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 states secedes. Feds get out, take your equipment, but get out. There, pretty easy. The CSA it only takes 4 months to COMPLETELY replace this cartoon joke of a republic.
I do know that Texans, with good reason and law, regard that they have a special case and that by a mere political act may secede.
Again, one would have to know the Texas Constitution to know how that can be accomplished. I surmise that it requires a referendum and some action by the elected body.
But really it is that simple.
Thanks for the pertinent quotes, well reasoned.
Adams observed: "In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
This refers only to specific political acts, not secession.
Adams's fundamental argument was that no right of state secession or nullification existed under the Constitution because the right to revolution was a natural right of the people. "To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience,
This is politically impractical position. The people have need of an authoritative body to peaceably revolt. By your argument the only revolution or 'secession' must be bloody. By fortune we have such authoritative bodies in our states. If the contract has been violated, we may continue to adhere for expediency's sake and false peace. Nevertheless, we may with the fellow citizens of our sovereign state void the violated contract because each state is sovereign.
Thanks for the needed clarity. We are talking about unbloody revolution, and the means we have for it.
But do stop hating on the Yankees unless it be the ball team. And we've all been brainwashed. It's just been culturally and historically true that Southerners see through it more easily . . . . for two reasons really: they've been more mired in it but also have more real culture, strange paradox.
Wrong.
Not "a" group, not ANY group of people, but the authoritative sovereign group of people called the state. And thank God we have states or else we'd be in a heap of a lot of more trouble than we are.
I don't hate the North East Liberal Establishment(NELE) Oh Nellie!, I just want no part of them. They can go in peace or try to start something. I'm good either way.
In other words you don’t want to answer the question.
Of course, the confusion would be less, had not the NELE incorporated the entire north in their name.
Any statist monkey is a Yankee. They live everywhere, but it’s the concentration level in each state that is important. There seems to be a tipping point of Yankee to Normal that is critical.
Some of them may have had wrong reasons, but they had the power so to do, an authority that still remains.
I can tell you that the Texas Constitution is silent on how to leave the Union, so if you're depending on that for the how's and wherefore's then you'll be disappointed. So basically you're going to have to depend on the U.S. Constitution and your understanding of that.
So here's the scenario. You're a resident of the good state of Texas and you want to take the state out of the Union. How do you go about it? What process do you follow? I really am curious and have every intention of keeping this discussion on a respectful level. This could make for a very interesting debate.
Do the states have the sovereign authority to expel a state from the Union?
His was all the compassion of Ivan Karamazov.
He never said it was. As Lincoln himself said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Even his useful pretense was about abstract slavery and abolition; I doubt he ever had much compassion for the in the flesh and blood slave whom he so recklessly used as his tool and sacrificed to form his more perfect union.
That, sir, is absolutely ridiculous. Lincoln's quotes agains slavery and his actions in opposition to its expansion are well documented.
indeed.
Like I said , Brother, it’s 2010 and that war is history.
Exactly, and it's the reason so many are afraid to speak the word 'secession' as if it were the n word.
A new one might be right around the corner.
You, sir, talk about being quick to the trigger. . . Be assured I think few would do any such thing. A Declaration of secession is peaceable revolution. Certainly I doubt the NELE will let go of their power without a whimper, but it is solid legal and moral ground.
The point too many do not understand. Bloody revolutions and bloody civil wars almost always lead to a bloody worse condition than the first, especially those of the last 150 years.
Moreover, secession is a real alternative to the other daily more and more likely alternatives: further and all strangling totalitarianism or bloody revolution. I really don't think the latter is even a possiblity, I don't see it happening, and if it did happen, the end result would likely be just another totalitarian regime since the last 150 years seems to have only resulted in that.
still laughing.
His actions to oppose the expansion of slavery just happened to coincide with his expansion of federal powers and Northeastern interests.
However, I do not wish to engage in a debate about Lincoln of whom I know little, only enough to know I do not agree with him and suspect his motives.
My words were careless, at the very least flippant. I hope you are understanding since I hold him accountable for beginning the centralization of powers which has been waxing for 150 years at a steady pace to the detriment of people I hold most dear and has nearly become intolerable, in its real meaning and really meant and felt.
How so? Explain please.
My words were careless, at the very least flippant. I hope you are understanding since I hold him accountable for beginning the centralization of powers which has been waxing for 150 years at a steady pace to the detriment of people I hold most dear and has nearly become intolerable, in its real meaning and really meant and felt.
And how exactly did he do that?
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.