Jefferson vs Lincoln: America Must Choose

Tenth Amendment Center. ^ | 2010 | Josh Eboch

[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.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

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."

The Declaration does come to mind. and, yes, certainly that fostered some hostility. Nevertheless, it was also one of our least bloody wars.

[central_va]

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?

Not for you to fret over. The property that was Federal is now Texas, They paid taxes they earned it.

[central_va]

WARNING: After engaging the Mutual Masturbation Regiment of the Night Crawler Brigade; Col. Non-Sequitur Commanding, the only way to feel clean is to take a nice long hot shower.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

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. "

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT in my little war of secession or over its validity, I retract my accusation that you, non-sequitur, are insincere. After further pause, I now realize how far apart our perceptions of the reality and unreality of the modern mega state are. Yes secession has consequences. And yes I understand their gravity. On your part, you do not see how our noble experiment has been hijacked . . . . and not any time recently either. We are hurtling down a most unadvised course, to the consequences of which any secession and its fallout are preferabe.

Thus, before we go full throttle totalitarian like the EU, it's good to know we have a emergency brake and at least in word can ditch the nannystate. I think the consequences you named very minor. The worse is that it's very unlikely that our nanny will let her children go out to play.

[central_va]

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.

Keep it up Cinci, you got the high(moral) ground.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Declaration does come to mind. and, yes, certainly that fostered some hostility. Nevertheless, it was also one of our least bloody wars.

You sound disappointed. Isn't peaceful separation preferable to war? How can separation be peaceful when your only concern is with one side of the issue, and how badly you can screw the other states while leaving.

[Non-Sequitur]

f a tyrant wrecks a country are the tyrannized responsible?

Do you have any concept what the definition of 'tyrant' is?

By your reasoning, yes.

Absolute nonsense.

Indeed, secession is a difficulty.

Not according to you. It's announce it and go. And in your world everyone else is supposed to agree that you are in the right and they are in the wrong regardless of the truth of the situation.

Why? Simply because it is a much more peaceable solution than revolution. But, you, no, you prefer revolution or tyranny. Which, pray tell?

Excuse me? You're the one advocating walking out without comment, for any reason or for no reason at all, repudiating all responsibility for obligations built up by the country as a whole while you were a part, and taking every bit of government property you can get your grubby little hands on and I'm the one advocating a violent solution? Your scheme is guaranteed to foster acrimony and lead to confrontation.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes secession has consequences. And yes I understand their gravity.

But you just don't care about the consequences, isn't that it?

On your part, you do not see how our noble experiment has been hijacked . . . . and not any time recently either. We are hurtling down a most unadvised course, to the consequences of which any secession and its fallout are preferabe.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, all Lincoln's fault. I got that part already. It's the standard Southron whine.

Thus, before we go full throttle totalitarian like the EU, it's good to know we have a emergency brake and at least in word can ditch the nannystate. I think the consequences you named very minor. The worse is that it's very unlikely that our nanny will let her children go out to play.

The bloodiest war in our nation's history was 'very minor'?

[central_va]

taking every bit of government property

Ah, didn't the people of that state, when they were a member of the Lincoln Republic, pay tribute? They own that property.

[rockrr]

Your latest variance with reality is amusing. Do you really feeeeeel that way?!

[KrisKrinkle]

Your quote gets to the heart of the matter:

I don’t’ disagree with that.

The bolded is the key to understanding that secession is always permitted.

I disagree with that. The bolded part plus the five words before it is the key to understanding that secession is justifiable (whether it’s permitted or not) given “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". That’s not the same as always. My last sentence is supported by the first part of the quote as follows, indicating secession is not always justifiable (emphasis added): "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…(see the second sentence of this paragraph for the rest of the quote).”

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.

Maybe others have argued that a state can only be allowed to secede by consent of the others, but I don’t recall that I have.

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 means it’s time to change the federal government which the States created, not turn to secession as the first option.

That the tyrant…

What tyrant?

Lincoln certainly wasn’t a tyrant. He was a president carrying out the will of those who elected him twice and doing so with the cooperation of the States who objected to unilateral secession on the part of other States. If Lincoln had been a tyrant he certainly wouldn’t have allowed himself to be so unguarded that someone like Booth could kill him the way Booth did.

If you’re writing about present times: if tyranny was inherent in the Office of the President, would not the current occupant simply decree (as I’m sure he would like to) whatever health care scheme pleased him instead of allowing the current legislative fiasco?

[central_va]

Your latest variance with reality is amusing. Do you really feeeeeel that way?!

Instead of questioning my logic, break it down for me?

Take Texas, for 150 years they have been paying taxes, the FEDS can take their equipment when they get unceremoniously expelled. The land is forfeited. Sorry, anything else is not going to work.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

You hardly understand a word I say.

And yes, the Revolutionary war was a relatively bloodless war.

I understand the consequences of secession and do care, only I care more about the consequences of tyranny, especially totalitarian.

And so it goes . . . and yes, we are now, I am convinced, the land of slaves and cowards.

[central_va]

I wonder if he thought King Abraham, the Gay Butcher, was a tyrant?

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

By tyrant, I mean the other states that would force the unwilling state to stay in union, but today it's more complicated since the states' authority has been usurped by the feds.

You misread the quote: it contains 2 separate conditions for secession, each sufficient without the other. Thus, if a majority of states (or federal government) were to violate the contract of the union, it is dissolved and needs no meeting of the 3 wolves and 2 sheep to decide whether the sheep can go home.

Finally, I am afraid we are at the last recourse stage. Your understanding of politics and mine are different, or I should say that you and I have a different perspective on the state of the Republic.

[KrisKrinkle]

“They’d be free to leave.”

As is anyone, individually or as part of a group, who currently resides within the US and does not consent to their present local, State or National government.

I infer from your answer that you think such people have no right to secede from their State at any level (county, city, etc.) nor to alter or abolish their government and institute a new one.

[central_va]

I infer from your answer that you think such people have no right to secede from their State at any level (county, city, etc.) nor to alter or abolish their government and institute a new one.

In my case, I would be VERY HAPPY if Northern Virginia would secede from Virginia. Go, go in peace.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

"Excuse me? You're the one advocating walking out without comment, for any reason or for no reason at all, repudiating all responsibility for obligations built up by the country as a whole while you were a part, and taking every bit of government property you can get your grubby little hands on and I'm the one advocating a violent solution? Your scheme is guaranteed to foster acrimony and lead to confrontation."

You are disgusting. I am merely asserting the right of a state like Texas to secede. If it sounds otherwise, it is only to assert that right. Nevertheless, if the Obomacare bill is shoved through the house, then I may advocate secession for anyone living in Texas, and I'll help foot the bill for the horror, horror, horror of lost federal revenue, at least so long as it takes to pack up my things and head to Texas. I've lived there before and miss my friends.

Meanwhile, you can snivel away in self-consuming envy at thought that Texans are free unlike the rest of us.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

no. I don't think so.

No country in the EU was able to stand up against the Lisbon treaty (except the Irish). I'm grateful we live in a country whereby we have means to secede. It's only been tried once and the cause was tarnished. Should it happen again, I can pray they don't muck up the litany of grievances that should be named.

BTW Obama's tactics are the same used as over there.

[central_va]