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 ...
Good Lord.
Have we chosen yet?
And as I stood out by the tack room I pissed a beer in his and his heros (obama and dishonest abe) general direction of Illinois.
Happens all the time. But not so much in the 19th century. The usual conditions are that it must be for a public purpose and compensation must be paid.
From your post 1126: Constitutionally they could not per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
Thanks for reminding me. Let's look at that part of the applicable constitution, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which says that the Confederate Congress shall have the power --:
(17) To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
Seems to fit.
Well it wasn't 'queer'. After all, this was not the confederate congress and homosexuality seems to be a Southron phobia.
According to the resolution of censure, it was his call for the recognition of the confederacy as an independent county. I believe that would fall under the definition of treason - giving aid and comfort to those engaging in armed rebellion against the United States.
So how about some recent examples then?
Seems to fit.
Hardly. Sumter was not the property of the confederacy so they couldn't exercise control over it.
The Constitution had nothing to do with it after South Carolina withdrew, but you knew that.
It is only you that thinks of himself as a (14th Amendmend *citizen*)as such,property of Congress,domiciled under the Lincoln monument...
How can they partake in rebellion against an object,they created? No, It was their ‘agent’ that didn't understand it's own authority.
Where does your General Government obtain this authority? Is it written in the Constitution? Is Secession termed “rebellion”? Can the General Government ‘INVADE’ a Sovereign State? No,Not at all
Since you respect Madison - Let's ask Him:
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
ROTFLMAO!!!!
.......is neither responsive, nor an argument.
Do you have a reply to that argument? Or do you simply plan to bluff? "I don't need logic, and I can sneer at conclusive proofs that I am wrong! I am .....Wonder Dog!"
You can't just lie your way out of anything.
In 1789 the United States changed their form of government, but the United States themselves continued unbroken.
You trying that "Mystical Union" song-and-dance again? That was a pure fiction of Lincoln, Webster, and the Yankee law-school revisionists. The "United States" was most certainly broken, by the breaking of the Articles of Confederation by departing States.
The States that did not ratify the Constitution remained in Confederation with one another, and they remained in the Union -- they were the United States for a while.
Or are you going to tell everyone on this board that Madison parsed it wrong in Federalist 43?
Come on, Non-Sequitur, let's see it: "The Federalist Papers are invalid, because Lincoln and I, Non-Sequitur, say they are! Woo-hoo, we stuffed Madison on his home court!"
Yeah, right.
Absolutely they did -- Madison said they did! Did you not read, or did you refuse to read, the excerpts that Idabilly and I posted to you from Federalist 43?
What the hell are you playing at? You're trying to stuff an original document -- the Owner's Manual -- of the Union, in your pocket just because it's inconvenient to your "Mystical Union" Claremonster B.S.?
It would still apply to the U.S. government. Sumter could not be relinquished without congressional approval.
And as I pointed out to rustbucket, eminent domain is a process governments use for acquiring private property for public use. Assuming for the sake of arguement that the southern secessions were legal, Sumter would then be the property of a foreign government. Eminent domain would not apply.
I'm not even going to try to understand that mouth-foaming rant.
How can they partake in rebellion against an object,they created? No, It was their ‘agent’ that didn't understand it's own authority.
Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistence to an established government. A very accurate description of the rebel actions. Especially the 'unsuccessful' part.
Where does your General Government obtain this authority? Is it written in the Constitution? Is Secession termed “rebellion”? Can the General Government ‘INVADE’ a Sovereign State? No,Not at all
Sure it can. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
So carrying your reasoning a little further: States with equal authority cannot be judges of their own case and any state can leave if the contract has been violated, given that the leaving state does not have equal authority and therefore can be a judge of its own contract violation case in which circumstance the other states may also be judges by virtue of the aforementioned lack of equal authority.
No they did not. The country formed under the Aricles of Confederation was the United States. That nation continued after the Articles, during the ratification process, and after the Constitution was ratified.
The only response it was worth.
...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.
And as Madison pointed out, all parties to the compact are equal. One party has the power to declare the compact violated any more than the other has to declare the compact unviolated.
That is not what he said in 1788, in the text quoted to you which you don't quote. Your sentences don't even parse because your logic fails. Your statement is surd.
[Me] Game over, Non-Sequitur.
So you keep saying. Yet the game continues.
No, it doesn't. You're out of moves. You're done.
[Me] Elenchus.
[You, resisting elenchus dishonestly] If you're referring to the dinosaur then yes, I'd say that the Southern rebellion of 1861 is as extinct as they are.
You are dishonest and a liar, and you are intransigent in malargument and lying about American history.
If I were a dean, I'd expel you from college at this point. If I were the site host, I'd throw you off the boards for failure to admit honestly that your argument has failed in the face of documentary proofs gathered by many hands against your positions. But he's a lot more latitudinarian than I am, so I'll have to confine myself to attacking you wherever and whenever you appear, to warn people of your tendentious dishonesty -- even your dishonesty is tendentious, you're like a sci-fi Terminator in your wrongdoing -- in arguing and discussing these important, nay foundational, issues of American history.
And it doesn't help your cause, that you are exactly aligned with Red historians like Eric Foner, but that is an observation not an argument.
Sovereignty would, Liar. However asserted.
That's applicable - If they were in ‘Union’
They were in a new Constitution
The only response it was worth.
That isn't true, and your reply to logic and documentation with 100% contumely shows the bankruptcy of your position.
You're a liar, utterly dishonest, and contemptuous of the truth. What a mountebank -- a fraud -- you are.
The Congress just can't declare a State insurrectionary because they don't like their politics, and order the President to take the Army and the Militia into that State to coerce its People.
This is all discussed in the Federalist as well, in (I think, from memory) Nos. 7 on, passim.
One of the numbers dealt exclusively with the Militia, another with the warmaking powers of the President.
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.