Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
>>Kalamata wrote: “That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “The key word there is “necessary”, “necessity” being the opposite of “at pleasure”. “Necessary” is the word our Founders used in their 1776 Declaration as justifying disunion, with a two-dozen strong parade of horribles to illustrate what “necessity” means. No Founder ever suggested or supported an unlimited “right of secession” at pleasure.”
The word necessary can mean many things to many people, Joey. For example, assume the politicians of the Northern manufacturing states found it “necessary” to push through targeted, protective tariffs, at the expense of the Southern agricultural states, to ensure the happiness of their crony supporters, such as Thaddeus Stevens. Now assume the Southern agricultural states found it “necessary” to tell the Northern states, “It’s been nice to know you!”
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata on Pinckney’s anti-disunion quote: “He doesn’t say what you say he said. You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal. You are not being a straight shooter.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “And yet again, faced with the truth from Founder Pinckney, Kalamata simply lies about it — a Democrat doing what Democrats naturally do.”
You can always tell when Joey is lying. He posts.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata wrote to someone besides Joey: “Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful? Don’t you realize how dangerous that is? Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “And now, having first lied his way through the facts, our Democrat Kalamata’s grand finale is a barrage of false accusations. Can anybody doubt that having a Democrat brain is a form of political mental illness?”
Joey has been a progressive, living-constitution Democrat his entire life, so when he accuses you of being a democrat, or accuses you of doing exactly what he does, it is nothing personal — he is just being a Democrat.
Mr. Kalamata
I am a friend of the Constitution and a free republic, Joey. That is why I despise the tyranny of John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln (and all other central-planning crony capitalists.)
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "So let's start with: who was Chief Justice Marshall? As a young man John Marshall served in the Revolutionary War and the Virginia legislature where, in 1788, he allied with James Madison in helping ratify the new US Constitution. After ratification, Marshall allied with Hamilton and other Federalists, was appointed to positions by both Presidents Washington and Adams, eventually as Adams' Secretary of State before confirmation as SCOTUS Chief Justice."
Benedict Arnold was a war hero, before he became a traitor.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In short, John Marshall well qualifies as a Federalist, ally of other Federalists, pro-Constitution Founding Father. As such Marshall's ideas & opinions help us define the term, "Founders' Original Intent", from which all truly conservative ideas develop."
Marshall was an anti-Constitution, Hamiltonian mercantilist, who routinely attempted to usurp power from the people. Sometimes he got away with it; other times he didn't, such as the time when Jackson ignored his corrupt ruling that stipulated a National Bank was constitutional, even though it can be found nowhere in the Constitution. Jackson essentially told Marshall to pound sand.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And now that we know who Marshall was, we also know, exactly, who is Kalamata."
True. John Marshall was a living-constitutionalist -- a "good" little progressive; while Kalamata is a strict constructionist -- a conservative republican.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Kalamata is on the opposite side, the opposition to the 1787 Constitution, the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders who became (under President Washington) the anti-Administration faction and eventually our Jeffersonian Democrats."
If I am to wear any label other than a conservative republican, it would be a Jeffersonian Republican.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Democrats, originally opposed to the Constitution have, ever since, looked for ways to confound & defeat it, most recently in the absurdly ridiculous impeachment trial of Republican President Trump."
Keep in mind that Joey is always deceptive. Look at the policies, not the labels. This is how the parties' names transformed over time:
There were two major political parties at the beginning of our nation: the Federalists, which elected the first two presidents, Washington and John Adams; and the Jeffersonian Republicans, which was formed in opposition to Federalist principles.
In general, the Federalists supported policies that favored the few (the politically-connected,) over the many, primarily at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, whom author Ron Chernow labeled as an elitist who kept his distance from the common people:
"Jefferson cultivated rapport with the common people, while Hamilton stuck with his dated, paternalistic view of politics. The Federalists found themselves on the wrong side of a historical divide, associated with well-bred gentlemen, while Republicans appealed to a more democratic, rambunctious populace." [Ron Chernow, "Alexander Hamilton." Penguin Books, 2004, p.657]
More to the point:
"Few figures in American history have aroused such visceral love or loathing as Alexander Hamilton. To this day, he seems trapped in a crude historical cartoon that pits "Jeffersonian democracy" against "Hamiltonian aristocracy." For Jefferson and his followers, wedded to their vision of an agrarian Eden, Hamilton was the American Mephistopheles, the proponent of such devilish contrivances as banks, factories, and stock exchanges. They demonized him as a slavish pawn of the British Crown, a closet monarchist, a Machiavellian intriguer, a would-be Caesar. Noah Webster contended that Hamilton's "ambition, pride, and overbearing temper" had destined him "to be the evil genius of this country." Hamilton's powerful vision of American nationalism, with states subordinate to a strong central government and led by a vigorous executive branch, aroused fears of a reversion to royal British ways. His seeming solicitude for the rich caused critics to portray him as a snobbish tool of plutocrats who was contemptuous of the masses. For another group of naysayers, Hamilton's unswerving faith in a professional military converted him into a potential despot. "From the first to the last words he wrote," concluded historian Henry Adams, "I read always the same Napoleonic kind of adventuredom." Even some Hamilton admirers have been unsettled by a faint tincture of something foreign in this West Indian transplant; Woodrow Wilson grudgingly praised Hamilton as "a very great man, but not a great American." [Ibid. p.3]
The migration of the political party names is as follows:
The Hamiltonian Federalists became the National Republicans, then the Whigs, and then the Lincoln Republicans.
The Jeffersonian Republicans, also known as the Democrat-Republican Party, eventually became the Democrat Party during the 1830's Jacksonian era (e.g., the "Jacksonian Democrats,") but was still generally known for limited government and opposition to corruption.
During and after the Lincoln Revolution, the Democrat Party was virtually destroyed. The party did not elect another president for 20 years, at which time Grover "Mr. Honest" Cleveland took office. Cleveland brought forward the Jeffersonian doctrine of limited government and opposition to political corruption. He was elected twice in non-consecutive terms.
The next Democrat to be elected president was Woodrow Wilson, who was in reality a Hamiltonian-Lincolnite in disguise, since he adopted the big-government, mercantilist, central-banking, progressive policies of Hamilton and Lincoln. From that point forward, the Democrats became the true Party of Lincoln.
Over time, many of the progressive republicans switched to the Democrat Party. That led to a "secession" of limited-government conservatives from the Democrat Party to the Republicans, the most notable of which was Jesse Helms.
And that explains how the big-government Party of Lincoln became the big-government Democrat Party of today; and how the limited-government Jeffersonian Democrats are now known as limited-government conservative Republicans. . . in a nutshell.
Mr. Kalamata
Even James Madison abandoned the corrupt Hamiltonian-Federalist Party, Joey, before it had barely gotten off the ground; while the crony-capitalists' Clay, Webster and Lincoln embraced it, despite its history of corruption.
Madison and Jefferson formed the National Gazette newspaper in 1791 to help fight against the Federalist gangsters. I have previously quoted several times from one of their editorials. This is Madison promoting his limited-government doctrine in the Congress:
"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
"The language held in various discussions of this House, is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this Government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other Governments, to all cases not particularly excepted..."
"In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should not have here touched on at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider."
[James Madison, House of Representatives, February 6, 1792, in John C. Rives, "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 Vol I." D. Appleton & Company, 1857, p.363]
As you can see, James Madison was a Jeffersonian Democrat, not a Lincoln Democrat.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Oh, sure, just like Kalamata, Democrats talk the talk, especially when they're out of power, hoping to weaponize the Constitution against their opponents. But as President Jefferson was the first to illustrate, once in power, they ignore as much of the Constitution as doesn't suit them."
As explained previously, Joey is always deceptive; in this case comparing apples to oranges. Jefferson's rare usurpation was always for the benefit of the nation; unlike Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln, whose corruption and usurpations were always for the benefit of themselves, and their crony friends.
****************
>>Kalamata on Charles Pinckney: "Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King. They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight. Lincoln realized that, so he was for war."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Well, first, the 1860 election of Lincoln had nothing to do with "central planning" and everything to do with the power-hungry corruption of Democrats, then as now."
Nope. Everyone in those days understood that dishonest Abe Lincoln was Alexander Hamilton on steroids. That is why the Southern states scrambled before he even took office.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And second, the truth is, in 1787 Americans were far more scared by their too-weak Articles of Confederation government, it's inability to deal with Shay's Rebellion, or honor our Revolutionary War debts, or standardize taxes, or make "internal improvements," etc.. Of course they wanted no king, but they did want a government more adequate for its responsibilities and so they ratified their new Constitution against opposition from Kalamata's heroes, the anti-Federalist anti-Founders, who became Democrats."
Are you referring to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson? If so, count me in.
Mr. Kalamata
Here is the full quote with source. When read it clearly shows he did not believe that states were ever free and independent, in other words, never sovereign.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina House of Representatives
18 Jan. 1788Elliot 4:300—302
Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, in answer to Mr. Lowndes, observed, that, though ready to pay every tribute of applause to the great characters whose names were subscribed to the old Confederation, yet his respect for them could not prevent him from being thoroughly sensible of the defects of the system they had established; sad experience had convinced him that it was weak, inefficient, and inadequate to the purposes of good government; and he understood that most of the framers of it were so thoroughly convinced of this truth, that they were eager to adopt the present Constitution. The friends of the new system do not mean to shelter it under the respectability of mere names; they wish every part of it may be examined with critical minuteness, convinced that the more thoroughly it is investigated, the better it will appear. The honorable gentleman, in the warmth of his encomiums on the old plan, had said that it had carried us with success through the war. In this it has been shown that he is mistaken, as it was not finally ratified till March, 1781, and, anterior to that ratification, Congress never acted under it, or considered it as binding. Our success, therefore, ought not to be imputed to the old Confederation; but to the vast abilities of a Washington, to the valor and enthusiasm of our people, to the cruelty of our enemies, and to the assistance of our friends. The gentleman had mentioned the treaty of peace in a manner as if our independence had been granted us by the king of Great Britain. But that was not the case; we were independent before the treaty, which does not in fact grant, but acknowledges, our independence. We ought to date that invaluable blessing from a much older charter than the treaty of peace—from a charter which our babes should be taught to lisp in their cradles; which our youth should learn as a carmen necessarium, or indispensable lesson; which our young men should regard as their compact of freedom; and which our old should repeat with ejaculations of gratitude for the bounties it is about to bestow on their posterity: I mean the Declaration of Independence, made in Congress the 4th of July, 1776. This admirable manifesto, which, for importance of matter and elegance of composition, stands unrivalled, sufficiently confutes the honorable gentleman’s doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several states.
In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words: “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.
Ok, I’m jumping back in here. Madison’s complete quote is;
“The constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever.
He further adds “It has been so adopted by the other states.”
So you recognize the in toto part. What, pray tell, do you think he meant when he said it had to be adopted “forever”?
Brother Joe continues to violate our informal rules against gratuitous pettifogging with pronunciations about “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.”
Over time, Brother Joe has developed that little spiel by cobbling one word to another, and then, yet another. But does it really mean anything?
Not really, but let's look at his reasoning anyway.
According to Brother Joe “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure” is no good. Doesn't meet Brother Joe Muster.
Well, how about “multilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.” No good either; doesn't meet Brother Joe Muster because it, too, is unapproved.
So what good is the word “unilateral” in the first instance? If something is unapproved, it is unapproved. Unilateral was just a word Brother Joe threw into the mix probably because it sounded good at the time.
What then to make of the alternate concept “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at necessity?” Even “at necessity” doesn't meet the Brother Joe Muster because . . . well, it is said to be unapproved.
“Unapproved” and its lurking opposite, “approved”, seem to be the foundation words in Brother Joe's string of words. And that leads to the obvious question: who is the authorized approver?
I say not the King of England; not even the Strong Man of the United States.
Look here for the answer: “. . . it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and 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.”
It is difficult to determine if it is a direct quote:
"Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY, in answer to Mr. Lowndes, observed, that, though ready to pay every tribute of applause to the great characters whose names were subscribed to the old Confederation, yet his respect for them could not prevent him from being thoroughly sensible of the defects of the system they had established; sad experience had convinced him that it was weak, inefficient, and inadequate to the purposes of good government; and he understood that most of the framers of it were so thoroughly convinced of this truth, that they were eager to adopt the present Constitution… In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of fight ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES." The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
[Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, January 18, 1788, in "Debates In The Legislature And In Convention Of The State Of South Carolina, On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution." Constitution Society]
Mr. Kalamata
“The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration;(in other words the revolutionary founding fathers never thought of the several states as sovereign on their own)
the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. (No mention of states individually in the DoI because the founders knew our freedom and independence was from America as a whole)
Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."(here he tells the South Carolina ratifiers that they need to forget the idea that each state is sovereign by itself. And if they don’t forget that idea it will cause problems.)
Kalamata have you had a chance to figure out what James Madison meant when he said “The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.”
If the US Constitution had contained a no state secession clause IT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN RATIFIED.
You, and I, have no way of knowing that. In fact, considering that the Articles of Confederation did say the Union was perpetual, and the states ratified that, I think most likely they would have ratified the constitution with such language.
Also James Madison’s letter was read to the New York ratifying committee by Alexander Hamilton. So they certainly knew the father of the constitution meant for it to be forever.
Here is what I do know, you are acting like a typical pro state-ist thug. You have no clue what the term FREE REPUBLIC even means. Enjoy the empire for surely we will get our Caesar one day.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;
The founders themselves warn that governments should not be changed for any old reason, or, shall we say, at pleasure. It then goes on and states;
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
So it should only be done after a long train of abuses and usurpations. Well then what is a long train of abuses and usurpations? The founding fathers set the example for us. They endured 11 years. from when the stamp act was passed in 1765, of continuing and increasing abuses and usurpations, in a system of government where they had no representation, until they declared their independence.
Here's a comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?
You have said point blank the founding fathers had no right to declare independence. See your own post 970 where you make the startling claim about the DOI: “There is no natural right of independence!”
Now you wish to invoke the men and the text that you have rejected in order to invent a valid opposite. From the point of view of the Lincolnian caucus I suppose that makes sense.
Sort of.
I’m not pro-state-it’s, I am pro-American. Pro-American means you believe in the perpetual Union that our founders bequeathed to us. A nation founded in the belief that People are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. The people used those rights to form the constitution and only all the people, no subset of the people, can change or abolish it.
This may surprise you but there may come a time when I would join with you in the natural right of revolution. I even posted some hypotheticals in this thread were I would do so. However, it will only be after a long train of abuses and usurpations, when I have exhausted all means to remedy the situation through the constitution, that I would resort to that natural right.
Your very good at cherry picking. I never said the founding fathers had no right to declare independence. I said there is no natural right to independence, I’ve never read anyone claiming there is such a natural right. I believe because such a natural right would presuppose that the other side has to just let you leave.
What I have consistently stated is that there is a natural right to revolution, in other words resort to arms or war. This is the natural right that all founding fathers recognized. This is an extra-legal, or illegal, act. This is why Benjamin Franklin so famously stated; “we must all hang together, or we will, most assuredly, all hang apart.”
Now governments, like people, have a natural right to self defense. They do not have to just let you go. This is why Abraham Lincoln stated;
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.
When a people resort to arms we in the western world use the Just War doctrine to determine if it was right for that group of people to resort to war. Just war theory is broken into two sections; Just Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. I have previously shown on this thread how the southern rebels fail the Jus Ad Bellum section of the Just war doctrine.
So you are wrong I have been entirely consistent in my arguments on the natural right of revolution and the southern rebellion. Your side, however, has not. You are like slippery ells that slither away from one argument to another when you are shown to be wrong.
And yet it doesn't (contain a secession clause) and it was ratified.
Aren’t you a bit old to be parroting Klantifa?
Very good post. From its reaction I see that it goes totally over their heads. But what can one expect from people who deliberately choose their words to obscure and obfuscate rather than clarify?
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.