Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
No sir, they fought and earned the right to be free, sovereign and independent States. Nothing singular about it.
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; and he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, proprietory and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.
Just to be clear that was something I was quoting and disputing too Idabilly.
fortheDeclaration is the Idiot who said that.
Are you claiming that the Treaty of Paris was between Great Britain on the one hand and New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc., etc. individually on the other? If so, then who was the Virginia representative that signed on behalf of that state? Who was the representative from Georgia? Or South Carolina?
That is a fact.
The way most of them entered was with the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. Are you suggesting that they tried to leave the same way?
Double talk. Call it what you wish - revolution, secession, consenting to your government, or Natural right. This right cannot be ceded away, it forever remains.
Thomas Paine would certainly agree:
"It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist,and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."
“Any outlaw of society could easily claim the same as you. In other words you believe in lawlessness. You have an Outlaw mentality of freedom. It is pathetic and has always failed but still persists due to the libertarian movement and the Marxists of America. That is the company you keep.”
Do we not put prisoners in prison to keep them from harming other people?
Do we not secure our own borders for the same reason?
What differences does it make if a criminal chooses to become permanently confined to his property? At least then we don’t have to pay to feed his ass.
That being said if he invades and attacks us either thou thief or violent act, we can counter attack him. Such a thing is known as war, and a very short one it would be against so small and surrounded a refuged.
You really need to think this thou more carefully TheBigIf. All the ends are tied up.
Indeed it would probably do you good to understand the root of the word outlaw.
In the roman days an “Outlaw” was someone who was no longer protected by the law and thus any roman could do whatever they wanted to him. Should a “outlaw” decided to secede from our union his circumstances would be considerably worsened as today we have laws that protect even “outlaws”.
We have few laws that protect hostile invaders.
This of course brings us to the issue of the illegal alien invasion Arizona. as such uninvited guest can be without a doubt regarded as invaders in the same way a criminal that secedes from our state would be should they ever opt to leave that plot of land which they own and secede with.
Once their dead the State can simply annex their territory. Such is the historic custom of war when the enemy population has been erraticated.
So yes embrace the idea of individual solvently, and embrace the ability to defend our rights.
“The way most of them entered was with the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. Are you suggesting that they tried to leave the same way?”
If that were the way they enter the Union yes, but thats not the way they enter the union. Congress passes an enabling act which is like an invitation, and the State accepts, generally thou convention or referendum.
In the case of the original 13 the invitation was in the original convention.
So yes they did leave the same way they entered, as you do not need an invitation to leave someones house, you only need one to enter.
I wonder what the record is for going the longest without a “Lincoln was a Tyrant” thread.
Why did the South feel the need to initiate a war in order to gain possession of Fort Sumter? Was it worth it in the end?
No where in the Constitution does it mention secession or revolution, and technically that fact alone should be enough for you to know its a right reserved to the people and their states.
Actually it does. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to call up the militia to suppress insurrections.
Unilateral secession, is the only useful form of secession which protects the rights of the individual and the minority.
Unilateral secession says that only the seceding states have any Constitutional protections and that the remaining states have none. That idea is ridiculous, and is one reason why the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional in 1869.
There are many things that are funny about the north’s arguement that the south was mearly attempying to protect slavery. Just as there are things that are a bit funny about the argument that secession was the only way to preserve slavery.
There is nothing funny about the truth.
Indeed secession would only accomplish one thing for the south, separate themselves from the taxation, law making, and spending powers welded by the northern majorities.
Look at your history and you'll see that's ridiculous.
It would not and could not preserve slavery, it would only firmly relieved the north of their (ignored and resisted) constitutional obligation to return escaped slaves.
Nonsense. Congress went above and beyond the call to protect slavery, to the point where they freely trampled on the rights of the non-slave states. (Where were Southern calls for 'states rights' when that happened?) Every Supreme Court decision under the Taney court came down squarely on the side of slave owners. The government did all the South could have expected, and more, to protect slaves and return runaways.
Thus accelerating the death of slavery in the south.
I cannot think of a single quote from a single Southern leader of the rebellion who believed in 1861 that slavery was doomed for extinction. They all expected it to be passed on to their children and grandchildren, for generations yet to come.
I’ve seen an innocuous thread on the Buchanan dollar coin degenerate into a Lost Cause Lincoln hate-fest. They never pass a chance to spew their nonsense.
More binding? Earth calling, pick up the phone. They left the perpetual Articles. That wording was left out of the Constitution.
Now.. go ahead and dismiss - St. George Tucker. His work was the cornerstone of the resent second Amendment victories.
....Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states assented . … that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it.
Nonsense. Read the Constitution, Article IV. The actions and/or desires of the territories are not part of the process. Indeed, territories can petition for years for statehood and Congress can ignore them, witness Kansas and Colorado. Constitutionally the sole party to creating a state is Congress. And once allowed to join, states cannot combine, split, or change their borders by a fraction of an inch without Congressional approval. States exist because of Congress. They can be altered only with the approval of Congress. Clearly congressional approval is needed to leave as well.
So yes they did leave the same way they entered, as you do not need an invitation to leave someones house, you only need one to enter.
Changing your story I see.
I understand the point - it definitely does limit freedom. But I have serious concerns about the alternative as well. The country could have broken into smaller and smaller pieces.
It would have been interesting to see how the Confederacy would have handled secession from that government. Although maybe it was already provided for in the Confederate constitution.
And would the doctrine only apply to states leaving the Union, and not smaller political units? What about counties, cities and towns leaving the state?
Anyway, thanks for response.
This is the most condescending thing I have ever heard. Karl Marx thought more of his proletariat than you. If you think for one minute that the South couldn't survive without the North you are very sick, fascist person indeed.
By Maj. Inness Randolph CSA
Album: Songs Of The Civil War Sang by the group: Songs Of The Civil War & Hoydt Axton Oh, I'm a good old rebel Now thats just what I am And for this yankee nation I do no give a damn. I'm glad I fit (fought) against 'er (her) I only wish we'd won I ain't asked any pardon For anything I've done. I hates the Yankee nation And eveything they do I hates the declaration Of independence too. I hates the glorious union 'Tis dripping with our blood I hates the striped banner And fit (fought) it all I could. I rode with Robert E. Lee For three years there about Got wounded in four places And I starved at Pint (Point) Lookout. I coutch (caught) the roomatism (rheumatism) Campin' in the snow But I killed a chance of Yankees And I'd like to kill some mo'. (more.) Three hundred thousand Yankees Is stiff in southern dust We got three hundred thousand Before they conquered us. They died of southern fever And southern steel and shot I wish they was three million Instead of what we got. I can't take up my musket And fight 'em down no mo' (more) But I ain't a-goin' to love 'em (them) Now that is serten sho. (certain sure.) And I don't want no pardon For what I was and am I won't be reconstructed And I do not give a damn. Oh, I'm a good old rebel Now that's just what I am And for this Yankee nation I do no give a damn. I'm glad I fought against 'er (her) I only wish we'd won I ain't asked any pardon For anything I've done. I ain't asked any pardon For anything I've done...
Patrick Henry:
...If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise....We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can possibly be done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. . .
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one, great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all states. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others.
If we admit this consolidate government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.
Responding to Mr. Henry....James Madison:
....Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are the parties to it? The people - but not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
I'll ask again, what right does a Sovereign have???
King George III knew more about the republic then than some of our contemporary Lincoln Lovin' Yankee FRiends do now. This should embarrass the neo-Yankee. But I have found nothing embarrasses them, even the legacy of Sherman raping burning and pillaging. The republic is toast.
It is in the Declaration of Independence.
The same human right the slaves had but the Confederates denied to them.
The limit is proportional to the amount of stupidity of the neo-Yankee fascist, therefore the potential here is unlimited.
None of the States would have survived alone.
That is why Texas wanted to be admitted to the Union in the first place.
And as for facism, it was the Confederacy that wrote in the 'right' to slavery by name in their constitution.
So save the historical revisionism for someone else.
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.