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 ...
We fight for our God Given Rights. Nothing more
Fact: We are Supreme Court appointee away from a Complete ( firearm free)liberal utopia. Secession is a valuable option to prevent our own enslavement.
We keep yelling. Do they like begging on the steps of the Supreme Court?
“Fact: We are Supreme Court appointee away from a Complete ( firearm free)liberal utopia. Secession is a valuable option to prevent our own enslavement.”
Amen!
I don’t have a strong opinion on whether it’s allowed for a state to leave or not, I’m inclined to say “sure, bye”. Hawaii on the left (native Independence freaks), and Alaska and Texas on the right are the only states with noteworthy quasi-serious movements to ditch the union today.
Chances are be less than zero if we continue to slide into Obamaism that conservative states would start thinking about this. If it got that bad, into socialist dictatorship territory I’d be on board. But in such an instance I’d rather overthrow the socialists and free the whole country. There’d be a war anyway, I can’t see them letting any state freely leave.
In the reverse, if we conservatives took over and restored small constitutional government and liberal states wanted to leave I don’t see it happening because
A)I think your they would lack the will/ fail to convince the socialist sheep voters that it was necessary
B)Every liberal state has conservative areas/citizens that would resist
C)Things would improve so much economically most people would realize socialism sucks and think it foolish to leave so their state government can raise their taxes and ban gas engines.
But as to Civil War I’ll invite your ire and say I have to think it was not right that they seceded. I hear people say the South left to preserve their “freedom”. But it was their freedom to own slaves they sought to protect wasn’t it? It wasn’t just the principle of the thing (ie damn Yankee Lincoln can’t boss us around). They didn’t seem to care about “state’s rights” when they wanted to force the Northern States to return fugitive slaves. Seems they were very selective about it. Dubbing the Confederate cause as purely a noble fight for freedom looks like historical revisionism to me. I’m not impugning the character of men like General Lee who fought out of love of state but the conflict was fought in defense of a horrid indefensible institution. The modern equivalent would be a civil war fought over partial birth abortion. Which I think the Federal Government has every right to ban.
It was also foolish of them, it provided the only opportunity for abolitionists to actually immediately abolish slavery all together. Congress in fact passed the Corwin Amendment which would have permanently prevented federal intervention in “domestic institutions” such as slavery and left to the states. I surmise if they came back to the Union each Southern state would a have eventually phased out slavery as it became economically unnecessary.
If I were President in 1861 I would have been reluctant to invade the South and I certainly wouldn’t have gone total war on Georgia if I did. But if I were a slave I’d be glad the war took place.
That assertion is explicitly contradicted by John Quincy Adams, whom you quote, and who in your own excerpt makes an explicit distinction between the states and the PEOPLE. He also says here in the same pasage::
Adams observed: "In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Adams's fundamental argument was that no right of state secession or nullification existed under the Constitution because the right to revolution was a natural right of the people. "To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience,
The right to secede, According to JQA, belongs to the PEOPLE, not the states. The reason is that states do not have rights; they have POWERS. Only the PEOPLE have rights.
Cordially,
When dealing with socialist/Yankees you have to be ready, because as a group they are haughty and don't like people leaving the tree fort and building their own.
Don’t quote Adams. He was just another Yankee who thought “he knew better” and wouldn’t know what a republic was if it had bit him on the arse.
Obviously JQA either had a problem with interpreting what he read or had an agenda. Personally, I think it was the latter.
Lets take a look at what the language of the declaration itself stating with the title which is:
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America".(emphasis added)
In the document itself we find this also:
"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 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, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." (emphasis added)
Why would they use language identifying themselves as "free and independent states" unless that was EXACTLY what they meant themselves to be?
Some years later delegate to the Constitutional Convention Luthur Martin stated the fact of this outright when he said "At the separation from the British empire, the people of America preferred the establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one." (Elliot's Debates, Vol 5, pp 217-218)
There are many other examples that prove their intent as well but folks like JQA wanted an Empire and finally got it when Mr. Lincoln and his armies converted the Republic into the mercantile empire we suffer today.
Here Mr. Adams is again wrong!
The free and independent states created the Constitution through their representatives at the convention and the STATES ratified that Constitution. There was never any intent by anyone that 9 judges be the sole arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional. Every member of both houses of congress and the president swear and oath that they will, to the best of their abilities, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the states who created the union have an absolute right to determine for themselves whether or not an act of congress is constitutional as well.
Tell that to Idabilly, the one who started the JQA quotes on this thread.
Cordially,
Your argument is essentially this: The south had a “natural right” to secede in order to perpetuate and extend the institution of chattel slavery. The suggestion that a group of people have the “natural right” to deny the natural rights of others is absurd.
No founder, nor any natural rights theorist; not Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Blackstone, or Locke ever argued for an unqualified, unlimited right to political seperation. What you describe as a “Natural Right” is simply anarchy or tyranny.
The complaint was about freeing slaves for the express purpose of armed insurrection. As Lord Dunmore said "declare Freedom to the Slaves, AND reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes."
The DOI is far from contradictory on slavery. It could perhaps be argued that it only tacitly condemns it. This in order to secure its unanimous passage. It is pretty clear that Jefferson believed slavery violated its principles, and he would know. These are the reasons that I argue the choice of Lincoln OR Jefferson is a false choice.
No founder, nor any natural rights theorist; not Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Blackstone, or Locke ever argued for an unqualified, unlimited right to political seperation. What you describe as a “Natural Right” is simply anarchy or tyranny.”
No, my argument is essentially this: We have a right,Natural or not,to Secede from New England politics. You may wish the continued debate at your own peril. My choice is to Secede.Plain enough?
“Tell that to Idabilly, the one who started the JQA quotes on this thread.
Cordially,”
L.O.L!
Even a yankee - has at least ‘one good moment’
Speaking of Yankee:
The Federalists are dissatisfied, because they see the public morals debased by the corrupt and corrupting system of our rulers. Men are tempted to become apostates, not to Federalism merely, but to virtue and to religion and to good government. . . . the principles of our revolution point to the remedy—a separation. That this can be accomplished, and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt. . . . The people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West. The latter are beginning to rule with a rod of iron. . . .
A Northern confederacy would unite congenial characters, and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left “to manage their own affairs in their own way.” If a separation were to take place, our mutual wants would render a friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable. . .
Timothy Pickering
Hartford Convention:
Federalists concluded from these propositions that since the states had negotiated the Constitution, the states alone could determine when a national law violated the compact, when its obligations under the Constitution ceased, and when to denounce it.
"That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." (emphasis added)
The "Will to Power" already has a home: www.democraticunderground.com
I don’t care what either of the ol’ coots *said*. This is 2010.
States have rights.
Don’t mess with Texas!
That’s a long way from *Live Free or Die*
That argument about it being all about about slavary has wore thin. It was about power and money.
If and when the Federal government decides to use it’s strength against the states, you better be singing a different tune, Brother. Otherwise join the flock.
They just don’t seem to get it.
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.