Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
conflate
To bring together; meld or fuse
To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.
Not sure what is being conflated, but I'm pretty sure who's confused.
totally misunderstanding the reality of the American people
The reality of the American people must have been recorded somewhere? Somewhere with binding legal force? Something tangible, and not:
and the almost mystical belief in the Union held by the Founders,
Farber would be so proud. You've finally made it to the only place you could possibly have arrived, and still clung to your base contentions. Perhaps I'll look back through the thread and see where it is that I first pegged your argument to the metaphysical nature of union, detectable only by it's normative aura.
Post 1229 = mystical bonds of Union post. Who won the pool?
I am willing to. The fact that Christians in the South supported slavery doesn't make them evil. And if you READ Mr. Stringfellow's pamphlet, you will see that he makes some good points, (at least to the people of that time)
The Bible doesn't condemn slavery anywhere, and in fact clearly spells out how slaves should be treated. If you disagree, then prove me wrong using the scripture.
With that said, is slavery morally wrong? YES.
But the Bible doesn't support that morality.
Not all morals come from the Bible.
While that is true the institution of Slavery is in total contradiction with the basis of the American Union, "all men are created equal".
condone: 'To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.' God did have Moses command Phaoroh to let "His" people go. Yankees just have the attitude that ALL Southerners - then and now - are racists, wanna-be slave-owners etc. And yankees practice selective amnesia, overlooking their own history with the practice. Maybe this will remind a few:
Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North is a feature documentary, currently in post-production, that tells the story of Producer/Director Katrina Browne's wealthy New England ancestors, the largest slave-trading family in U.S. history.Imagine that - slavery being the "cornerstone" of the Yankee economy.From 1769 to 1820, DeWolf fathers, sons and grandsons trafficked in human beings. They sailed their ships from Bristol, Rhode Island to West Africa with rum to trade for African men, women and children. Captives were taken to plantations that the DeWolfs owned in Cuba or were sold at auction in such ports as Havana and Charleston. Sugar and molasses were then brought from Cuba to the family-owned rum distilleries in Bristol. Over the generations, the family owned 47 ships that transported thousands of Africans across the Middle Passage into slavery. They amassed an enormous fortune. By the end of his life, James DeWolf had been a U.S. Senator and was the second richest man in the United States.
The enslavement of Africans was business for more than just the DeWolf family. It was a cornerstone of Northern commercial life. The Triangle Trade drove the economy of many port cities (Rhode Island had the largest share in the trade of any state), and slavery itself existed in the North for over 200 years. Northern textile mills used slave-picked cotton from the South to fuel the Industrial Revolution, while banks and insurance companies played a key role throughout the period. The DeWolf family story is a quintessential representation of this multi-faceted New England story. While they were one of only a few "slaving" families, the network of commercial activities that they were tied into involved an enormous portion of the Northern population. Many citizens, for example, would buy shares in slave ships in order to make a profit.
So, if the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, it must be okay, then. Is that your position?
I have no desire to be a slave or to own one. For me to condemn slavery would be to condemn God's actions - He even allowed the Israelites to sell themselves into slavery, and commanded that prisoners of war be taken as slaves. If YOU have a problem with God/slavery, take it up with Him.
You need to stop dividing the world into Yankees and southerners. I never practiced slavery myself, and I'll condemn it wherever it is to be found, north, south, or overseas.
Well guess what, I've never practiced it either, nor desired to. I don't think that Germans are swarming over the issue, it yankees attempting to justify their action suppressing 'the Right of the People to alter or to abolish' their form of government.
No matter what they did?
The command is to honour them, not necessarily their actions. We are also commanded to 'judge not'. To God, every sin, no matter how small we think it is, separates us from Him, unless we believe that His Son gave His life for us. Are you free of sin? Could your children honour you? What sins did my ancestor commit, that I should be ashamed of him? Why should I refuse to abide by God's command?
Dang! Not me. I had JustShutUpAndDrool in the first 50.
The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.
Also, Hamiton argues that something not given up by the states in the Constitution remains with the states. Hmmmm -- like the right to secede, which was never given up. [Federalist 81, emphasis below is Hamilton's]
It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States ...
And here. [Federalist 32]
An intire [sic] consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an intire [sic] subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the Convention aims only at a partial Union or consolidation, the State Governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had and which were not by that act exclusively delegated to the United States.
Where was the right to secede surrendered by the states in the Constitution?
The Tenth Amendment. Where was the right to secede surrendered by the states?
It has been established that such a theoretic "right" could only be for those original 13 states which pretended a preexistent sovereignty.
Source, please. I thought that the states added after the original 13 have the same rights as the original 13.
As my previous post pointed out, Hamilton said the states had complete sovereignty, not a "pretended" sovereignty. Was Hamilton wrong, or are you wrong?
Here is a section from the 1845 Texas Constitution accepted when by the US when Texas became a state:
SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.
Those powers not delegated to the fedgov remain with the people which can delegate the remainder to a State government ...
You have the time sequence wrong. The people had already delegated complete sovereignty to the states according to Hamilton. They don't have to redelegate "the remainder" to the state. According to Hamilton, the states retained sovereignty that they had not surrendered. Was Hamilton wrong?
... but the latter [the states] has NO ability to affect the Union without Congressional approval.
You forgot to add, "while they remain in the Union." 4CJ has already posted Supreme Court opinions by Founders that say states should withdraw if they don't concur with the powers given the Federal government.
You say the people have powers. The states also have powers per the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Only the people voting by states (not the lumpen people of the whole US) can alter the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about prohibiting secession, which may be why some Republicans in 1860-81 tried to amend the Constitution to prohibit secession. They were spitting into the wind, I think.
But that wasn't the issue, being discussed.
Tenth amendment powers were restricted to local and state matters ONLY they did not touch any of the powers of the Union. Police regulations, control of slaves, Health regulations etc. were all that the 10th covered.
Local police powers were basically all that was proposed for the states in Dickinson's draft Articles of Confederation, but that was soundly rejected by representatives of the other states. I'm sorry you didn't get the message.
The fact that later states could not possibly have retained a "right" they never had shows that the 10th has never had anything to do with secession. It is not a Self Destruct Button for the Union.
States withdrew from a perpetual union so they had that right. They never gave up the right to withdraw from the later union.
Oh, but I forgot -- you believe in the mythical union from which no state can withdraw. However, consider the following concerning George Washington in Congress on August 22, 1789:
The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:
... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
Washington somehow forgot the argument that since NC was irreversibly part of the mythical union, the federal government could deal with the Cherokees in NC, regardless of what NC thought.
No one has argued about the right of the PEOPLE to change their government but that is completely different from the right of the people of a state to do so for the National government without going through the constitutional procedures of amendment.
Next thing you'll be arguing is that we can't withdraw from the UN if we want. Like the Constitution wrt states, the UN Charter doesn't say that countries can't withdraw from the UN. According to your logic we are stuck in the UN. Balderdash and tommyrot.
Hamilton never said the People had granted the states complete sovereignty they did not even exist when the American People began to define itself in the 1760s. States were created at the request of the Continental Congress in any case.
The DOI stated the states were independent and sovereign. Did the DOI lie? The Articles of Confederation said that the states were sovereign. Did the Articles lie? Show me where states gave up that sovereignty with respect to the right to withdraw from the US.
And there was no means of getting out of the Union without the approval of the Congress so adding such verbiage is unnecessary. 4CJ's cherry picked quotations do not make that claim AFTER the Constitution was passed.
4CJ's Supreme Court quotes by Founders were from 1795.
And as you correctly state, in a 1795 case 3 of the 4 justices - Paterson, Iredell and Blair - all maintain that a state can 'withdraw herself' from the union.
I don't know. How long do you plan on keeping your head inserted up your's?
Until the Treaty of Paris, the United States were British colonies fighting a war for independence. I don't understand why that is so difficult, but apparently you just don't get it.
I get it, I just think it's a stupid position to be taking. So the United States only became a sovereign nation when Great Britain said so? When the founders stated in 1776 that they were 'free and independent states' then your position is that that was meaningless? When they said that they were 'Absolved from all Allegience to the British Crown' then your response is that no they were not, because King George hadn't said so? And when the next year they codified their sovereign status and their relationship with each other by agreeing to a confederation and perpetual union, and declared themselves to be the United States of America then your response to that is a belly laugh? Because after all the King hadn't pronounced them sovereign? When France formally recognized the United States as a sovereign nation are you claiming that that was impossible because there was no nation to recognize, only 13 colonies of King George? Is that what you are saying?
And to carry it four score years into the future, would you position be that even had the confederacy had been recognized as a sovereign nation by any of the other nations of the world, they would still be a part of the United States until the U.S. recognized their sovereignty? Isn't that the logical conclusion of your lame-ass position?
King George didn't create the United States, the founding father's did. It was their vision and their courage that enabled them to launch their rebellion and declare their freedom and proclaim themselves a free and sovereign nation. Admittedly that claim carried little weight until France and Spain agreed that they were indeed sovereign and began treating them as such. They became a nation in 1776, not 1783. Their sovereignty was recognized in 1778, not five years later. And all King George did was accept the facts as they were, not place his stamp of approval and create a country.
So is it your contention that Texas could have established a monarchy or established their governor as a dictator if that's what the people wanted? Regardles of what the Constitution says?
Such as this from the Declaration?
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united [lower case and modified by "thirteen" in case you didn't notice] States of America, ...
Different from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, eh?
Before that states could create their own money, raise armies, navies etc. but even those additions did not mean they had complete sovereignty.
So you're saying Hamilton was wrong when he said, "The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty."
Forget the UN we are speaking of something else.
The UN charter is an uncomfortable point for you, I see.
... the tendency of the DSs to distort the meanings of documents by selective quotations is too well known to put any stock in a short quote."
DS? Oh, "Dumb Statists." You provide us with many examples, thank you.
Not so long as they remained a state in the US -- if they stayed in the US, only republican forms of state government were allowed.
The sovereign voice of Texas voted themselves out of the Union by a three to one margin. After that, they could have created whatever form of government they wished. One of the reasons put forth at the time as to why some Texans voted against secession was that they were unsure what type of government might be formed after secession. They didn't want to lose a republican form of government. And they didn't.
Then if they could not pick their form of government, if they could not deal with foreign contries without permission, change borders without permission, coin money without permission, raise troops without permission, enter into agreements with other states without permission then how can you possibly say they had 'complete sovereignty'?
The sovereign voice of Texas voted themselves out of the Union by a three to one margin.
You mean Texas rebelled.
It was Hamilton who said states were vested with complete sovereignty by their state constitutions.
As long as states remained in the US, tasks delegated in the Constitution to the federal government were to be done by the federal government. If a state withdrew from the US, the Constitution would no longer govern the state. Withdrawn states could resume tasks previously delegated to the federal government.
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.