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 ...
We don't need your “permission”! Samuel Adams Must have been referring to you: “We ask not your counsel, nor you arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you”
Enjoy Obamacare...
John Taylor spells it out:
The deputations by sovereignties, far from being considered as killing the sovereignties from which they have derived limited powers, are evidences of their existence; and leagues between states demonstrate their vitality. The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.
For rebellion? No. For secession? Yes.
John Taylor spells it out...
Again, whoop-de-do.
I'm not sweating it. I don't see it surviving the legal challenges.
“Did I really need the </sarcasm> tag.”
I think the answer to that question, no matter who asks it, is usually “yes”, especially around here.
I know from unfortunate experience over the years that the intent of the written word (posted comment, e-mail, memo, letter, or yellow sticky) can be mistaken without the audible or visual cue that would clarify it. :)
We've been rebelling since 1865
Secession has already taken place.... The Seceding States are now under occupation.
The only illegality was: The use of force and Coercion applied by the agent of the States,the general government.
One could say that you've always been revolting.
Secession has already taken place.... The Seceding States are now under occupation.
Uh-huh. Then why aren't you down there, suffering with your bretheren?
The only illegality was: The use of force and Coercion applied by the agent of the States,the general government.
An inaccurate way of saying your rebellion was suppressed.
And if it does, NS will just go on being a good little socialist and demand that the rest of us be good little socialists too because it's more important for the nation to stick together than it is to have freedom.
Geez, Idabilly, you don't sound supressed to me. Do I sound suppressed to you?
Nitwit:
I invited you to go huntin’? Did you expect me to stay at Motel 6?
“An inaccurate way of saying your rebellion was suppressed.”
I'm still Whistlin’ Dixie!
Sic semper tyrannis
If the Founders had wanted the approval of other states as a condition of secession, then they would have put it in the Constitution. They were not afraid to specify when consent was needed on other things, as you well know because I've posted the following to you before:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other ...
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports ...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States ...
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
What, no consent needed to secede? The Founders knew that they likely wouldn't get the ratification of the Constitution if they required such a condition. After states started seceding, some Republicans in Congress attempted to pass an amendment to the Constitution requiring such approval. They knew that the Constitution as written and amended didn't require such approval.
Cowards! Nothing more
(*yawn*)
Yeah, yeah, yeah you have gone over it all before. Didn't make sense to me then. Doesn't now.
elitist snob!
Despite your rhetoric and mythology, Rustbucket has remained polite and on point. I've always had a bad habit of forcing a jackass to drink.
And when it comes to jackass behavior, I'll defer to your expertise.
Rustbucket and I are opponents of long standing. I've never been upset by his responses and I doubt he's upset by mine.
What you and rustbucket want us to believe is that the Founders would have endorsed a scheme guaranteed to leave behind acrimony and hard feelings, unilateral secession. I do not accept that. Madison didn't accept that. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't accept that. But the Lost Cause Brigade does. What does that say about all y'all?
Prove it! Nowhere did Madison ever claim that States ( under ALL circumstances must ask ‘mother may I’) Bring out you Trist letter or any letter from his Golden years!
I'll save you the trouble....
James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist
no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, “””or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.””””
Federalist 43
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.
Concurring in the doctrines that the separate States have a right to interpose in cases of palpable infraction of the constitution by the government of the United States, and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson considered them as absolutely null and void, and thought the State legislatures competent, not only to declare, but to make them so, to resist their execution within their respective borders by physical force, and to secede from the Union, rather than to submit to them, if attempted to be carried into execution by force.
John Quincy Adams
lentulusgacchus 1062: Down hard, liar. You're done.
lentulusgracchus 1064: Which by definition of "fascist" makes him a "fascist".
non-sequitur 1065: Utter bullshit.
Idabilly 1067: Utter Giraffe crap.
AlanD 1068: excuse me while i throw up
non-sequitur 1069: You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about,
Idabilly 1070: Your WHOLE bitch....
non-sequitur 1071: Nonsense.
Idabilly 1072: Hogwash.
Cowboyway 1073: Considering the conditions, attempting to resupply Sumter was nothing less than a hostile act whose sole purpose was to ilicit a defensive response from the Confederacy. The Bay of Tonkin comes to mind.........
non-sequitur 1074: Nonsense
Idabilly 1075: 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. John Taylor
cowboyway 1079: TROLL
non-sequitur 1080: Cowboyway sees trolls everywhere. It's a phobia of his.
Idabilly 1095: jackass
non-sequitur 1096: jackass
nonsequitur 1095: What you and rustbucket want us to believe is that the Founders would have endorsed a scheme guaranteed to leave behind acrimony and hard feelings, unilateral secession.
No, what you, nolo-sequi, refuse to do is even acknowledge an opinion contrary to your own. I note that in the above you don't respond to 1073 or 1075 or 1091 of rustbucket. now I know why I was so frustrated with you.
Post 1100 non-sequitur: ya ya ya ya ya.
And yet here you are.
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.