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 ...
I can see him muttering “Fear is the beginning of understanding”.....
I can hear him crying, "Please don't hurt me! I didn't mean none of that shit that I said! I'm just a peaceful little troll trying to get somebody to notice me!!!!!!"
Clarify: how leave? (In response to: And I agree that “any state can leave if the contract has been violated”.)
In post 1197 I wrote:
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.
The bold words in quotes are from your post 1107. And my unstated assumption was that the violation is substantive, not trivial.
Now to clarification (or at least an attempt at such) in which I will address “can” and “may” as well as “how”:
First, definitions. I take the following definitions from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, which is available on line:
(Note: I have only transcribed the meat of the following definitions as they apply to my intent and I have not included definitions that do not apply at all to my intent. Check Webster’s 1828 if it pleases you to do so.)
Can.
1. To be able; to have sufficient strength or physical power.
2. To have means, or instruments, which supply power or ability.
3. To be possible.
5. To have just or legal competent power, that is, right; to be free from any restraint of moral, civil or political obligation, or from any positive prohibition.
May.
1. To be possible.
2. To have physical power; to be able.
3. To have moral power; to have liberty, leave, license or permission; to be permitted; to be allowed.
How.
2. For what reason; from what cause.
3. By what means.
Second, note the words of James Madison in an 1830 letter to Nicholas Trist:
The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but no where reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one Society. The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their Social State agree to a Govt. over them. These two compacts may be considered as blended in the Constitution of the U.S., which recognizes a Union or Society of States, and makes it the basis of the Govt. formed by the parties to it.
It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the Compact.
(Note: These two paragraphs are taken out of context but the one follows the other in the source.)
To continue:
Assuming the correctness of the second paragraph quoted from Madison above, I think I can accurately state: It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and that a party to it may be liberated from it given violation or abuse of it by the others that amounts to a dissolution of the Compact.
That is in accord with the third definition of “can” above and the first definition of “may”.
Leaving in response to an actual violation of the contract that would amount to a dissolution of the contract would be in accord with the fifth definition of “can” above and the third definition of “may” above.
That leaves the first and second definitions of “can” above and the second definition of “may” above. Roughly, these deal with ability, means, resources, the necessities to accomplish the end, if you will. All of that is dependent on the circumstances of the leaving.
On to “how”.
The violation written about above would give reason or cause in accordance with the second definition for “how” above”.
That leaves the third definition of “how” above: By what means. I take that to refer to process, methodology, and so forth.
Here things get trickier, and I won’t say I know all the options, but I can think of some, given the point has been reached at which “by what means” has become relevant.
One of the United States might just declare itself “out” of the Union and if there was no desire on the part of the other states to hold the leaving state “in”, that would be the end of it. The counter argument has been that States declaring themselves “out” has been tried and didn’t work, but the counter to that is that the other States at the time had and successfully acted on a desire to keep “in” the States that wanted “out”. That desire might not exist given other circumstances.
A State wanting out of the Union might appeal to the other States. A positive response to the appeal would be the end of the matter. Such an appeal might be handled most correctly in the same way establishment of the Constitution was handled: Submittal to Congress and in turn Congressional submittal to the States for ratification.
As to the argument that a State or States would never be allowed to leave peacefully in accordance with the options above, I point to Australia, Canada, India and the Vermonters/New Connecticut all of whom established their own new governments without general warfare, even though there may have been some strife. I realize these parallels are not exact but I think they are close enough for my purpose.
Those are the more or less peaceful options that come to mind. Peaceful options are not always taken.
In the event one or more States maintain the right to leave the Union and the other States maintain the right to hold them in the Union, a real or perceived conflict of rights exists. Absent a sufficiently organized society, and there wouldn’t be one at this point, in part because there will be no judge or higher authority to turn to, such conflicts are settled by consent (which could have been handled according to one of the two options previously discussed) or by superior force imposed by the party who is willing and able to bring superior force to bear.
That brings us back to the first and second definitions of “can” above and the second definition of “may” above. Whichever side has sufficient of the “necessities” to bring superior force to bear will prevail. The last time leaving the Union was attempted it was one side, the next time it could be the other side.
In conclusion and to paraphrase: If I had more time I’d have written a shorter post.
Another way of saying a "republic" exists.
ROTFLMAO!!!! I see the Southron myth machine is in overdrive today.
IMHO, our time is better spent enforcing our right to oppose yankee tyranny in whatever form that may take.
You be sure and let us know how that works out for you. </sarcasm>
And you're still here yourself. I guess living in the USA under tyranny isn't bad enough to get you to leave, huh?
No, no, no, I'm more partial to " War is the remedy our enemy's have chosen...I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we are whipped or they are."
Non-Sequitur,
After they pass amnesty,your whole “Nation as a whole augment” is sunk.
Debate on these threads is one thing - Blindness is another.
Better jump on this train,it's leaving station.
It's been a pleasure! All Aboard!Last call! The Secession train is chugged full & Leaving Union station....
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can't live with 'em. Can't own 'em. Life sucks when your a Lost Causer.
Debate on these threads is one thing - Blindness is another.
Says one who's among the most visually impaired around here.
It's been a pleasure! All Aboard!Last call! The Secession train is chugged full & Leaving Union station....
Y'all be sure to let us know when you secede. I might want to send a Christmas card.
End the Occupation!
Free Dixie!!
End Southron aggression!
Preemptive war against rogue states!
Remember Sumter!
bump
Nice name!
The only thing owned around here is you..Life sucks when you spend life on your knees. Knee pads may help with your blisters.
“Says one who's among the most visually impaired around here.”
It becomes difficult to see past your smokescreen of lies and cover ups.
“Y'all be sure to let us know when you secede. I might want to send a Christmas card.”
We will. Just resend this:
Do you have any clue how utterly stupid that is?
Remember Sumter!
Hell yeah!
End the Occupation!
Free Dixie!!
“Nice name!”
His homepage is good too.
The South was a rogue slavocratic state that had aggressive designs against U.S. interests in the Caribbean. The United States was justified in occupying and liberating the Confederate peoples from the dictators of Richmond. Down with the Golden Circle! The South fired first!
Which was precisely why Fort Sumter was attacked, am I right?
...is everyone forgetting Fort Sumter?
Would the invasion have commenced with the support it had had the South not attacked Sumter?
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.