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 ...
The North didn't secede. My argument has been that the principles of the Declaration of Independence can not be used to justify southern secession.
My argument has been that the principles of the Declaration of Independence can not be used to justify southern secession.
I realize you can make the argument that that they had a Constitutional right or sovereign authority. I’ve avoided those arguments in this thread. The original article suggested that the South was applying the principles of the DOI to secession. That has been my objection.
Of course Locke was not referring to our Constitution. However, after the Bible, he and Montesquieu were the authorities most frequently cited by the Founders in their writings. It is a well known fact that the political philosophy of John Locke was hugely instrumental in forming the political thought which led to the foundation of this Nation. He was widely referred to and even quoted in church sermons of the period as you can see from the source of the quotation that I gave.
Cordially,
Because of slavery?
With that logic - The Declaration of Independence could not justify the Thirteen Colonies separating from England. Slavery existed in every colony.
Checkmate!
End the Occupation!
Free Dixie!
The Declaration of Independence nowhere suggests that separation was to perpetuate slavery. As a previous poster pointed out, in Jefferson’s original draft, slavery was condemned and George III blamed for importing the practice into North America.
The secession resolutions and the speeches that supported show that secession was primarily about slavery (examples of which I have already posted).
(rockrr - FR’s little yapper dog....)
:) L.O.L!
Examples of Northern willingness to protect slavery - FOREVER - Likewise have been posted. We therefore disagree.
Let's talk about current events. Are you willing to back secession today? When is enough,enough?
I think the principles of DOI would support secession today. It's clear that government is no longer interested in securing our unalienable rights. Here is a short list:
Oppressive taxation and redistribution programs.
Destruction of property wealth by a radical eco-legislation.
Abortion
Compelling us to carry health Insurance
I just haven't been convinced that the situation would improve with a second secession. It seems to me the problem lies in the fact more than half of my neighbors think they have a right to run my life at my expense. The majority of people in the country don't know, don't care, don't understand, and reject the principles the country was founded upon. I'm not convinced secession would remedy this fundamental problem. Even in TX where the politics seems more compatible to my taste, they have Houston, Austin and other bastions of liberalism.
Yes, that is a different question.
My main point was that what Locke was arguing, really supports my view of secession, since there are really 2 constitutions. Thus secession, far from being tyrannical is the proper means, just as the Founders used the governmental bodies already in place in order to revolt.
“It’s not that Washington has been running amuck for 100 years.”
After the Great Depression they pull the same crap with the New Deal (made the depression last for 15 more years) and the Dims got power for 40 years.
They think they can do it again but, fool me once....shame on me for forgetting history.
Like I heard this morning, there are no winners or losers in DC. It’s alway fluid.
The audience is eagerly listening - A “Rebuttal” is shouted!
Webster and his cohort, Non-Sequitut, must be rebuked pleaded - one audience member.
Past and present have come full circle and the future awaits ...
John Taylor has taken the Podium.
Senoritas Webster & Non-Sense.....
Neither the declaration of independence, nor the federal constitution, nor the constitution of any single state, uses this equivocal and illimitable word. The first declares the colonies “to be free and independent states.” The second is ordained to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity:” And the rest recognize governments as “the servants of the people.” In none, is there the least intimation of a sovereign power; and in all, conventional powers are divided, limited and restrained. There is, I believe, an instance in a bill of rights, in which a state is declared “to be free, sovereign and independent” But it was the state and not its government which was the object of this declaration; and the reference was to other nations. The language of all these sacred, civil authorities, is carefully chastened of a word, at discord with their purpose of imposing restrictions upon governments, by the natural right of mankind to establish societies for themselves.
“We, the people of the United States.” But who were they?
The plural “states” rejects the idea, that the people of all the states considered themselves as one state. The word “united” is an averment of pre-existing social compacts, called states; and these consisted of the people of each separate state. It admits the existence of political societies able to contract with each other, and who had previously contracted. And the words “more perfect union” far from implying that the old parties to the old union were superseded by new parties, evidently mean, that these same old parties were about to amend their old union.
Nevertheless, to take away the pretext, however unsubstantial, for a different construction of the constitution, on account of the capacity or title under which the people acted in its establishment, it is material to ascertain the meaning of the phrase “we the people of the United States;” towards which, let us run over most of the state constitutions.
New Hampshire. “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state. Every subject of this state. In the government of this state. The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body politick or state. That the state may be equally represented. I do swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the state of New Hampshire.”
Massachusetts. “The body politick is formed by voluntary association of individuals. The people of this commonwealth have the sole right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state. The people do hereby mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body politick or state.”
New York. “This convention, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state. The legislature of this state. No members of this state shall be disfranchised. Delegates to represent this state in the general congress of the United States. Be it enacted by the people of the state.”
Pennsylvania. “We the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania ordain. The legislature of a free state. All government originates from the people and is founded in compact only.”
Delaware. “The people of this state. The government shall be called the Delaware state. The legislature of this state. The general assembly of this state. There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this state.”
Maryland. “The people of this state ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government thereof. The legislature of this state. The delegates to congress from this state shall be chosen by joint ballot of both houses of assembly. I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the state.”
Virginia. “All power is derived from the people. Magistrates are their trustees or servants. A well regulated militia is the proper defence of a free state.”
North Carolina. “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government thereof. Monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state. All commissions shall run in the name of the state of North Carolina. The legislature of this state. The constitution of this state.”
South Carolina. “The legislative authority of this state. The several election districts in this state shall elect. The style of process shall be “The state of South Carolina, and conclude against the peace and dignity of the state.” I swear to preserve the constitution of this state and of the United States.”
Georgia. “Members of the legislature shall swear to promote the good of the state, to bear true allegiance to the same, and to observe the constitution. To make laws necessary for the good of the state. Citizens and inhabitants of this state.”
Vermont. “The people are the sole source of power. They have the exclusive right of internal government. All officers of government are their servants. Legislative and executive business of this state. The people have a right to exact from their legislators and magistrates the good government of the state. The legislature of a free and sovereign state. Shall be entitled to all the privileges of a freeman of this state. Every officer shall swear to be faithful to the state of Vermont, and to do nothing injurious to the constitution or government thereof.’’
The rights of a people are indivisible; and if a great people be compounded of several smaller nations, as it inherently possesses the right of self-government, it must absorb the same right of self-government in its component parts; just as the rights of individuals are absorbed by the communities into which they constitute themselves. Therefore had a people been constituted, by melting down the little nations into one great nation, those little nations must have lost the right of self-government, because they would no longer have been a people. As it was never imagined, that the individuals inhabiting all the states had constituted themselves into one people, so there has never appeared from this imaginary body politick, the least attempt towards claiming or exercising the right of self-government; nor is the government of the union subjected to its controul or modification. Not a single one of the United States would have consented to have dissolved its people, to have reunited them into one great people, and to have received state governments or unrestricted legislation from this great people, so ignorant of local circumstances, and so different in local habits.
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
Shouts the crowd as they deposit the two Centralizers into the awaiting dumpster!
Idabilly: “Are you willing to back secession today?”
ALPAPilot: “I think the principles of DOI would support secession today.”
Far as I can tell, no State has significantly better or worse grounds to secede from the Union than any other State.
ALPAPilot: It’s clear that government is no longer interested in securing our unalienable rights.”
That’s the problem, whether “government” is National or State. And it’s probably both.
As far as I can tell, all fifty states are more or less equally derelict in keeping the National Government in line so none of them has any more cause to secede from the Union of States than the others.
If fifty people (read States) come to an agreement and hire a deputy (read National Government) to handle some of their affairs and the deputy oversteps his authority, the first thing to do is haul the deputy back into line or replace him, not break up the agreement. You might consider breaking up the agreement if there is a difference of opinion as to the propriety of the deputy’s actions.
You must not have much respect for dumpsters. :~)
Whoopie.
It's the Federal head and the Courts - allowing - this influx of Democratic voters. Ever thing is being ‘nationalized’ and the right of the people is lip service at best - California prop 187 - for example.
I have nothing in common with these 'United Staters' moving to formerly Red States,then turning them blue. Idaho is facing similar problems. How do you think the good people of North Carolina feel? Being overrun by liberal New Yorkers.Just as Idaho is being overrun by sissy tree huggers.
They are a cancer
With current political leanings - we can only fix - what worth fixing. We'd have enough problems gathering the illegals in Texas and deporting them.
History and human nature both demonstrate, that in all nations a party invariably exists, disposed to elevate the powers of a government to a pitch graduated by personal motives, and to tighten a magical cordage about the people, until it must break or be made of iron. Ambition and avarice are rope-makers constantly at work, and they unfortunately inlist the most skilful workmen, by offering the highest wages. Hence popular rights are forced to enter the list under great disadvantages, as is evinced by the humble instrument they have used in this instance. Superiorities of wealth and talents meet their struggles, and have almost universally defeated their efforts. Poor and rich men of great talents generally unite in fostering principles, which will afford them the best markets; and the best understandings are often the worst authorities, because they are exposed to the highest temptations.
John Taylor of Caroline
Actually, you're wrong. 1. Not gratuitous but germane. 2. I did NOT say that Jewish families "controlled the shipping business" -- that's your words not mine. I wouldn't believe such a thing. 3. Bennett footnoted his claims with references to historical researches, many with Jewish authors, and his work has been combed over and found to be at least partially, if not substantially, true.
I don't know how accurate his claim is, that references to "Portuguese" slave-traders was in fact a polite reference to Sephardic Jews. Someone will have to look into that one; I don't trust Bennett's judgment based on what he presented.
Someone will know the answer to that one, I don't.
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.