Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: detsaoT
In other words, the Declaration of Independence declares that men have the right to dissolve their governments (of which the Constitution is one) and re-establish their political station in a manner which is no longer oppresive.

In other words, a Natural Right of Revolution. Note the phrase " Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Founding Fathers were under no illusion that they weren't committing treason under British law.

That's the thing about revolutions. You have to win them.

323 posted on 02/08/2006 9:47:19 AM PST by Heyworth ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]


To: Heyworth
In other words, a Natural Right of Revolution. Note the phrase " Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Founding Fathers were under no illusion that they weren't committing treason under British law. That's the thing about revolutions. You have to win them.

I agree with these sentiments, mostly. The only question then becomes: If the States were merely removing their membership in the Confederation, and were acting fully within civil governments, WERE they in revolution? In other words, if the States seceeding were acting through their Constitutions in lawful manners to remove their membership from the federal Union, could the actions of those lawfully-elected civil governments, acting completely in support of their citizens, be considered revolt? (For comparison, consider the Whiskey Rebellion, which was not the action of civil governments, but of individuals acting without the authority of their State.)

The United States was intended to be a confederation created by sovereign States, who give up portions of their sovereignty to the central government in order to allow it (not the other way around) to serve them towards the greater good of each and every other State. When the general government is no longer doing so, do these States, acting as sovereigns, not have the right to withdraw from the Compact which created the confederation and re-assume 100% of their sovereignty? Based on my studies of the origins of our federal Government, I would definintely answer that question in the affirmative.

(Considering that the Federal government proceeded to use massive military force to overthrow the lawful civil governments of these same States, and to re-design the State governments as sub-entities of itself, I would say that Washington, D.C. is now our sovereign, and we, as Federal citizens, are Washington's subjects, no better off than peasants in a monarchy. If the outcome of the Civil War had been different, this may not have been the case, but your notion that you have to win a war for independence is definitely applicable under our new Federal structure.)

324 posted on 02/08/2006 10:01:35 AM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies ]

To: Heyworth
That's the thing about revolutions. You have to win them.

By the way, if this were phrased, "That's the thing about wars for independence: You have to win them, I would agree 100% without reservation. I just wanted to put that out on the record.

Warmest regards,
~dt~

329 posted on 02/08/2006 12:52:40 PM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson