Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
Yes, you’re getting tangled up in semantics.
The D of I is an argument to “a candid world” about the justification for American colonial secession. Jefferson’s argument generally follows the classic IRAC format of a legal argument (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion).
The “rule” laid down is the natural-law God-given right of secession. He’s not “inventing” the rule, it’s not a “new” rule, nor does the rule derive from Jefferson’s declaration of it. He is simply laying down the rule as a foundation (”establishing” it) for what follows which is the application - the specifics of American colonial situation.
This DOI theory does not require the permission of the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Empire, or even an affirmative vote of the U.N. General Assembly for people to secede.
But absent the use of superior force, secession might require permission from friends, neighbors, others who also inhabit the same area as the people who want to secede, unless of course those people want to secede by leaving the area and setting up somewhere else. And those people who don't favor secession might express their view through whatever form of government they have.
The application flows from this statement of natural law, it does not conflict with it.
How so? As I indicated above, the goal of secession may not be shared by all the people inhabiting whatever area is under consideration. If part of the people want to secede, part of the people don't, and part of the people just don't care, who has the right? If the people who want to secede are concentrated in one area it may be simpler, but not if they are evenly distributed among the rest.
This DOI theory does not require the permission of the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Empire, or even an affirmative vote of the U.N. General Assembly for people to secede.
But absent the use of superior force, secession might require permission from friends, neighbors, others who also inhabit the same area as the people who want to secede, unless of course those people want to secede by leaving the area and setting up somewhere else. And those people who don't favor secession might express their view through whatever form of government they have.
The application flows from this statement of natural law, it does not conflict with it.
How so? As I indicated above, the goal of secession may not be shared by all the people inhabiting whatever area is under consideration. If part of the people want to secede, part of the people don't, and part of the people just don't care, who has the right? If the people who want to secede are concentrated in one area it may be simpler, but not if they are evenly distributed among the rest.
In America, which is a constitutional republic, at its core, secession is not a populist issue, it is a constitutional issue with ramifications from the template of the D of I.
Remember, the majority of colonists were not necessarily in favor of an American Revolution. Before the Constitution was written and ratified, the D of I, not populism, spelled out the justification for secession. Now, the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, defines what is and is not federal tyranny (”despotism”).
In our free constitutional republic, the Constitution trumps populism. However, the people may amend the Constitution if the required number so choose.
Jefferson never spoke of a "God-given" right of secession. He (and many other founders) recognized a God-given right of rebellion against tyranny. They also recognized that rebellion comes with consequences and risks.
God never said that all your wishes automatically come true.
The Memphis Avalanche addressed the issues at the time in this way:
“Have not the governors of two free States violated the clause of the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from justice, and to make the violation the more infamous, interpret it to cover the retreat of two of the John Brown conspirators? Did not the governor of Ohio refuse to obey the requisition of the governor of Tennessee for a Negro thief? Is not the clause of the Constitution powerless, and did not two Black Republican governors make it so? Were not these governors and Legislatures, which have thus destroyed these two essential provisions of the Constitution, sworn to support that instrument, and is it probable that Lincoln will regard his oath any more than they have shown themselves to regard it?”
U.S. Secretary of State, and former Massachusetts Senator, Daniel Webster had years earlier warned his northern brethren of the dangers of a one-sided view of the constitution:
“If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.”
Northern state violations of the constitution's covenants are not discussed much in government schools today, but they were on the minds of a lot of people in the South before the decision was made to leave the union created by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Mason. And the Lees.
Our good friend in post 412 disagrees with you.
“Who said anything about a “new” right or the right of secession coming anywhere but from God? . . . Jefferson used the D of I to establish the God-given natural right of secession, among other things.”
So, critic answers critic.
For the tally book, I agree with that part of post 412.
I suspect that he isn't your friend. That said he is most likely misspoken. You on the other hand are just plain wrong. Although there is plenty of quotes and conversation by the Founders regarding a God-given right to rebel against tyranny, I have never seen anything by any of them regarding secession being a God-given right.
the governor of Ohio refuse to obey the requisition of the governor of Tennessee for a Negro thief...
Did Tennessee sue in federal court regarding this?
and is it probable that Lincoln will regard his oath any more than they have shown themselves to regard it?
Ah, here is the rub. The South's justification is anticipatory constitutional violations. That is not valid justification for secession according to the D of I. The South anticipated all kinds of "probabilities", but the D of I template is "a long train abuses and usurpations" which in this case would be multiple cases of unconstitutional federal acts pleaded for in federal court but unredressed.
The only specific grievance mentioned here was between two states, not with the feds. If Tennessee failed to bring the matter before a federal court, then they failed to give the feds a chance to right a constitutional wrong. This isn't a "long train" of wrongs by the feds. So far I haven't seen any unconstitutional acts by the feds.
It would appear the South falls way short of valid secession.
I have never seen anything by any of them regarding secession being a God-given right.
Except, of course the D of I, written by Thomas Jefferson, and approved by John Adams and other Founders.
Might want to pour through the D of I again.
The D of I not only is a strong argument for valid secession, but it is also the framework and foundation of certain important assumptions in the Constitution.
Not just fugitive slaves - fugitives responsible for the John Brown murder raid. Southern states were simply not going to allow northern states to set up sanctuaries for terrorist organizations to stage murder raids on sister states.
Daniel Webster was right: A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Even today, terrorist activities allowed or encouraged by sanctuary states will prompt adverse reactions. Consider this Wikipedia entry:
“In 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the United Nations since 1999. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given evidence of his involvement in the September 11 attacks[49] and also declined demands to extradite others on the same grounds. The request for evidence was dismissed by the U.S. as a delaying tactic, and on 7 October 2001 it launched Operation Enduring Freedom with the United Kingdom.”
How did "populist" get inserted here? The DOI speaks to "the right of the people". In post 400 you wrote "It is a statement of the right of a people to secede from its government. " In post 422 I wrote of "people" in the same sense. I don't see your point.
"... it is a constitutional issue..."
I'm not so sure about that. I didn't re-read the whole US Constitution for this, but as I recall, the closest it comes to the issue is in Amendments 9 and 10. Both of those mention the "people", so are they populist by your standard?
"Remember, the majority of colonists were not necessarily in favor of an American Revolution. "
I was thinking of that when I wrote what I did. So who had the "right"?
"Before the Constitution was written and ratified, the D of I, not populism..."
Who but you said anything about Populism? And do you mean the DOI that has in the first sentence the words "...it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...",which is pretty much the same use of the word "People" that I have been using.
"In our free constitutional republic, the Constitution trumps populism. However, the people may amend the Constitution if the required number so choose."
That seems contradictory. I could as easily and correctly write: "In our free constitutional republic, the Constitution trumps people . However, populists may amend the Constitution if the required number so choose."
I find your post 424 to be...odd. Post 423 stands.
populists may amend the Constitution if the required number so choose
As long as there are enough "populists" in 2/3 of the House or 2/3 of the states and 3/4 of the state legislatures.
I gave it a good "pouring". nope - no mention of secession.
"Secession: The process or act of withdrawing, esp. from a religious or political association (the secession from the established church) (the secession of 11 states at the time of the Civil War)." -- Black's Law Dictionary.
That's what I'm talking about. There's no mention of secession anywhere in that document.
“Secession: The process or act of withdrawing, esp. from a religious or political association (the secession from the established church) (the secession of 11 states at the time of the Civil War).” — Black’s Law Dictionary.
I don’t know what world you’re in but in this world, the American colonists “broke” (withdrew) from English rule both in declaration (the Declaration of Independence (D of I)) and in war (the Revolutionary War) which finalized the break.
The American colonies both declared and won secession from England.
Not going to continue arguing with you about his obvious point - it’s like arguing that the sun comes up in the east - there is no argument, no genuine dispute of a material fact. You’ll have to find someone else to argue this with.
Show me one Founder who believed that we “seceded” from Great Britain and I’ll show you all of them who knew that we rebelled against the crown.
This is 101 stuff!
You’re playing word games here pal, not a good faith discussion. There is no genuine dispute of a material fact here.
See ya.
It’s not a “word game” or semantics - the terms are not (in any way) analogous. Let me know when (if) you ever get serous about the topic.
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.