Posted on 07/04/2005 9:01:19 AM PDT by WarIsHellAintItYall
The Declaration of Secession and Independence, July, 1776
An early act of American independence occurred in Rhode Island on May 4, 1776. The legislature and the governor met as an extra ordinary assembly, and adopted a statute which stated that Rhode Island was seceded from the British Empire.
A few weeks later, Virginia declared itself in secession from the British Empire on June 12 then later on the 29th, 1776, again apart from the Declaration of Independence.
These declarations were the first examples of a convention of the people of a State assuming the attributes of a sovereign power, passing an ordinance of secession, and instituting a new Constitution for the governance of the people of that State.
On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, presented a formal resolution calling for all the American colonies to declare their independence from Britain. He was one of the most famous orators in the Congress, and the father of Robert E. Lee of Virginia.
Congress decided to postpone its decision on this until the next month, July. On June 11, Congress appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence. The committee members were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Livingston and Roger Sherman.
Thomas Jefferson was chosen by the committee to prepare the first draft of the declaration, which he completed in one day. Seventeen days later, June 28, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was ready and was presented to the Congress, with changes made by Adams and Franklin. On July 2, twelve of the thirteen colonial delegations (New York abstained) voted in support of Lee's resolution for independence.
The signers described themselves as "Representatives of the united States of America" and said,
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
"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; 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. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
They went on to say,
"…That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar 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".
On July 4, the Congress formally endorsed Jefferson's Declaration, with copies sent to all of the colonies. The actual signing of the document occurred on August 2, as most of the 55 members of Congress placed their names on the parchment copy.
The Declaration was essentially an appeal to the international community's common law and a list of grievances against the King of England. The delegates were a group of founding citizens who wanted the people of the colonies to escape the oppression of the British government. The document stated that the Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776, announced that the separation of thirteen North American colonies from Great Britain had occurred. Its underpinning of political philosophy was derived from English theorist, John Locke, and American writer Thomas Paine.
This underlying principle of the new American government was liberty. This was most important at the time, since most people viewed government as the primary threat to their rights.
Freedom meant freedom from government oppression. They were in the process of creating a new constitutionally limited government to protect the rights of the citizens to preserve their liberty.
The American Founders viewed limited government as necessary to protect people from aggressors, but feared government's power. They realized that left unchecked, government was the greatest threat to the peoples' liberty it was supposed to protect.
Very plainly, the Declaration of Independence made no pretense of secession in behalf of one Nation, but expressly stated that the United States were 13 "Free and Independent States." It was not the birth of the new nation, but the secession of 13 colonies from the British Empire. With the publication of the Declaration of Independence, the colonies were announcing to the civilized world through a legal document that they were no longer under English rule.
In Remembrance of Patriots
On that discontented summer day
In '76, in early July
A band of rebels gathered
To spell out why
The world should know our reasons
Without fear or favor they said
If we can't be free?
We'd rather be dead...
Our rights are God-given
Not from mere men
In that one most important thing
Nothing's changed since then
But, in these fat and satisfied days
True patriots are fewer
While we may have some talkers
We've not enough doers
So today, I remember those who were willing
To lay it all on the line
So life and liberty could be enjoyed
By me and mine
In their memory and honor
May I then proceed
In thought and prayer
In word and deed
EV
EV, I love patriotic poetry, goose bumps.
The very nature of the U.S. itself changed in less than 100 years. When the States who found the federal government's rule inhospitable declared their independence they were crushed in a war that cost over half a million dead. Washington, D.C. does not rule by consent of the governed, it rules by force and by conquest.
American writer Thomas Paine.
Paine first set foot in the colonies in November, 1774, by which time the Committees of Correspondence had been operating for some time and the First Continental Congress was meeting. He helped to energize general public support for independence, but word that George III was sending foreign troops (Hessians) against his own subjects probably did more: "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyrrany, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation." Sam Adams, in particular, had already been maneuvering the political landscape toward independence for years.
That citzens of those states were first citizens of the United States was established long before the Civil War--see Andrew Jackson's response to South Carolina's Nullification Proclamation of December, 1832: " the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, is incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorised by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." Furthermore, "Disunion by force is treason." Don't forget, there had been secessionist sentiment in New England at the time of the war of 1812, out of opposition to its goals, impact on the economy, etc.
There's nothing in their example to support the idea of unilateral secession at will from a constitutional government in which one is represented -- indeed, overrepresented -- because one doesn't like the results of an election. The idea that one can simply opt out of any government for any reason or none is not what the founders stood for. It's an idea that rarely works and usually creates more trouble than is necessary or desireable.
THE 4TH OF JULY
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: Freedom is never free!
It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games...
In God We Trust!
Richard Stockton of N.J. abandoned the cause upon being imprisoned by the British, and signed a loyalty oath to King George to gain release. His home, Morven, later became the governor's mansion of N.J.
Thanks.
the exception proves the rule. Recently visited the house of Samuel Powell, last mayor of Philadelphia prior to the Revolution, family fortune included 90 houses in Phila. I'm not sure the details of what happened during the occupation of 1777-78, but he remained a patriot and resumed his mayorship when city government was re-established.
I recognize the General's position, and it is incompatible with the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence establishes that power flows from the people, and political bonds are created at their behest, in their interest. To decide otherwise is wholly tyrannical.
Furthermore, "Disunion by force is treason." Don't forget, there had been secessionist sentiment in New England at the time of the war of 1812, out of opposition to its goals, impact on the economy, etc.
"If this be treason, make the most of it." - Patrick Henry. Secession is a political right, unless you disagree with the Declaration of Indepedence, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 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."
The quest for liberty is never ending.
Since I respect you enough to take it as a given that you are not defending the execrable practice of slavery, which is inimical to the liberty you prize, had Lincoln just let the South go, there would have been a Civil War anyway, and the Slavocracy of the South as surely destroyed. The difference would have been that it would have been slave uprisings, and a massive northward migration of blacks to the north, which would no longer have been under any constraint to repatriate them. Cynically, one could speculate there would have been economic chaos in the North trying to absorb millions of displaced persons, making the decision to fight the war on southern soil one of self-defense.
The only place slavery was ended by slave uprising was Haiti, where France devoted too little to maintaining law and order. As in all the States of the North after the Constitution was enacted, slavery would have gradually been legislated out of existence as time passed and its economic and moral burden increased. Northern States, like Indiana, had their own black codes that denied the rights of emigration to blacks. The idea that the South would be invaded and subjugated at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to curtail the escape of slaves is rather fantastic.
Cynically, one could speculate there would have been economic chaos in the North trying to absorb millions of displaced persons, making the decision to fight the war on southern soil one of self-defense.
Free market economies have chaos by their very nature. The Cynic would have to assume that racist attitudes of Northerners would be so great as to support embarking on an invasion of the South at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives in order to deny liberty to blacks escaping slavery. Cynically, one could speculate there would have been economic chaos in the North trying to absorb millions of displaced persons, making the decision to fight the war on southern soil one of self-defense.
Maybe. But, had that happened, we could discard the "Civil War" and agree on a different identification.
War of Northern Agression works for me.
Sure it does. They wouldn't be able to function for a day without the consent of the governed.
you missed my point. The uprising I am calling a "civil war" would have been internal to the south. Instead of Northen whites fighting southern whites, southern blacks would have fought southern whites. To not call holding a man as a slave for what it is, aggression, demonstrates a general lack of seriousness.
Sure it does.
Were that the case legislature's and electorate's expression of political secession would have been respected. Instead Lincoln marched armies upon them and they were held under military occupation for over a decade.
They wouldn't be able to function for a day without the consent of the governed..
By your lack of logic you could state that the Kremlin ruled the Soviet Empire for over 70 years with the consent of the governed, since it was able to function. You seem to confuse the words consent and coerce.
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.