Please consider becoming a new monthly donor.
When you do, a sponsor gladly kicks in a few extra bucks.
Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959
This Friday, April 13th is the birth day of Thomas Jefferson. In recognition of his birthday I thought we’d revisit the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. On the surface the meaning of the Declaration may be self-evident, but the true meaning of many of the sentences and phrases escapes most people.
The Declaration of Independence stated to the world that the thirteen colonies were separating from Great Britain. In other words the colonies were seceding from Britain. The first paragraph says “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foundersrevolution.net ...
Our founding fathers would be shooting by now.
Exactly
I don’t even think it has to come to “shooting,” I believe we can “amicably divorce” just as Dr. Walter Williams suggested in his 2000 article, “It’s time to part company” (google it).
Only people who support a “perpetual” Union will do the shooting, just as they did in 1860. No, the vast majority of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers (as well as Locke, Cicero, Plato, Augustine and Aristotle) understood the Inalienable Right to self determination and self governance. And We the People of our separate States need to recapture this thinking, not the serf-like thinking we have now towards the national government.
Look at how many people are putting all of their hope in the 9 politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare. If they were at all consistent in their jurisprudence, they MUST uphold Obamacare as supposedly “Constitutional.” They certainly haven’t seen much of anything else that isn’t under the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause or the General Welfare Clause. Yet, millions are putting all there hope in the decision. What a farce.
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers would clearly have a different opinion about what to do. Take a minute if you will and read the Principles of 98 to see what two of them said they intended to do with the Aliens and Sedition Act.
In 1860 the split was regional. 90%+ of (white) people in most of the southern states supported the war once it started.
Today there is no state in the Union that does not have at least a 1/3 minority on the “other side.”
There is absolutely no way to have a clean break or amicable divorce under such conditions. Massive ethnic and/or ideological cleansing would be required.
Which pretty much makes a mockery of this being done by “the people.” Nope, it would be one group of “the people” domineering over and oppressing another group of “the people.” Which, arguably, is what’s been going on anyway.
The only way to make this an action of “the people” is to redefine “the people” as those who support a particular political POV. Which of course makes all others “enemies of the people” even if they’re a majority in a particular area. Personally, I think the “enemies of the people” meme has a bad enough history I don’t care to revive it.
I believe as a people we believe in elections, and many are awaiting the results of 2012. If Obama wins, he will most certainly provoke a civil war and/or economic collapse. Romney wants to get elected and stay for a second term, so he won’t have the stomach to rein in entitlements that would cost him votes. Either way, we are in a fast train or a slow train off a cliff, and I can see the edge from this vantage point! When the ultimate collapse happens, not if, but when...we need to step in and grab state sovereignty back. This is essentially what happened with the former Soviet Union.
The problem is "amicably." There is no way the federal gubmint is going to let a state secede. The War of Northern Aggression established that any state wishing to leave the Union would have to do so through force.
Actually, I cannot think of a single example of any sub-region or colony wishing to “amicably divorce” EVER having been allowed to leave peacefully. Killing and misery have always been part of the deal, because those in power never ever ever want to give up any significant portion of that control.
The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses.
It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.
The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses.
It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.
The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses.
It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.
“Our founding fathers would be shooting by now.”
We who are their descendants should first be declaring, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”...it is time for those ‘inside the beltway’ to get that message loud and clear. WE ARE THE PEOPLE! It is time for us to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to them. It might not become a time for shooting.
Depends. Generally secession is associated with bitterness and anger -- taking back one's "rights" from the "oppressor."
Secession isn't usually attempted in a calm and peaceable spirit of respect for the country one's leaving. Consequently it's no surprise that secession attempts are met with anger and resentment from those who are cast in the role of the "oppressor" in some narcissistic drama.
When separatist movements take a more peaceful route and ask for consent from the rest of the country and don't regard their fellow countrymen as evil oppressors they may meet with more respect and consideration from the other side.
Moreover, Jefferson is stating that every man has certain unalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator. Meaning everyone has these unalienable rights. Undoubtedly, all men are created equal and possess the same natural rights under the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
That was the view Lincoln was upholding against the Confederate rejection of that truth.
If that’s what Jefferson meant about inalienable rights. You might want to check your history on this, Jefferson was elucidating the Lockean defense against the divine right of kings.
Second, people like you scare me with your Lincoln Machiavellian thought, the ends justify the means for you trample on the Rule of Law. Exactly where in the Constitution did Lincoln have the constitutional AUTHORITY to “preserve the Union” which is why he attacked the South after they seceded. Read his first Inaugural address before you come here and make assertions of which you seem to know nothing about. That he could make a silly argument about the supposed perpetuity of the Union does not mean that his argument is actually based in the Constitution..it wasn’t.
Third, your support of Lincoln suggests an attachment to arbitrary power, another thing that concerns me with your response. I’ll leave it there.
And you might want to check your history, Locke wasn’t just speaking about the divine right of kings, he was speaking of mankind in general, which he got from the Bible.
There was nothing arbitary about his power.
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.