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 ...
Appeal to authority, subverted by previous postings of documentation re sovereignty issues.
Furthermore, the Confederate government was recognized by the authorities that counted: The People of the Southern States.
Extrapolating from your argument, the United States was sovereign only because its People(s) were recognized by France and the Netherlands, and not by virtue of any natural right of their own.
According to you, their sovereignty and their rights meant squat until foreign governments lined up to welcome them to The Club. Including, eventually, George III's government.
Somehow, I think Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin, and the rest of the Framers would have disagreed with you about that. What ever happened to Nature, and Nature's God?
Uyup. Uh-huh.
If you'd been on these threads going around and around with this vexatious, tendentious pest, you'd fray around the edges, too -- esp. when you get a good smell of the arrogance.
Have you stuck around for the baiting rounds, when he gets a n006 in his crosshairs? That's fun to watch.
Projection. Feeling pretty liberal, are you?
You've forgotten all the times we watched as you pulled wings off flies, using your superior knowledge of the issues, your pseudohistorical nostrums and theories of the Union to disarm a newbie poster, and then gloat over the destruction of his homeland -- and you always mention black troops, fishing for a reaction. We can count on it.
No, I think you stir that up on purpose -- and we know why, from long acquaintance with your posting style and predilections.
Dealing with all y'all always leaves me feeling like I need an innoculation and a shower afterwards.
Maybe you ought to do that before you come in here.
That was the first thing my elbow fell on, when the topic came up; what do you suppose a real study would turn up? -- but I defer to our friend rustbucket, who has been all around the barn with you on this one years ago -- I remember those drag-out arguments about Confederate commissioners and offers in compromise, and whether Lincoln's refusal to see them was or wasn't sufficient cause to call "crooked pool" when guys on your side started woofing about "stolen" federal property.
It's not like this is our first rodeo on the subject of the Territories, federal facilities, and just compensation and apportionment of United States debt.
It would still apply to the U.S. government. Sumter could not be relinquished without congressional approval.
That's an internal problem of U.S. governance, something for Lincoln to work out with the Congress. Assuming Lincoln was working on a peace policy -- in which case, it would be appropriate to include State Department and receive commissioners from the departing States. Instead, Lincoln started giving orders to the Sec'y of War and the Sec'y of the Navy.
I did from posts 900 to 1150. That was a mere synopsis. The fundamental problem is that if the contract has been violated, those who violated it cannot be judges of the case. There is no higher authority (unless --I dare not think, less utter it -- the UN). Since each state is sovereign (wherefore we each live under 2 constitutions), each state which in principle is prior to the union of states has proper authority to secede. It is not right (nor anywhere prohibited by the US Constitution) for the one aggrieved (or allegedly aggrieved) state to be at the mercy of the those that broke covenant. The sovereign parties who entered such a covenant or contract may leave if the terms have been violated. Who is to judge? Each party, unless there is a higher authority to whom to appeal. However, we have none such unless you think we should go to the Pope or to the UN. It's a simple principle of justice.
Why, then, is it so controversial? For the obvious reason that there are grave consequences for the break up of the Union, not to mention consequences to those with imperial ambition. However, the consequences to not breaking up are far greater. I say life, liberty, and property before security.
“(unless —I dare not think, less utter it — the UN)”
I got that far before reading the rest of your post (I will) and I have to stop and say:
GO WASH YOUR MIND OUT. :)
Nice to see that you're remaining consistent and not letting any truth or accuracy get in the way of your posts. Keep up the good work.
Of course it was. Rule of law? That's Lincoln's problem. Grand theft and fraud? That was the Davis regime's chosen path.
ping
I don't know about squat. You can secede if you want to. Set up your own sovereign state in your bathroom. Design a flag, write a constitution, set up a government, claim your borders, and proclaim yourself King Gracchus the First, lord of all you survey. Make sure you tell all the other countries about your change in status and your elevation to nobility. But until some of them start bowing and calling you 'Your Majesty' then you aren't King Gracchus the First. You're just some nut with a flag and a country in his bathroom.
Somehow, I think Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Franklin, and the rest of the Framers would have disagreed with you about that. What ever happened to Nature, and Nature's God?
Among the first acts of Adams and Hancock and Franklin was to appeal to European countries to recognize their independence from Great Britain and their status as a sovereign nation in their own right. They understood the importance of other countries recognizing them even if you are not.
Projecting? Anyone looking back at your posts can visualize the foam around your mouth without any effort at all.
Since each state is sovereign (wherefore we each live under 2 constitutions), each state which in principle is prior to the union of states…
(Some States having been creations of the Union of States having had no prior existence as any sort of separate entity.)
“…has proper authority to secede.
Sometimes, but the other parties to a compact may be justified in requiring one attempting to break the compact to hold to the compact or suffer a penalty, provided these other parties have not broken the compact themselves.
It is not right (nor anywhere prohibited by the US Constitution)…
I don’t believe the US Constitution is relevant to this.
…for the one aggrieved (or allegedly aggrieved) state to be at the mercy of the those that broke covenant.
Your position kind of breaks down there. You went from if the contract has been violated, written above, to those that broke the covenant without any substantiation for the transition. Those who broke the covenant may be the ones who did so by leaving when the others are not at fault.
According to you, those who violated the contract cannot be judges of the case, so if those who violated the contract are the ones who broke the covenant by leaving when the others are not at fault, they cannot be judges of the case.
And of course, each side is likely to say the other side is the one in violation. Each side is likely to take the position that the rights they have under the compact/covenant/agreement are just. There will be a real or perceived conflict of rights. Absent a sufficiently organized society, and there isn’t one at this point in part because, as you say, there is no judge or higher authority to turn to, such conflicts are settled by consent or by superior force imposed by the party who is willing and able to bring superior force to bear.
So if I declare myself to be my own country, does that make it so?
It's not the position that breaks down. It is the political reality. The difficulty is with perceived violations and grievances. What seems to be unappreciated by those who take your position is that the perceived grievance must be very significant to wish to commit to so dangerous and difficult matter as to break off. Indeed it is possible that those who broke off 'broke covenant'. True, and that, my friend, is the entire problem and the reason for this debate. Practically speaking, if consent of all is required, secession is never going to happen. The alternatives to my position are only these: chaotic revolution or enforced union. Therefore, the Framers never included in the Constitution requirements for secession.
Regarding your statement about the 'creation' of new states. It is the people of each State who create each, the US acknowledges their existence and admits them with the same standing as the other states. That is why I used the word 'principle'.
To conclude, on your side, you do not fully recognize the sovereignty of the state (or rather the people in each state). Now I don't demean the Constitution as a mere treaty. However, if the violations are severe enough and irreconcilable by other means, secession is not a mere option but a duty. What, then, you ask is severe enough? I respond that it is to be determined by the people of the state? The question is when do violations become insufferable? Now some will suffer more, some less. As for individuals, so too with state's. That is why I prefer to leave it entirely to states. Of course, I consider it unlikely one State would secede on its own.
Part of the reason I continue this discussion too is that I've also been considering other obstacles and implications in secession, which is good at least to consider even a little, if not thoroughly.
“…the perceived grievance must be very significant to wish to commit…”
The perceived grievance may be very significant but that does not make it more than perceived. It may not be real.
“It is the political reality.”
The political reality is that there will be no higher authority (as you admitted), no one else to judge, therefore your position (from post 1187 and elsewhere) “that states with equal authority cannot be judges of their own case” is erroneous as far as I can tell. There will be no one else in a position to judge. There will be no one in authority to tell them they can’t judge.
Your position that “any state can leave if the contract has been violated” is subject to the state’s ability to do so in the face of opposition.
“Practically speaking, if consent of all is required, secession is never going to happen.”
I don’t agree. If you’d said “improbable” or “not likely to happen” or something qualified like that I’d have been OK with it. But “never”? I can’t agree with that.
“The alternatives to my position are only these: chaotic revolution or enforced union.”
I don’t see how those are alternatives to your position “that states with equal authority cannot be judges of their own case”. There more like outcomes of states trying to be judges of their own case, but even that’s shaky. They don’t relate enough to your just stated position to be alternatives to it.
As to your position that “any state can leave if the contract has been violated”, I see chaotic revolution or enforced union more as possible outcomes than alternatives.
And I agree that “any state can leave if the contract has been violated”, putting an emphasis on “can” and subject to the State’s ability to do so in the face of opposition. If we replace “can” with “may” it might not make a difference.
Then, how?
“Then, how?”
How what?
And if my question isn’t clear to you it’s because yours wasn’t clear to me.
Even if it were, which it is not, it would be better than having Lincoln as your leader, the president who twisted the Constitution into a Klein bottle and chose war over peace. Over 600,000 dead because of him (and Anderson).
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.