TenthAmendmentCenter.com
Posted on 03/18/2009 1:58:04 PM PDT by BGHater
Are You Breaking Up With Me?!
The threat is only implied in more than two-dozen state sovereignty bills making the rounds in legislatures across the country, except for a New Hampshire bill where the authors didn't hold back. Any law infringing on the state's right to self govern would trigger the dissolution of the nation: "All powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution ... shall revert to the several states individually."
The S.C. House of Representatives has approved a resolution with the same state's rights concerns (but omiting the dire consequences), and the Senate is expected to soon take up a similar resolution.
State Rep. Michael Pitts (R-Laurens), who authored the House bill, says that it's not as much a threat to the Union as it is a "wake-up call." Federal mandates have strained his patience, particularly those laws relating to gun control and the treatment of illegal immigrants. Threats aren't necessary, he says.
"If Washington doesn't wake up and our economy keeps going the way it is going, I don't think we'll have to dissolve the union," he says. "It won't be able to stand."
Political revolts against federal laws are nearly as old as the nation itself. From trading to slavery to civil rights, states have felt put-upon by Washington's mandates. But it was a political standoff on Charleston's shores in 1832 that framed the argument leading to the Civil War.
It was a stand for state's rights that applied similar language to what we're seeing in the present-day debates over sovereignty, says Civil War historian W. Scott Poole, an associate history professor at the College of Charleston.
"I was fairly horrified actually," Poole says upon reading Pitt's House bill. "It clearly harkens back to nullification."
"King Street, King Street"
A federal tariff on European imports was crippling sections of the South Carolina economy in the late 1820s, and there was no relief following the election of President Andrew Jackson in 1828. The mounting tension led the state to nullify the tariff in November 1832. The challenge from South Carolina was likely one of the worst of Jackson's presidency, writes Newsweek Editor-in-Chief Jon Meacham in American Lion, his 2008 book on Old Hickory's years in office.
The state would continue to collect the fee for several months while it awaited other southern states to join the protest. In the meantime, Jackson ordered ships to the Charleston Harbor to ensure the tariff was collected and to protect federal interests in anticipation of armed revolt. But secessionists weren't as well positioned in other states, and South Carolina nullifiers were left to stand alone. Even among its own residents, there were unionists in S.C. who felt strongly that the nation must be preserved.
In one particular exchange cited in American Lion, the political debate nearly led to a brawl in the streets of Charleston, according to a letter by the Rev. Samuel Cram Jackson.
A group of people supporting nullification "staked out King Street downtown," and they sent word to federal supporters, called Unionists, who had gathered nearby that they should use Meeting Street or risk a confrontation, according to Meacham.
"The warning infuriated the Unionists," Meacham writes, going on to quote the letter from Samuel Cram Jackson: "Their blood was up, to think that the nullifiers should dictate the street they should walk in. The cry resounded, 'King Street, King Street.' Before they left their hall, they organized into companies, chose their leaders, and promised implicit obedience. Both parties were armed with clubs and dirks." It looked to be 500 nullifiers, compared to 1,000 Unionists. The confrontation was eventually resolved without a battle. According to Samuel Cram Jackson, "it was owing entirely to the firmness and wisdom of the leaders that the streets of Charleston did not run down with blood."
Without support from other states, and citing the threat of federal force, South Carolina accepted a compromise tariff in early 1833, ending the political standoff.
Meacham notes a letter from Jackson soon after the resolution that reveals he understood the real goal of the state's nullification posturing.
"The tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object," Jackson wrote. "The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."
Back to the Future
As in 1832, some have claimed the modern argument over state sovereignty is in response to the crippling financial crisis, like the Republican Caucus of the state Senate.
"While Congress continues its irresponsible spending spree and grows our debts on the backs of hardworking South Carolina taxpayers, many Senate Republicans are pushing a resolution to reaffirm our state's sovereignty under the United States constitution," wrote spokesman Wesley Donehue in a recent caucus release.
But, once again, it is about more than just money.
Pitts notes he first designed his bill in response to mandates that the state provide education and emergency medical treatment to illegal aliens. And it goes beyond that to other concerns, like the threat of stricter gun control laws under the new Democratic administration, Pitts says, as well as Bush-era policies, like No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act. Authors of sovereignty bills in other states have also made reference to federal abortion laws.
The U.S. government has been continuously overstepping its bounds since Roosevelt, Pitts says. "They send money to the states with strings attached."
But courts have determined that it's Washington's prerogative to require states to spend the money it provides in a particular way, says College of Charleston political science professor William Moore. Today, states are even more dependent on federal aid than they were 200 years ago.
"If you have your hand in the government pocket, you're going to have to abide by those requirements," he says.
The threat of secession in the New Hampshire bill has doomed its passage as it was overwhelmingly rejected by the state House earlier this month, but South Carolina is poised to approve its sovereignty resolution, which avoids declaring such drastic consequences.
Pitts, an Army veteran and retired police officer, stresses he doesn't want to see South Carolina secede from the Union, though he's candid enough to note that "we have very little in common with the West Coast."
The struggle in 1832 was only a prelude to the secessionist battle to come decades later. Jackson framed the argument for preserving the union in his response to South Carolina's nullification threat.
"To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the union is to say that the United States is not a nation," Jackson wrote. "Because the union was formed by a compact, it is said that the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they may not. A compact is a binding obligation."
His words suggested a resolve in the heart of Washington that would truly be tested years later on the battlefield. Recollections of the blood spilled in that war between the states likely kept New Hampshire from approving its recent preamble to revolt. It will likely also keep other states like South Carolina from doing more than stomping their feet in dissatisfaction.
TenthAmendmentCenter.com |
During his War his pin-pal was That “thing” Marx himself..
Those letters are easy to find
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the early history of the Union, in the case of Ware vs. Hylton, 3d Dallas’ Rep., 199, in which it is held by Judge Chase, that the effect of the Declaration of Independence was “not that the united colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, but that each State of them was a sovereign and independent State”.
Madison; “It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.”
Chief Justice John Jay, an advocate of a strong central government in the case Chisholm v. State of Georgia, “expressly declares that the Constitution of the United States is a Compact.”
John Quincy Adams, stated, “our Constitution of the United States and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “the States entered into a compact which is called the Constitution of the United States.”
Quite a bit of legal scholarship saying the obvious. I’m wondering whether the increasing frequency of these discussions and the fact that the law is on the side of those who support individual freedom will cause Obama the Socialist to take things slowly or even limit his objectives for what he may still hope is just a first term with more to follow. I’m not sure whether I’d rather see Obama back off and not push his luck on trashing the Constitution or see him go for it and deal with consequences we haven’t seen in 145 years (meaning secession, not civil war, of course). That choice is a close call for me.
Because NH is split between solid, freedom loving conservatives (and a few libertarians), mushy moderates, and liberals. Many of the liberals and moderates moved to the state in the last 10 years from Massachusetts.
Democrats win in NH because they dominate the electorate in our college towns -- no surprise -- and because there is a huge influx of money and organizational support for Democrats from out of state. Even in a local state rep race the Democrat has a budget measured in thousands, full time 'volunteer' staff, etc. The Republican is spending their own money, and has real local volunteers. The Republican volunteers have real jobs, the Democrat 'volunteers' are frequently full time community 'activists'. But even with the help in many local races the conservative candidates are contenders.
Obviously the conservatives need to get better organized and funded, but we're actually doing pretty well considering the flood of out of state liberal money and people the arrive to influence our elections. Just to narrowly win the liberals need to outspend us by ten to one, and import their campaign volunteers.
Our top line Republican candidates lose for the same reason their national counterparts do - they try to pretend they are liberals to appeal to the moderates. But even mushy moderates prefer a real liberal to a fake liberal, and conservatives don't get excited by RINOs.
Both Madison and Jefferson, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, legitimized the concept of state sovereignty via the policy of nullification, an inherent right for states to declare federal acts invalid if unconstitutional.
I think Ben Franklin was prophetic in his pronouncement when asked what they had formed, "A republic madam, if you can keep it". I think he, like most of the Founders understood the foibles of human nature in that he suspected a misinformed and complacent electorate might sentence the new republic to devolving into a democracy. Something most of the Founders truly wanted to avoid.
That doesn't make him a Marxist any more than writing to my wife makes me a woman.
Please answer the question. Do you know what Marxism means?
There is exactly one letter, written by Marx and congratulating Lincoln on his reelection and for putting an end to slavery. The letter was presented to Ambassador Charles Francis Adams, who wrote a thank you letter back. Lincoln never wrote directly to Marx and in fact there's no evidence that Lincoln ever read the letter, since Adams' thank you letter was written the same day he received the letter from Marx and there was no transatlantic cable operational in January 1865. They were hardly pen pals.
The first Lincoln initially tore the country apart then 'brought the nation together' at gunpoint costing the lives of 600,000+.
Obonga is more like disHonest Abe that you probably care to admit:
He's a divisive figure,
A lawyer,
A big, central government proponent,
A racist,
A liar,
A homosexual,
and on and on............
LOL! Lincoln was elected about 12 years after the “Communist Manifesto” was published. Maybe people think Lincoln had an original copy or something.
Regardless of the 'pretext' the real objective is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not disunion or confederacy.
However, the struggle to retain "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" may require that people who value their freedom from government tyranny, to dissolve an unhappy union with people that prefer living under the yoke of government control.
The U.S. government has been continuously overstepping its bounds since Roosevelt, Pitts says. "They send money to the states with strings attached."
They take money away from the people of the states, at gunpoint, strip off their ill gained tribute, then return it with strings attached.
It's like a pimp/hooker relationship. The hooker does all the work, gives the money to the pimp who takes his cut in return for protection and gives back how much money he wants the hooker to have, as long as she does what he says.
The pimp is usually an overbearing, arrogant SOB strutting around gloating with his power and the hooker is wondering how she got here and wonders how she can get out..............
Lincoln was writing his own version of the Communist Manifesto.............
Well said...that’s it in a nutshell .. I shall quote you sir ...
Anyone who isn't sure of the answer should read The Communist Manifesto, or if they have unlimited patience at least Book 1 of Capital. [And, no, I'm not worried that any decent person intelligent enough to understand will read it and be converted. The only people who understand and approve are already lost souls, parasites who want to enslave others to work for the benefit of their masters.
I have read both, in German and in English, and I understand communists to the same extent that I understand Obama voters - both think they'll get something for nothing from "the rich" so they ignore the unintended consequences of looting from those who produce. Communism is one of the purest forms of evil we will encounter in our lives, no better (although no worse) than Al Qaeda's philosophy.
Sorry..I’ve been away paying for the millions of obamy supporters..Are we having a bugger contest? If not a Marxist then he was a National Socialists! I recalled that Hitler himself was rather a fan of highly centralized government and a fierce opponent of state sovereignty, just like Lincoln.
Karl Marx himself wrote Lincoln on January 28, 1865 to say, “Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority.” In the same letter Marx assured Lincoln that the European communist movement was with him: “From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class,” the father of totalitarian communism wrote. (This and other of Marx’s writings can be found at www.marxists.org.)
Birds of a feather flock together...Right?
1-Major Robert ROSA, of Lincoln’s Army, was a proud member of the New York Communist Club
2-Major General August WILLICH— was a member of the London Communist League with Karl MARX
3- Colonel Richard HINTON, of Lincoln’s army was one of the Charterist Socialists who fled England
4- Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of Lincoln’s army was a close friend of Karl MARX
5- Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. DANA -—close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in Lincoln’s Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent. This happened often after receiving introductory letters from Karl MARX
6-. Brigadier General Louis BLENKER, Lincoln’s army—radical socialist/Communist from Germany
7-Major General Franz SIEGEL, thought to be one of Lincoln’s most controversial and the poorest of his generals, was deeply involved in the German 1848 revolts as a commander of socialist troops in the failed 1849 German Revolution
8-General John C. FREMONT was noted for his close association with all of the socialist/communists whom Lincoln placed in positions of command in his army
Cool image, too:
TenthAmendmentCenter.com
Please disregard the previous ping... I didn’t use the right search phrase.
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.