On this day in 1864

[Bull Snipe]

Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.

[jeffersondem]

“So can I take it, while you're straining at the “supposed” gnat, you fully accept the rest of my posts?”

Another ill-advised supposition.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The chair now recognizes the Gentleman John Hancock from the slave state of Massachusetts for the purpose of rebutting the proposition that slave states can not morally secede from the empire."

Neither John Hancock nor any other Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
All supported independence when necessary, as in 1776, or by mutual consent, as in 1788.

[jeffersondem]

“Neither John Hancock nor any other Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
All supported independence when necessary, as in 1776, or by mutual consent, as in 1788.”

Let’s stipulate, for the purpose of this post, that the secession was not a pleasure.

It was still unilateral independence by known states of slavers. You tell me, can that be morally justified?

[HandyDandy]

Let’s stipulate, for the purpose of this post, that the secession was not a pleasure. (sic)

It was still unilateral independence by known states of slavers. You tell me, can that be morally justified?

You tell me. And while you are at it, please explain what “states of slavers” means?

[DoodleDawg]

All supported independence when necessary, as in 1776, or by mutual consent, as in 1788.”

1788?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Let’s stipulate, for the purpose of this post, that the secession was not a pleasure.
It was still unilateral independence by known states of slavers.
You tell me, can that be morally justified?"

Well... as a connoisseur of fine English words, you know Madison's term was not "a pleasure", it was "at pleasure", which we still use today in saying, for example: the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning, the President can fire the Secretary for any reason he wishes, or for no reason at all.
That's "at pleasure", and it is the ultimate justification used by secessionists in 1860-1 and defended by our pro-Confederates today.
It's the justification used when they say, "secessionists didn't need a constitutionally valid reason because of the 10th Amendment, or the laws of nature, or even the Declaration of Independence saying, 'whenever' and 'whenever' means 'at pleasure'. ".

The opposite of "at pleasure" is necessity, which our Founders used in their Declaration to justify their actions, necessity spelled out in over two dozen specifics, i.e.:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

That's necessity, necessity cared nothing then about the status of slavery and our Founders went out of their way to insure slavery was not an issue in their Declaration.

By stark contrast 1860-1 secessionists made slavery the centerpiece of their "Reasons for Secession" documents, a fact often denied by our pro-Confederates today.
But the reality is: Deep South Fire Eaters issued unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession, at pleasure, for the stated purpose of defending their "peculiar institution", slavery.

from Lincoln's "Speech to 140th Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865)

[jeffersondem]

“Well... as a connoisseur of fine English words, you know Madison's term was not “a pleasure”, it was “at pleasure”, which we still use today in saying, for example: the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning, the President can fire the Secretary for any reason he wishes, or for no reason at all . . .”

That is an interesting comment. And a purposeful distraction from inquiry.

Setting it aside for now, I'm still curios about your contention (post 1355) that distinguishing “right from wrong” cannot, will not ever include defending a slavers’ war of secession.

In your post you did include the artificial construct “1860s era” but, of course, that was not the only time slave states invoked the right of secession to separate from the empire and to go on and build a new country where slavery was enshrined in their constitution.

Point blank question: Can slave states, under any circumstances, claim the moral 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"?

If you think the answer is "no," just say no.

[HandyDandy]

Pardon me, but it was I that first jumped in with “a purposeful distraction from inquiry” when you first proposed the inquiry. Now you have put lipstick on that pig and re-presented it, here I am purposely distracting from it again. You are trying, like your buddy used to, to equate what the Founding Father’s did to what the Southern Slave States did. There is no comparison. The Founding Father’s were in the right and the Southern Confederacy was in the wrong. By the way, Slavery was enshrined in the Confederate States Constitutions so far beyond the simple acknowledgement of its existence by the Founding Father’s, that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

I am also purposely distracting from your inquiry in the interest of my FRiend BroJoeK. I would not want to see him allow the likes of you the slightest toehold or fingerhold in your pathetic attempts to dig yourself out of your hole. Keep on pirouetting.

[jeffersondem]

“The Founding Father’s were in the right and the Southern Confederacy was in the wrong.”

Many founding fathers owned slaves. Why do you say our founding fathers were right in owning slaves?

Don’t you know owning slaves is wrong?

Each of the original states had slavery. It was legal. Why do you defend the original states writing slavery into the United States constitution?

Don’t you know owning slaves is wrong?

You just witnessed my playing, reluctantly, the Slavery Card. Did it seem to you as ignorant, insincere, and demagogic as when you play the Slavery Card?

[jeffersondem]

“Pardon me, but it was I that first jumped in with “a purposeful distraction from inquiry” when you first proposed the inquiry.”

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I didn’t remember you being the first but - now that I think of it - you are right: you were first.

You remind me of an old boy back home: it always took him two or three tries to make a first impression.

[jeffersondem]

“All supported independence when necessary, as in 1776, or by mutual consent, as in 1788.”

That's a formulation by my good friend Brother Joe.

I think I know what he was trying to say . . . somethin’ about domestic insurrections amongst us means Indians on the warpath; 24 beats 11; and big government has failed, give us more big government.

Ask him, if you have time for a son-of-Raul length speech.

[HandyDandy]

Perhaps you ought to trim down your extensive “to:” list. You shotgun blast your feeble minded posts and then are caught off guard when someone replies? Are you afraid that your words will fall on deaf ears? And now, it gives me great pleasure to politely ask that you please stop throwing my name in among your extensive list. I am not as interested in your comments as you seem to be. If you have a comment that you wish to make specifically to me and me alone, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, please leave my name off of your “to:” lists.

[jeffersondem]

“And now, it gives me great pleasure to politely ask that you please stop throwing my name in among your extensive list.”

Fair enough.

I get the feeling with the Yanks on the prod in Lexington and elsewhere it is ‘bout to get hot in the kitchen.

I want you to be in a cool, comfortable, and safe place out of the line-of-fire.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "1788? "

Ratification of the new Constitution and therefore a form of "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation -- the very definition of "mutual consent" and "at pleasure".

Our Lost Causers like to insist the 1776 Declaration was "secession" form Britain so I point out that was from necessity, not at pleasure.
1788 was "at pleasure" but also by mutual consent.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "That is an interesting comment. And a purposeful distraction from inquiry."

No, it simply restored Madison's term "at pleasure" to the central point here, despite your clever efforts to distract away from it.

jeffersondem: "In your post you did include the artificial construct “1860s era” but, of course, that was not the only time slave states invoked the right of secession to separate from the empire and to go on and build a new country where slavery was enshrined in their constitution."

Sure, but 1776 was a very different situation from 1860, beginning with our Founders' distinction between necessity and "at pleasure."
Also, most 1776 Founders were determined to keep slavery out of their reasons, where in 1861 the first secession states made slavery their central focus.

jeffersondem: "Point blank question: Can slave states, under any circumstances, claim the moral 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"?"

That's still a ridiculous question, regardless of how often you ask it or someone answers.
Most 1776 Northern Founders opposed slavery and moved quickly to abolish it, in their own states.
Virginian Jefferson (the real one) helped abolish slavery in the Northwest Territories and Washington himself said if he had to chose between slavery and union, he'd chose union.
Further, our Founders did not make slavery an issue in their Declaration, whereas 1861 secessionists made it their cornerstone argument.

jeffersondem: "If you think the answer is "no," just say no."

Our Founders considered two and only two reasons valid for "secession" -- necessity as in 1776 and mutual consent as in 1788.
That's it, unlike 1861 secessionists, Founders considered slavery to have no bearing on independence.

[jeffersondem]

“The opposite of “at pleasure” is necessity, which our Founders used in their Declaration to justify their actions . . .”

Necessity is not the opposite of “at pleasure.”

“No necessity” is the opposite of “necessity.”

At pleasure, as explained in your own musings, means:
“the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning, the President can fire the Secretary FOR ANY REASON he wishes, or for no reason at all.” (emphasis added)

By your thinking, at pleasure could be a bad reason, or a very, very, very good reason. It could even be a necessary reason.

Again, necessity is not the opposite of “at pleasure.” It is one subset of “at pleasure.”

The issue, always, is who determines what is a necessity.

And you have repeatedly provided your preference. You say Abraham Lincoln, a regional candidate with 39 percent of the vote and an uneven past, was the only one qualified to determine necessity.

But our founding fathers, unanimously and unambiguously, placed in black and white a better method than one-man rule.

I think you know where I'm heading. If you want me to spell it out, I will. And I will not have to use secondary sources to do it.