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 ...
Secession did not lead to war. War did not come until the confederacy resorted to it to gain possession of Sumter.
--– Lysander Spooner
Simple, You with a majority of fellow citizens and whatever politicians yet unbought in your state government can be found: DECLARE SECESSION
done.
as it's been done before. and btw the Supreme Court thereby de facto has no authority to arbitrate --
I'd rather not debate Lincoln's merits and demerits. Suffice it to say that I think (perhaps wrongly) that he was a beginning of centralization at least for this reason alone: the Civil War he prosecuted resulted in a diminishment of state authority. (One might also inquire into Lincoln's hand in railroads and schools. It seems to me he paved the way for iron handed and hearted bureaucratic gelding masters with the iron horse.)
I've said I know little and don't care too much about Mr. Lincoln. I don't like his Gettysburg Address from which I understand something of his ambition and desires.
I will try to refrain from all discussion of Lincoln. Instead, we could agree to call Woodrow Wilson or Hoover or FDR the bastard that began the centralization which has grown only and always ever since: if not in one part than another.
no comment.
methinks you should change your name, since you're pretty doggedly "following" me.
And what about the obligations that the country entered into while Texas was a part? The debt and the international obligations? Texas just walks away from that and leave them to the remaining states to deal with, is that it? And those states have no say in the matter? No protections? No choice but to sit back and take it? And what about federal property in Texas? Does Texas just take that without compensation of any kind? How about companies doing business in Texas? If they prefer to remain American companies are they out whatever investment they have in the state?
What about Social Security and pensions owed to the people of Texas? Does Texas pick those up or do the people just lose out? Or would you expect the U.S. government to continue paying those, even though Texas is now a foreign government and her people foreign citizens?
Apparently you would have us believe that only those states leaving the Union have any protections under the Constitution. That those who are remaining have none and have no choice but to accept all the pain and damage that Texas cares to inflict without any recourse at all. And you honestly believe the founders would support such an idea?
No, you would rather blame every ill under the sun on Lincoln and not have to bother with any evidence or explanation as to why he was responsible. Not uncommon for the Southron supporters.
I've said I know little and don't care too much about Mr. Lincoln. I don't like his Gettysburg Address from which I understand something of his ambition and desires.
You freely admit that you blame everything on a man you know next to nothing about.
Why not?
methinks you should change your name, since you're pretty doggedly "following" me.
This is obviously your first time on a War of Southern Rebellion discussion thread, and if I've made you uncomfortable then I apologize. But things get pretty lively around them. Look up some of the other ones and you'll see what I mean.
Those are the consequences for a usurpatious centralized government.
And anywho, all the other states can declare secession too.
It's just that Texans think they can. The rest have been bamboozled.
Methinks, however, you are a nannystatist. At least you don't seem to get it, nope not at all. . . . Come to think of it I don't know what you are arguing for. What is your point? And what is your real objection to secession?
I've now said several times I know little. Nevertheless, I gave a very good reason why Lincoln is to blame that requires little knowledge, but you have no answer.
You're looking more and more like a fool. Please, stop harassing.
Any who read your last post and my post to which you responded should come to that conclusion.
LOL. . Didn't even know that's where I was. No wonder it's so heated.
They'd be free to leave. The instant TX secedes the price of property in the state will go up (from all those trying to move there), so they will suffer no harm financially . . . at least til they move to the slave states. A very tentative opinion assuming no outbreak of war.
And if they chose to stay and defend their homes and their communities would you forcibly evict them? Put them in cattle-cars? Imprison them?
" 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. "
The bolded is the key to understanding that secession is always permitted. If one party is aggrieved and considers itself violated so greatly that it seeks secession, there is no judge to determine the case. Even if the grievance were wholly imaginary, they must be allowed to secede (and indeed are). What if there really were violation (as such I think we have) then the offenders committing grievance would be judges of their own case.
The opinion that a state can only be allowed to secede by consent of the others is the same as saying that a state can never secede, for what tyrant would let go willingly of its own victims.
In the present case, however, the federal government itself has overstepped long ago its authority and aggieved and violated all states and all individual citizens as well.
That the tyrant gets to decide the case is absurd, and I doubt the Framers really believed that; they were too savy and experienced. All appearance to the contrary is likely rhetorical posturing; this would account for the seeming contradictions by so many of the founders on this issue.
how silly. If they chose to stay then they don’t mind it that much.
Just like the Lost Causers are still here?
So Texas walks away and the rest are screwed, to put it bluntly. I would love to know where in the writings of the Founding Father's you find any support for that kind of belief. What you describe is a scenario guaranteed to foster acrimony and hostility, and which guarantee a bad end.
Methinks, however, you are a nannystatist.
Methinks you don't think at all. You admit you know nothing about Lincoln, but that doesn't stop you from blaming every ill in the world on him. You know nothing about the Texas Constitution or the history of the rebellion, but have all the answers to how secession should be done. You think the Constitution is a club that protects you but which can be used to beat the snot out of other states with. You clearly have given no thought to the ramifications of your proposals or the damage they cause. But then again, few of you Southron types do.
It's just that Texans think they can. The rest have been bamboozled.
Or is it Texas who is bamboozled? Many of the ills of this country can be laid at the feet of the three Texas presidents we've had. And you think that having trashed the country you can just walk out.
What is your point? And what is your real objection to secession?
My objection is to your idea that only one side of the secession question has any validity. That you can walk out and leave damage behind you, and that's just too bad on the other states. True secession, as Madison wrote, requires the consent of both sides of the issue - those leaving and those staying. Anything else is rebellion, pure and simple.
You admit you know little, but pontificate a lot. And I'm the fool?
You began mocking me because I admitted I know little of Lincoln and wanted to leave him alone, but didn't even do me the courtesy of showing me where my argument was wrong; it requires little expertize in Lincoln trivia to assess. Thus, you did not respect my wish to leave Lincoln out so that I needn't pretend to know more than I do. In short, you do not pursue the argument with sincerity.
Moreover, my accusation that you are a nannystatist is just because you were worried about all the social programs that we are losing anyways. That is when I questioned your motives. There is much at stake, and yes I suffer this totalitarian state we live in and do fight it as I can. My concern is not for inanities like SS and Medi-we-the-state-will-wipe-your-ass-care. No, I want my own piece of land for a home and to do with as I seems best to me and want to be able to raise my kids as I think right, that foremost, a simple fundamental right not easy to do and becoming impossible.
Again, you are insincere. See my above post. I am specific in what I blame him for in the follow up. And you did not respond except by accusing me of accusing him of "blaming every ill in the world on him." silly.
My objection is to your idea that only one side of the secession question has any validity. That you can walk out and leave damage behind you, and that's just too bad on the other states. True secession, as Madison wrote, requires the consent of both sides of the issue - those leaving and those staying. Anything else is rebellion, pure and simple.
If a tyrant wrecks a country are the tyrannized responsible? By your reasoning, yes. Rather the opposite, all those who get out from under the heavy yoke are being responsible and showing at the same time others the way to squelch tyrrany, namely by giving the tyrant no subjects so that he is forced to inflict his wrath, ambition, and delusions upon himself alone.
Regarding the Founders opinions about secession, there is much diversity even from the mouth of the same person at different times. Indeed, secession is a difficulty. It's telling that it is not unambiguously not allowed. Why? Simply because it is a much more peaceable solution than revolution. But, you, no, you prefer revolution or tyranny. Which, pray tell?
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.