Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become 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…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right 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.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
Might of been when the *hostilities* started but, well after when the line had been drawn.
Yesterday’s HC vote drew another.
The sovereign states or tyranny?
With all due respect, racial equality wasn't common place up North neither. Did the slaves up North 'miraculously' transform into Englishmen? No. Many times after they worked themselves into a walker - they sold them Southward.
David Wilmot “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.”
Lysander Spooner called it, like it was:
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people -- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) -- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats -- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one -- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
And what if the one? It is better to let the one leave in error than that the 49 force them unwilling.
You do not grasp clearly the problem. There can be no fair judge because all are parties. This is not a legislative action so much as a judicial.
In short, you prefer a strong empire to a free people: the same as Lincoln and the same as Hamilton. You see this is a debate that goes back to the founding, and we can either take one side or the other. You and I disagree. I hope you understand my position; yours is now clearer to me. I don't think we'll come to an agreement. This is a fundamental difference on the scope and nature of political government. I don't think there is any compromise.
Thanks for the debate. And I apologize for any rash words. May the Republic of Texas rise again!
I give a damn about SCOTUS. It goes way beyond SCOTUS. They've been playing stupid silly games with SCOTUS for almost an hundred years. This is about power and control, not about money except as a means to control. SOB's!
It's not that Washington has been running amuck for 100 years. It's that now they are putting down the clamps and are not going to be stoppable (if they had been).
“In short, you prefer a strong empire to a free people: the same as Lincoln and the same as Hamilton.”
And Obama...whom Lincoln paved the way for. It’s the one truth the Southernphobes cannot escape. I wish they would at least be consistent and support Obama with the same zeal they support his philosophical brother...Abraham Lincoln.
Let's place Lincoln - and his war behind us. We are facing very difficult times ourselves!
Mr. Madison:
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. 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. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
It is the sovereign people of each state who are so.
You forget the 10th amendment and that the Constitution limits the scope of the federal government. It's scope by law is small. In all other matters of self-government, the people of each state grant their state power. They have autonomy, and the people of each state are sovereign, whence the state's sovereignty. The Feds have breached the law and expanded its power long ago. The right exercised by the free peoples of the Southern states had standing. We may disagree with whether they were right to exercise such, but not that they had it.
Here's the real problem: all attempts to curb the expansion of the Federal government have been in vain. It continues to expand. This is why secession, as a matter of final resort, is at least worthy to consider.
Yes I do. Nobody has any say except the seceding state. No other state has any voice in the matter, no other state has any rights, and no other state has any Constitutional protections. The only party with any of those is the party who is leaving. And that gives them the right to do any damage they want to the remaining states. And somehow you conclude that this is what the founders wanted.
There can be no fair judge because all are parties. This is not a legislative action so much as a judicial.
And yet in your world the judiciary plays no part.
The Constitution protects individuals, not states. It delineates and limits the powers of the federal government.
It does seem you do not agree with me on how our governments are established. Therefore, I see no point in further argument and will try not to respond.
Just a note on Locke: he can’t be refering to our Constitution, since he died many years before the Founding. In fact, what he says confirms the right authority of the people of a state to secede through the state. The states are governmental bodies with the proper authority to secede. You see, we have two Constitutions: the state’s and the Union’s. The State’s is prior and more authoritative. Of course, since the founding the question of secession has been a matter of debate. You know where I stand. I suppose it’s trickier for state’s (except Texas) who later joined, though the same principle seems to apply.
I shoulda known that the little yappy dog would still be here and still yapping.
Yap away, gumby. You're nothing more than an ass pimple.
You're being stalked by FR's #1 troll, the one, the only, Non-sequitur accompanied by his little yapper dog, rockrr.
If “...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” the implication is that the authority to secede resides with the people unless it has been relinquished in some way, and that the people could secede from the State at the County, City, etc. level if they so choose.
“One term that is being used on this thread is sovereign. What did the term mean to the Founders?”
I like to use Webster’s 1828 dictionary because it was written closer to the time of the Founders than anything else I’ve found. Of course that doesn’t mean something didn’t change between the time of the Founders and the dictionaries publication.
Anyhow, Webster’s 1828 defines “sovereign” as follows. I think the first definitions for its use as an adjective and as a noun are applicable.
SOVEREIGN, a. suv’eran. [We retain this babarous orthography from the Norman sovereign. The true spelling would be suveran from the L. supernes, superus.]
1. Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe.
2. Supreme; superior to all others; chief. God is the sovereign good of all who love and obey him.
3. Supremely efficacious; superior to all others; predominant; effectual; as a sovereign remedy.
4. Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation; as sovereign authority.
SOVEREIGN, n. suv’eran.
1. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control. Some earthly princes, kings and emperors are sovereigns in their dominions.
2. A supreme magistrate; a king.
3. A gold coin of England, value 20s or $4.44
Your Webster-ism's are showing again! The judiciary was not a party to the compact.
Mr. Madison would agree with Cincincinati Spiritus.
It does not follow, however, that because the states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated,
[snip]
to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation, and of maintaining the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to the states, as parties to the Constitution.
[snip]
If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognised under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.
[snip]
On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department;4 secondly, that if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
[snip]
The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present.
Non-Sequitur, just admit your a Torry!
You'll have to ask Cincincinati Spiritus why he said it was a judicial issue then.
Mr. Madison would agree with Cincincinati Spiritus.
No he wouldn't:
"It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide gains the majority; still less than a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw from its compact with the rest...The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains."
Non-Sequitur, just admit your a Torry!
Do you mean Tory?
Not for you! You'd make a single “r” Tory, look Patriotic.
After your beloved Fedgov and it's henchmen,did as was expected, your still holding your Stalinist views. Congratulations!
Sir,you are definitely a true believer
“It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide gains the majority; still less than a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw from its compact with the rest...The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains.”
YES HE WOULD!!
The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking, that in all the cotemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended, on the ground, that the powers not given to the government, were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, “that the powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The resolution, having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, “that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.”
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820
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.