Posted on 04/14/2015 6:57:32 AM PDT by Paisan
That's not what the DOI says and certainly not what the Founders intended.
Okay! Now we're getting somewhere! Now all I have to do is get a majority of the voters on my block to agree and we'll declare ourselves to be the Republic of Bubba Ho-Tepia.
It is *THIS* country which embraced those principles. Therefore, the only country which can rebel against those principles, is this country.
Excellent! So all I have to do is invoke the magic words "Self-Evident Natural Law" and the United States has to either accept that I and my neighbors are now a different country or be in rebellion against themselves! It's brilliant!
Oh, and this isn't a straw man. This is a reductio ad absurdum.
Well how about you tell me what they said? Their exact words would be good.
Well given your way of thinking, I would think you could just get all the voices in your head.
Excellent! So all I have to do is invoke the magic words "Self-Evident Natural Law" and the United States has to either accept that I and my neighbors are now a different country or be in rebellion against themselves! It's brilliant!
Your reply simply tells me you have no intention of discussing this topic like an actual adult. The foundation for those "Natural law" ideas were laid out by numerous writers of natural law, such as Locke, Wolfe, Burlamaqui, Puffendorf, Vattel, Rutherford and Grotius.
I suspect you just don't have the mental acuity necessary to follow their process of reasoning, but thankfully the founders did. If you think you otherwise, you can start here with "Lex Rex".
Here is the salient portion. I'm taking the liberty of bolding a line or two:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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 alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It's an inspirational document and well worth revisiting from time to time.
The two bolded sections complement one another and the whole paragraph is followed by a recitation of specific, enumerated claims providing evidence to their complaint of tyranny. I would also point you to the paragraph following the complaints where they mke note of their efforts at remediation:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
So the DOI does not acknowledge any right to unilaterally break the bond of the republic for frivolous reasons - such as a government "not to their liking". It does strongly advise against abandoning all the hard work that was done to create our republic for "light and transient causes".
Then what's wrong with my notion, since it complies to the criteria you've laid out of defined area and majority of voters?
Your reply simply tells me you have no intention of discussing this topic like an actual adult. The foundation for those "Natural law" ideas were laid out by numerous writers of natural law, such as Locke, Wolfe, Burlamaqui, Puffendorf, Vattel, Rutherford and Grotius.
Your ability to spout names still doesn't tell me why some rebellions can be put down and some can't, and what the criteria for doing so are. After all, the Constitution makes mentions suspending habeas in case of rebellion and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection. Were they hypocrites from the start? Do insurrectionists and rebels need only control a defined area, win a majority of voters (and who decides who can vote?), and invoke "self-evident natural law" in order to make it illegal and immoral to suppress them?
That you refuse to actually address these questions, preferring to simply spout "that's ridiculous" tells me that you really aren't prepared to answer them. That or you don't like where the answers take you.
According to Diogenes, it's okay to do it if someone hurts your feelings by saying that slavery might be a bad thing.
Before I sent you the last message, I told myself "He's gonna come back with "light and transient causes...". "It is the only arguing point he has in the document."
So you think the Southern states concerns were "light and transient"? Would you care to elaborate?
If you think suggesting a few blocks or the voices in your head constitute a reasonable effort to address the question, you are fooling only yourself. What point do you hope to score by precisely defining the threshold criteria? Suffice it to say, the group that consisted of the Confederate states easily qualifies. It had more than three times the population of the Original Thirteen Colonies.
What do you possibly hope to gain by pouncing on this trivial point? It seems like you are just intent on wasting both of our times.
Your ability to spout names still doesn't tell me why some rebellions can be put down and some can't, and what the criteria for doing so are.
This is more of your effort to keep the argument in the weeds. If I thought you really wanted an answer, i'd endeavor to define the criteria for you, but you and I both know you don't want an answer. You want your side to be right, and in an effort to make it right, you want to argue about "criteria."
Again, if three times the population of the Original Colonies isn't enough, then no reasonable criteria will satisfy you as to the difference.
After all, the Constitution makes mentions suspending habeas in case of rebellion and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection. Were they hypocrites from the start? Do insurrectionists and rebels need only control a defined area, win a majority of voters (and who decides who can vote?), and invoke "self-evident natural law" in order to make it illegal and immoral to suppress them?
Whatever the Founders meant by "Insurrection" and "Rebellion", It is pretty self evident that they didn't see it as applying to what they did. As what the Southern states did is EXACTLY ALIKE what they did, I must therefore conclude that whatever it is they meant by "Insurrection" and "Rebellion" must refer to something less. My guess is regions or cities defying State or Federal authority, and without popular support from the majority of the affected populace.
As a matter of fact, I think the difference between a natural right to independence and a Rebellion or Insurrection is that one is a consequence of the majority of folk being in favor of a divorce, and the other is a consequence of minority factions attempting to force their way into power against the popular will.
But this is another "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about Pornography. "Pornography is hard to define, but I know it when I see it."
Is this supposed to be another one of your "reductio ad absurdums" that looks suspiciously like just another strawman misstatement of my position?
Yes, Slavery was/is a bad thing. It should never have been allowed to take root here in the first place. It is a product of the Muslim Religion, and inconsistent with the Christian one, but some people are too willing to tolerate slavery if it makes a buck for them. (Washington D.C. is currently full of them.)
That being said, your point deliberately ignores the reality of the situation in 1861. Slavery was both legal and represented a very significant portion of the the South's financial assets and Gross Domestic product.
How about you tell me how much that "peculiar institution" was worth to them? Then you can tell me if that cost would represent a "light and transient" cause.
In short, I hope to demonstrate that your notion of a natural right to self-determination upon invocation of self-evident natural law turns out to be conditional and not absolute. And a conditional natural law is no natural law at all.
Again, if three times the population of the Original Colonies isn't enough, then no reasonable criteria will satisfy you as to the difference.
What about one half the population of the original colonies? One-tenth? At what point does that self-evident natural right not apply? I suspect that you refuse to answer because you understand that putting a numerical threshold on a natural right is hypocritical.
As what the Southern states did is EXACTLY ALIKE what they did, I must therefore conclude that whatever it is they meant by "Insurrection" and "Rebellion" must refer to something less.
I'll agree that the confederacy and the colonists did the same thing, and that was to fight a war of rebellion on American soil.
You're big on abstract concepts of natural law, but the bloody fact is that independence isn't won with lofty notions, by invocation of abstract concepts. It is won either by permission of the ruling power or by force. The colonies won their independence by force. The confederacy tried the same thing and lost. And that Natural Right of Rebellion is the real natural right invoked by the colonists and the confederates. And because rebellions are bloody, dangerous affairs with no certainty as to the outcome, the Founders put their warning in the Declaration that it's not something one does except in the face of real intolerable oppression. And that doesn't mean because your side lost an election.
As a matter of fact, I think the difference between a natural right to independence and a Rebellion or Insurrection is that one is a consequence of the majority of folk being in favor of a divorce
Interesting. First, because it's an accepted truth that in the American Revolution (not the American Secession, I'll point out), one third of the people were pro-independence, one third were pro-British, and one-third were neutral. Second, because I'm interested in hearing about how a majority of folk in the south were pro-secession when one third of the folk were slaves.
..., and the other is a consequence of minority factions attempting to force their way into power against the popular will.
But a minority in a larger area can be a majority in a smaller area. Who defines the area? Who defines who is counted in the majority?
Okay, and what threat did Lincoln's election pose to slavery, given that he repeatedly stated that he had no intention of interfering with it except to prevent its extension into the territories and his belief that complete abolition would require a constitutional amendment, something very unlikely to happen in the face of southern opposition?
Why climb a tree in order to manufacture a case when I can stand on the ground and tell the truth? There is no greater proof of the intent of the Founders than their own words.
So you think the Southern states concerns were "light and transient"? Would you care to elaborate?
Since it is obvious that you feeel that anyone can do anything they like if it makes them feeeeeeeel better about themselves I doubt that anything I would post will make any difference. Yes, the southern states had no legitimate bitch. They wanted what they wanted, even if they didn't know what they wanted, and they didn't want what the north wanted even though they didn't know what the north wanted.
ping
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.