Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
http://patriotpost.us/
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
The States were created before the Federal Government.
The people created the States first, then the Federal Government.
Granted the state constitutions came afterwards, but those acts did not create the states.
I am not taking a side in this one, just want to get some info. Do you have a link showing the framers of the constitution discussed the issues of seccesion? I know certains states had a provision concerning secession in thier acceptance of the constitution, but when did the framers discuss it and what was said?
Why would an amendment mention the Union? It merely referred to internal affairs of a state. Of course it does not give the federal government power to do anything that was not the point of writing it.
But it in no way affect the power of sovereignty which the fedgov possesses.
Read the Constituion so you don't sound like so much of a Central Government moron.
Now since you decided to start losing your cool, our conversation is over.
That's the point, nowhere is the Union mentioned in the Constitution. Nowhere. Because it is not mentioned and because no power is given over it to the Federal Government, the right does NOT exist.
The Federal Government legally has no Sovereignty above and beyond what the constitution gives it.
The only power it has is that which it has taken by force.
I don't recall "losing my cool." If a recommendation to read what the Father of the Constitution said specifically about the idiotic idea of unilateral secession is to much for you to take, I suppose you aren't really interested in a discussion.
Not accurate. Several ratified "conditionally" on the terms that a "Bill of Rights" be added after the first congress convened. Those conditions were met by the 1st Congress, the "Bill of Rights" was sent to the states for ratification. That very same Congress also passed the Militia Act that gave the President to power and the duty to suppress insurrections.
I prefer to think of a true Libertarian as an earnest, yet naive, idealist.
Hey, everybody has to have a political philosophy and the philosophy of Libertarianism appeals to me more than most any other.
I do try have a streak of realism, though, so I tend to periodically get jerked back towards the reality of conservatism.
I prefer to think of them that way was as well --- when I'm not thinking of them as raving lunatics. ;~))
Not quite what happened.
Articles of Association Oct 20, 1774 created by all the Colonies except Georgia. First Continental Congress
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms.
July 6, 1775 Second Continental Congress
Declaration of Independence by SCC.
States were still not in existence while national bodies were speaking for the American people.
Now it is true that states preceded the government formed under the Constitution but I never claimed anything to the contrary.
The entire reason the Constitution was written was to strengthen the Union and reduce the power of the states. Since the Union was already declared perpetual under the Articles and the CC was called to strengthen that Union what kind of sense would it make to allow secession when that would fly in the face of the intent of the rewriting in the first place?
Our Union would hardly have been made "more perfect" by weakening it by allowing secession.
As far as I know I have never visited a "crackpot site the Defenders of Slaverocracy", unless this is one.
It is EXTREMELY pretentious to assume you are capable of judging what someone else is capable of understanding based on a couple or even a few silly postings on a web-site.
Further, just because someone doesn't agree with YOU does not mean they do not understand the subject being discussed. There is always the possiblity, however remote, that YOU may be wrong, or that YOU have misinterpreted something.
Finally, it is NOT a pretense that the Constitution is simple and easy to understand. It is written in plain, simple language and only a lawyer, a politician or someone else who is trying to infringe on your (or someone else's) rights would endeavor to make it more complicated than it is.
Maybe because they CHOSE not prohibit secession? As I have already said several times, if they wanted a prohibition on secession in the document they would have PUT a prohibition against secession in the document.
Unfortunately for your argument the CC discussed limiting the Constitution to what was written and rejected the idea.
The proposal to put in a phrase limiting federal power by adding the word "explicitly" to the powers granted was voted down.
It is intended to be a framework not a straightjacket.
Raving lunatics works too.
Unless, of course, one is a well-grounded, Libertarian realist such as myself...
... okay, fine, you got me. Raving lunatic works for me too!
Seriously, though, it has always been evident to me that Libertarianism, taken to its "logical" conclusion, results in anarchy. That is why absolute Libertarianism can never truly work as a form of government. But I do think that the injection of just a touch of Libertarian philosophy into our current form of government would have a positive effect.
What do you mean?
Wouldn't the Union be "more perfect" if "Taxachusetts" seceded and the Ted and John show disappeared forever? :^)
I agree.
The Union was declared "perpetual" under the Articles.
The Constitution was created to STRENGTHEN that Union.
Allowing secession would WEAKEN that Union.
Therefore, secession is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and would be completely inconsistent with the intent to make "more perfect" that Union. Makes no sense that the Founders would have worked against their goal.
Since secession was unthinkable to them there was no reason they would have put such a thing into the Constitution. Insurrection covered it sufficiently.
This discussion is not about the morality of slavery, or how evil the south was/is because of it.
This is about the historical / legal causes of Secession, and whether or not the south was actually rebelling, or trying to do their duty to uphold the letter and the law of the Constitution, okay?
-----------
What unconstitutional action caused Georgia and Florida to leave the Union?
Don't know. My reply was in response to another FReeper.
Slavery was an accepted, legal institution when the Declaration of Independence was written, the Revolution was fought and the Constitution was signed.
As far as Texas goes, here's the Declaration of the Causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union
-----------
The part of the Constitution in question (from the Declaration of the Causes ) reads:
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
1) The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
2) A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
3) No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Basically, some states were taking from citizens of another state without any established legal right to do so. The federal government did not fulfill its legal obligation and enforce the contract.
Slavery, while morally reprehensible was also LEGAL according to the Constitution. Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 was put there because of slavery. The Founders knew it was a MORAL issue for the people and their respective civil governments to decide.... NOT an issue for the limited federal government to decide.
-----------
Lincoln set the precedent for federal expansion of power by changing the intended limited federal government into a wholly national one. He failed in upholding the letter and the law of the Constitution, violated his oath, then used force to keep the unwilling states in the union.
It was the seed for the out-of-control government we live under today, yet many will never see it.
Please do me the favor of posting a link to, or the name of, a document I can read which contain a transcript of the discussions you reference.
I have been basing virtually ALL of my statements and/or arguments on the actual words which are actually in the Constitution (or the lack of certain words in that same document).
You continue to make statements like "so and so discussed this and they decided it is this way"; but you never provide a citation. Not that it makes much difference anyway since the Constitution says what it says and it DOESN'T say what it DOESN't say, no matter what was debated and/or discussed during its formation.
And it IS supposed to be a strait-jacket; a strait-jacket on our government, with just enough wiggle room to allow it to perform its critical functions WITHOUT trampling on the rights of the citizens. The sad part is, our government slipped out of that strait-jacket many decades ago.
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.