthy, and never so able." But he must, indeed, have been a most "ignorant and miserable" white, if he could have had his vanity grati fied, or his-judgment swayed, by any such logical pro cess or conclusion. This specimen of logic, or rather of legerdemain, only assumes that none but "the 30,(00 Southerners," with their "450,000 slaves, or fifteen on an average," are included in the basis of representation. But since, in fact, all persons are included in that basis, Mr. Ludlow should have taken some little pains to explain to his poor ignorant readers how it is possible for eight mil lions of whites to own only four millions of blacks; and yet for each white to own, "on an average," as many as "fifteen slaves." It would seem, without much calcula tion, that, in such a case, there could be only one slave to every two whites. If so, then if the slaves had been regarded as whole "persons;" the Southerner would have had only one and a half times the power of the North erner. But as, in fact, the slave was counted as little more than the half of a person; so the Southerner pos sessed only a little more than one and a quarter times as much political power as his Northern neighbor. There 2 -7 was, then, no reason why the vanity of the poor, ignor ant white of the South should have been so highly grati fied, nor why the pride of the rich nabob of the North should have been so deeply wounded. But this whole way of viewing the subject is, in reality, perfectly puerile. What has the political power of the indi vidual to do with such a question? There is the broad fact, acknowledged by all parties and all sections, that, at the time the Constitution was formed, the South was superior to the North both in wealth and population. Hience, if either wealth or population had been made the basis of representation, and fairly carried out in practice, the South would have had the majority in one branch of Congress. As it was, however, the North resolutely fought for and secured the majority in both branches thereof. Was not this, then, sufficient to gratify the pride of the North, as well to humble that of the South. Suppose that in a society of ten millions of people, eight millions are united by one interest, and the remaining two millions by another interest.

    Suppose, again, that in order to get the two millions to enter into such a society, each individual of them had been allowed two votes, or twice as much power as an individual of the eight millions. Would this render the two millions secure? Would this give the minority a "defensive power" against the majority? "Ignorant and miserable," inideed, must be the individual in such a minority, if his vanity could be gratified by the possession of twice as much power as an individual of the majority, while that majority had the power to rob him of both his purse and his good name. The only strange thing in the transaction is, why the South should have consented to enter into so unequal a union with the North. Why she should have entrusted her rights, her interests, her honor, her glory, and her whole destiny, to the care and keeping of a foreign and hostile majority. This seems the more wonderful; because, at 228 that time, every statesman in America regarded nothing as more certain than the tyranny of the majority. "Complaints are everywhere heard," said fr. lladison, in The Federalist, "from our most considerate and virtuous citizens........ that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." * It was the grand object of the ConveAion of 1787 to correct this tendency, this radical vice, if tot this incurable evil, of all democratic republics. The evils under which the country labors, it was said in that Convention, are, on all hands, "'traced to the turbulance and violence of democracy," to the injustice and tyranny of the majority. "To secure the public good, and private rights," said The Federalist, "against the danger of such a faction, (i. e. of such "an interested and overbearing majority,") and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of a popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add, that it is the great desideratum, by which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind." t Did the South, then, with her eyes open, willingly put her neck in the yoke of such a majority=? If, as every Southern statesman knew perfectly well,'iit is of great importance in a republic to guard one part of society against the injustice of another part;" did the South really fail to demand such a safeguard? Did she place herself under the rule of the North, without taking any security for her protection, without claiming any "constitutional power~f defence?" Nothing was further from her thoughts. If she had been seduced into the Union by the idea, by the immense advantage, that each of her citizens would have a little more power in one branch of Congress than those of the North; she would have been the weakest and most contemptible of creatures. The citizen of a small State, such as Delaware or Rhode Island, might have had ten, or twenty, or thirty times the power..in the other Houe of Congress, which a citizen of Pennsylvania or Virginia possessed; and yet this would not have satisfied him unless the small States could have controlled that branch of the ILegislature. This control ofthe Senate was demanded for the small States, as one of the indispensable conditions of Union, and this demand was conceded to them; in order that the minority might, in this instance, enjoy that freedom, and independence, which it had resolutely refused to hold at the mercy of the majority.

    By all the principles, then, of the Convention of 1787, by the great object for which that Convention assembled, by the very nature and design of all constitutional republics; they were bound to protect the minority against the majority. They were, especially, bound to protect the South against the North; the weaker and the richer sections against the stronger and the more rapacious. Accordingly, this was the grand object of the Convention.

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/19/2012 12:13:53 PM PST · 266 of 269
    Idabilly to donmeaker; BroJoeK; southernsunshine; mojitojoe; patriot preacher; ForGod'sSake; wardaddy
    I didn’t attack Christianity

    I called it pagan,

    Christianity is not Paganism.

    as I am a pagan

    Since you don't believe in any higher power than yourself -- What is your honest opinion about abortion, dishonestly, thievery, etc?

    seeing the commonalities.

    There are no commonalities. One believes in the Almighty and the other in chimpanzees.

    I regret that you are offended by common threads in our beliefs.

    witch Pictures, Images and Photos

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/18/2012 7:52:54 AM PST · 263 of 269
    Idabilly to donmeaker; mojitojoe
    I would point out that Muslims assert that Christian devotion to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is polytheistic. Some Protestants were offended at Catholic veneration of Mary and the Saints as approaching polytheistic practice. Iconography in Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic has long been a concern of the Iconoclasts, as resembling the pagan practice of worship of graven images.

    Take your witches broom and shove it where the sun don't shine.

    Some Christians don’t see Mormons as Christians. Some don’t see Catholics as Christians. Some (Ron Paul) have a big problem with Jews.

    Just as you have an issue with traditional family values.

    I don’t know why you desire to drag religion into this thread. Please tell us.

    It was you that attacked Christianity.

    How can we not question your behavior pictured above??

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/17/2012 12:17:16 PM PST · 258 of 269
    Idabilly to mojitojoe; donmeaker; cowboyway
    Definition of "pagan":

    heathen 1; especially: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures(e.g...marring and having children with ones own first cousin)and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person.

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/16/2012 10:40:27 AM PST · 255 of 269
    Idabilly to donmeaker; TheOldLady; BroJoeK; cowboyway
    donmeaker:Yes, I practice a pagan religion, as you do, for Christianity is a pagan religion. As opposed to a religion of a court sycophant. And that is a good thing.

    How can anyone that believes in this above truthfully call himself Conservative?

  • GBTV: Glenn analyzes Ron Paul's record (Soros ties exposed)

    01/04/2012 8:10:58 AM PST · 4 of 26
    Idabilly to LSUfan
  • Is Ron Paul Racist?

    01/03/2012 2:53:33 PM PST · 10 of 31
    Idabilly to presidio9; wardaddy

    Obammy has several books on the subject of racialism. Is only black racialism allowed?

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/03/2012 1:15:47 PM PST · 199 of 269
    Idabilly to CharacterCounts; ml/nj; cowboyway; BroJoeK
  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/03/2012 12:46:31 PM PST · 198 of 269
    Idabilly to BroJoeK; lentulusgracchus; Georgia Girl 2; central_va; rustbucket; nathanbedford; ...
  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/03/2012 11:57:48 AM PST · 197 of 269
    Idabilly to donmeaker; cowboyway; southernsunshine
  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/01/2012 1:55:32 PM PST · 183 of 269
    Idabilly to donmeaker
    I contrast your state court ruling

    So... you're for the return of fugitive slaves??

    Texas v. White, which ruled that secession, as practiced by the states in the rebellion, was illegal

    Was it not that same high court that ruled for the murder of unborn children? Against private property rights? Reversed itself more times than you've changed wives? Thought so...

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/01/2012 10:32:13 AM PST · 175 of 269
    Idabilly to BroJoeK
    Idabilly, you know you are nothing but a propagandist when you refuse to acknowledge the basic facts of the case:

    And you ignore the fact that the States are sovereign.

    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN: The Constitution of the United States is, in its more essential and fundamental character, a tri-partite instrument. The parties to it are: The States, The People, and The United States. The latter is, indeed, a resulting party, brought into existence by it, but when thus created, bound in all respects by its provisions. It is practically represented by its several departments, deriving their powers directly and severally through its respective grants. It is derivative, not original. Previous to the operative vitality of the Constitution, this third party to the instrument was non-existent, and of course powerless. The other two parties, the States and the People, were pre-existent, endowed with all the essential elements of sovereignty.

    One great and fundamental mistake has been made in respect to the second party to the federal Constitution, viz: the People. This party, here spoken of, cannot be considered as the people inhabiting the whole territory embraced within the boundaries of the original thirteen States, as operating in mass, as one undivided and indivisible community. Previous to the formation of the government of the United States, there was no such political existence; and of course, there being no such government, there could be no people of such government, or political division or organization. It is unnecessary, in this connexion, to refer to the confederation of the States, because that did not, in fact, constitute a government; nor will any one pretend that the people of the confederated States created the present federal government in their capacity of a primary and ultimate source of political power, operating to institute a new and original government; because, to have done this, they must have necessarily first dissolved the State governments under which they were then living and acting, and absolved themselves from allegiance thereto. They did no such thing. The "people" mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution, and often referred to in judicial discussions, must, it seems to me, necessarily mean the people of the United States; that is, the people of the several States united; so many uniting as were deemed a sufficient number to warrant the institution of the new government, and render safe the delegation of certain powers before possessed by the respective States. The State governments pre-existed. If a portion of the citizens of a State had assembled to divest the State of an attribute of its sovereignty, without the assent of the State, it would have been treason, or revolution. If the people of the whole territory of the thirteen States had combined to divest the respective States of any of their proper attributes of sovereignty, without the assent of the States, it would have been closely allied to treason or conquest. But it was neither the one nor the other. The people referred to, must be intended to mean the people of the respective States, operating legitimately through their properly constituted authorities, in conformity with their legally established modes of procedure. As the people of the respective States, did they adopt the Constitution. By the authority of the STATES were the people called upon to adopt or reject the Constitution. By the people of the respective STATES was it adopted and when ratified by nine STATES, Const. U. S. Art. 7, (not a majority of the people of the Union to be formed,) was it to become operative. The States, as such, were distinctly recognized through every stage of progress, from the inception to the consummation of the plan of Union; and through the State organizations only could the first step be taken, and through those organizations only can the people of the Union now impress their will upon the measures or action of the government. Indeed, the federal Constitution provides no mode by which, in any case, can the people of the Union affect the federal government, but through the State organizations, and by the instrumentalities furnished by the governments of the respective States.

    The States, therefore, as pre-existing sovereignties, are clearly parties to the federal compact, and, together with their respective people, were the creators of the third party to the compact, viz: The United States.

    Nor was the Constitution of the United States submitted to the whole people of the thirteen States for adoption, but to the people of each State, represented in convention called for that purpose, by the authority of each State. On the question of its adoption or rejection, the people of each State, whether many or few, had an equal voice. They spoke on that question for their State, and the small States had an equal voice with the large.

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/01/2012 8:52:51 AM PST · 172 of 269
    Idabilly to BroJoeK
    First unconstitutionally declared their secession, meaning they failed to meet the Founders' Original Intent that secession must be by mutual consent or, in effect, a material breech of contract, none of which existed in November 1860.

    It was never intended that the citizens in a majority of states could employ the federal government as an instrument of violence to force the citizens in a minority of states to keep their states in the Union against their will. BTW -The Unconstitutional invasion of Sovereign States was a breech of contract.

    “The use of force against 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.”

    Simultaneously they began to commit many acts of increasing rebellion or war against the United States, culminating in the attack on and seizure of Fort Sumter in April 1861.

    First of all, the federal seizure of Fort Sumter was done in violation of the status quo agreement between President Buchanan and South Carolina :

    You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and is held for the same purposes for which it has ever been held since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avowedly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is perhaps the highest insult which one government can offer to another? But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent fort, which was then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter into her own possession, only because of her misplaced confidence in a government which deceived her.

    So the historical fact is that Lincoln responded to the Confederate War of Aggression against the United States. Such necessary actions as he took to win the war cannot be blamed on Lincoln, but on those Deep-South slave-holders who chose to start the war.

    Dear BroJoeK,

    “That the people of the North shall consider themselves as more blessed than we, more civilized, and happier, is not a matter at which we would complain at all, if they would only content themselves with believing that to be the fact; but when they come and attempt to propagandize, and insist that we shall be as perfect as they imagine themselves to be, then it is that their good opinion of themselves becomes offensive to us.

    Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, “you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed,” then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door.

    If New England would only be content with the blessings which she imagines she has, we would not disturb her in her happiness.”---- Texas Senator Louis Wigfall:

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/01/2012 8:11:22 AM PST · 169 of 269
    Idabilly to ml/nj; BroJoeK
    If you do not think State sovereignty was an important part of what Jefferson, Madison, et al., had in mind then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

    Monticello, January 8, 1825.

    Dear Sir,—I returned the first volume of Hall by a mail of a week ago, and by this, shall return the second. We have kept them long, but every member of the family wished to read his book, in which case, you know, it had a long gantlet to run. It is impossible to read thoroughly such writings as those of Harper and Otis, who take a page to say what requires but a sentence, or rather, who give you whole pages of what is nothing to the purpose. A cursory race over the ground is as much as they can claim. It is easy for them, at this day, to endeavor to whitewash their party, when the greater part are dead of those who witnessed what passed, others old and become indifferent to the subject, and others indisposed to take the trouble of answering them. As to Otis, his attempt is to prove that the sun does not shine at mid-day; that that is not a fact which every one saw. He merits no notice. It is well known that Harper had little scruple about facts where detection was not obvious. By placing in false lights whatever admits it, and passing over in silence what does not, a plausible aspect may be presented of anything. He takes great pains to prove, for instance, that Hamilton was no monarchist, by exaggerating his own intimacy with him, and the impossibility, if he was so, that he should not, at some time, have betrayed it to him. This may pass with uninformed readers, but not with those who have had it from Hamilton's own mouth. I am one of those, and but one of many. At my own table, in presence of Mr. Adams, Knox, Randolph, and myself, in a dispute between Mr. Adams and himself, he avowed his preference of monarchy over every other government, and his opinion that the English was the most perfect model of government ever devised by the wit of man, Mr. Adams agreeing "if its corruptions were done away." While Hamilton insisted that "with these corruptions it was perfect, and without them it would be an impracticable government." Can any one read Mr. Adams' defence of the American Constitutions without seeing that he was a monarchist? And J. Q. Adams, the son, was more explicit than the father, in his answer to Paine's Rights of Man. So much for leaders. Their followers were divided. Some went the same lengths; others, and I believe the greater part, only wished a stronger Executive. When I arrived at New York in 1790, to take a part in the administration, being fresh from the French Revolution, while in its first and pure stage, and consequently somewhat whetted up in my own republican principles, I found a state of things, in the general society of the place, which I could not have supposed possible. Being a stranger there, I was feasted from table to table, at large set dinners, the parties generally from twenty to thirty. The revolution I had left, and that we had just gone through in the recent change of our own government, being the common topics of conversation, I was astonished to find the general prevalence of monarchical sentiments, insomuch that in maintaining those of republicanism, I had always the whole company on my hands, never scarcely finding among them a single co-advocate in that argument, unless some old member of Congress happened to be present. The furthest that any one would go, in support of the republican features of our new government, would be to say, "the present Constitution is well as a beginning, and may be allowed a fair trial; but it is, in fact, only a stepping-stone to something better." Among their writers, Denny, the editor of the Portfolio, who was a kind of oracle with them, and styled the Addison of America, openly avowed his preference of monarchy over all other forms of government, prided himself on the avowal, and maintained it by argument freely and without reserve, in his publications. I do not, myself, know that the Essex junto of Boston were monarchists, but I have always heard it so said, and never doubted.

    These, my dear Sir, are but detached items from a great mass of proofs then fully before the public. They are unknown to you, because you were absent in Europe, and they are now disavowed by the party. But, had it not been for the firm and determined stand then made by a counter-party, no man can say what our government would have been at this day. Monarchy, to be sure, is now defeated, and they wish it should be forgotten that it was ever advocated. They see that it is desperate, and treat its imputation to them as a calumny; and I verily believe that none of them have it now in direct aim. Yet the spirit is not done away.[ Must have known about Saint Lincoln] The same party takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation of the government; the giving to the federal member of the government, by unlimited constructions of the Constitution, a control over all the functions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately at Washington.

    The true history of that conflict of parties will never be in possession of the public, until, by the death of the actors in it, the hoards of their letters shall be broken up and given to the world. I should not fear to appeal to those of Harper himself, if he has kept copies of them, for abundant proof that he was himself a monarchist. I shall not live to see these unrevealed proofs, nor probably you; for time will be requisite. But time will, in the end, produce the truth. And, after all, it is but a truth which exists in every country, where not suppressed by the rod of despotism. Men, according to their constitutions, and the circumstances in which they are placed, differ honestly in opinion. Some are Whigs, Liberals, Democrats, call them what you please. Others are Tories, Serviles, Aristocrats, etc. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent. This is the division of sentiment now existing in the United States. It is the common division of Whig and Tory, or according to our denominations of republican and federal; and is the most salutary of all divisions, and ought, therefore, to be fostered, instead of being amalgamated. For, take away this, and some more dangerous principle of division will take its place. But there is really no amalgamation. The parties exist now as heretofore. The one, indeed, has thrown off its old name, and has not yet assumed a new one, although obviously consolidationists. And among those in the offices of every denomination I believe it to be a bare minority.

    I have gone into these facts to show how one-sided a view of this case Harper has presented. I do not recall these recollections with pleasure, but rather wish to forget them, nor did I ever permit them to affect social intercourse. And now, least of all, am disposed to do so. Peace and good will with all mankind is my sincere wish. I willingly leave to the present generation to conduct their affairs as they please. And in my general affection to the whole human family, and my particular devotion to my friends, be assured of the high and special estimation in which yourself is cordially held. -Thomas Jefferson

  • Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever – Video

    01/01/2012 6:54:16 AM PST · 163 of 269
    Idabilly to BroJoeK; ml/nj
    What Lincoln did as emergency measures during time of war ended when the war was over.

    What Lincoln did was forever change the relationship between the people and those who represent them. After Lincoln blew the ideals of federalism all to hell - the only so-called sovereign left in the room was the agent for the "mutual benefit" of the several States.

    Lincoln July 4, 1861:

    Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union . The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence . . . . Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas , ever was a sovereignty. . .

    James Madison:

    Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government. . . . Who are the parties to it? The people--not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.

    Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment: and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it.

    A Constitutional History of Secession, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2002, p. 287:

    It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution--to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence.

    Federalist #39:

    Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.