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 ...
Comment 903 was removed, anyone know why?
Now this little tete-a-tete is entering a new level of silliness. The worst form of tyranny is for a man to be a willing slave to his own passions and wayward ambitions. I consider the second worst to be unable to educate one's children to escape the worst. There are many forms of tyranny, the modern era shows the diversity; the framers tried to prevent the tyranny of the majority; presently we are subject to such a multitude of tyrannies, it saddens me to think on. But a federal government that insinuates itself into my own home, my family, my faith, that is one that must be curbed or thrown off.
“By tyrant, I mean the other states that would force the unwilling state to stay in union,”
If one has kept one’s part of an agreement (debatable), it is not tyranny to require another party to the agreement to keep their part, willingly or not, or suffer a penalty.
“… the states’ authority has been usurped by the feds.”
That is a problem.
“…it contains 2 separate conditions for secession, each sufficient without the other.”
Neither of which amounts to “always”.
“…(or federal government) were to violate the contract of the union…”
Disagree with including the federal government there. The Union doesn’t need the federal government in order to remain the Union, the federal government can’t violate the contract of the Union except as a deputy of some of the States, and if it gets out of line the States should bring it back into line. The problem there of course is that the States have allowed their deputy, their creation, to usurp their authority.
Were gonna make 1000 on this one.....
I agree. It is only the 'debatable' part that we may disagree upon. And in that case the following applies:
"or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the Compact."
The compact is dissolved by the violation or abuse. Therefore a state has the right to secede. The question of debate is whether such abuse has occurred or not, not whether if it has occured, secession may proceed.
In sum, if you agree with what you quoted, then we agree on all except whether such violation has occurred. In this case each state and its sovereign people, not you or i or all the forums in the Republic, are the final judge and should be respected.
For further clarity, let's say such abuses occur, in principle the compact would be dissolved though in actuality the dissolution would only be realized with the secession of some states.
The War of Southern Rebellion was not.
I understand the consequences of secession and do care, only I care more about the consequences of tyranny, especially totalitarian.
But do you understand the meaning of those words?
And so it goes . . . and yes, we are now, I am convinced, the land of slaves and cowards.
Speaking for yourself?
Which apparently means I am asking you questions you can't answer.
I am merely asserting the right of a state like Texas to secede.
Under the circumstances I described yes, I know that.
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.
Delta is ready when you are.
Meanwhile, you can snivel away in self-consuming envy at thought that Texans are free unlike the rest of us.
I promise you I have never and will never snivel at the thought of anything connected with Texas.
A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed.
Do you recognize the totalitarian state?
I don't know who you hang out with but, in my neck of the woods.......
As I see it, we are currently being provoked into a confrontation, whether we like it or not. Stand up to this tyranny or become a total slave.
“A Declaration of secession is peaceable revolution.”
Secession WAS a peaceful alternative until the North/Lincoln said it wasn't. As much as Barry tries to quote Lincoln. I'm sure he will act in kind.
Yes, and we’re still a long way from there.
The War of Southern Rebellion was not.
I HEREBY RETRACT MY RETRACTION of calling you insincere. I refered to the war consequent to the Declaration. You mistook me and I pointed it out. Your reference to the civil war was a mistake. Do you always make a virtue of your mistakes? Do you take pride in some kind of habit of deliberately misinterpreting your interlocutors?
keep pretending.
I told you, you're gonna need a shower......
Well that gives me hope. I don't disbelieve you. We now live in a semi-rural town, and I've recently discovered how much more slavish people and less self-sufficient are in proportion as they are close to big cities. Even then some cities are worse than others. I really loved the folks down in San Anton where we used to live.
Despite the adulation of many here, Lincoln was no god. His is not the final word. Folks in the west and in Texas can contemplate peaceful secession. Using such means strengthens their cause, draws support, gives them legal authority, and will garner more sympathy and certainly sets them on the moral high ground.
For many reasons, it's an option to be pursued. Certainly, we should not envy them for the lost revenue to the Feds who just gave away my children's inheritance to the banksters.
hmm... sorry, I don’t get the Delta reference. What is that some cryptic threat of the totalitarian feds?
This is a favorite tactic of the Night Crawler Brigade. N-S said basically if you don’t like it, leave the USA. “Delta is ready when you are” was a slogan by Delta Airlines. Implying you should leave the USA. Really smarmy bunch here.
One of the weapons the states may have is keeping all that Fed money at home while we negociate terms for THEIR surrender. LOL!
I hope our legal and elective processes will be enough to stop this onslought of Progressivism. (which it has done in the past) If not, there are many who will draw a line in the sand.
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.