"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
He gives two ways the constitution can be dissolved. By agreement of all the people or by usurpations or abuses. Now luckily the founding fathers gave us an example of what usurpations and abuses rise to the level of invoking the natural right to revolution, the revolutionary war.
The stamp act was passed in 1765 and it wasn't until 11 years later, after a long string of these usurpations and abuses, and the founding fathers pleading with England to recognize their rights as Englishman, in a government where they had no representation or voice, before they declared their independence and appealed to the force of arms.
Compare that to the southern rebels who rebelled because a party they disagreed with lost an election in a constitutional republic with a strong set of checks and balances. Some rebels began rebelling before the new party had even been sworn into office! I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers would have laughed at the southern rebels use of the right to revolution. Then George Washington himself would have taken charge of the United States Army and lead it into suppressing the rebellion. And good old George had a tendency to hang rebels, see Shay's rebellion.
OIFVeteran quoted, “He gives two ways the constitution can be dissolved. By agreement of all the people or by usurpations or abuses.”
That is correct. That was the consistent definition and understanding, until the Hamiltonites began to dominate the narrative.
****************
OIFVeteran quoted, “Now luckily the founding fathers gave us an example of what usurpations and abuses rise to the level of invoking the natural right to revolution, the revolutionary war. The stamp act was passed in 1765 and it wasn’t until 11 years later, after a long string of these usurpations and abuses, and the founding fathers pleading with England to recognize their rights as Englishman, in a government where they had no representation or voice, before they declared their independence and appealed to the force of arms.”
The Southern states would have been more than happy with those tax rates.
****************
OIFVeteran quoted, “Compare that to the southern rebels who rebelled because a party they disagreed with lost an election in a constitutional republic with a strong set of checks and balances.”
I don’t see how we can communicate if you make nonsensical statements like that. The South had been abused by protective tariffs since 1824, with far greater economic damage than the colonists were subjected to by the British.
****************
OIFVeteran quoted, “I think it’s safe to say that the founding fathers would have laughed at the southern rebels use of the right to revolution. Then George Washington himself would have taken charge of the United States Army and lead it into suppressing the rebellion. And good old George had a tendency to hang rebels, see Shay’s rebellion.”
Shay’s rebellion was a rebellion; not a secession of a sovereign state.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata: “Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics. This is another article from those trying times:”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Sadly, our Danny-child thinks he knows vastly more than he really does. In this case he first claimed that Confederate “free trade” threatened Union economics. I pointed out that’s absurd, since there was no “free trade” ever contemplated by Confederates.”
Is Joey really that ignorant, or is he simply being his usual jackass self?
The term “free trade” was used loosely to mean “fair trade.” The Confederate Constitution (which I wish our nation would adopt, except for the part about slavery,) forbids favoring one industry over another: it prohibited crony capitalism. Lincoln would have went to war over the adoption of a Constitution like that — almost forgot: HE DID!
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “So now Dan-bo changes the subject to high Confederate import tariffs on Union “exports”.
Are you off your meds?
Mr. Kalamata