Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959
That is why I 'cut and pasted'. Your precedent post was a joke, it had nothing to do with the right of the President to raise troops to put down a rebellion.
Andrew Jackson had every plans to go into South Carolina and hang Calhoun if they did not pull back their nullification nonsense.
You should cry because your post in simply nonsense.
No Government grants the right to secede, that is why the Declaration was written, to show the just cause for ending a Government, when that government is attacking rather then defending individual rights.
The American Revolution isn't called the American secession!
You guys really have a hard time with definitions and reality.
Still have questions about Madison's rejection of secession?
Did you know Robert E. Lee didn't think the States had a right to secede either?
Or do you need me to show you that as well.
Your comments only show how shallow and incomplete your knowledge is.
I hope you aren't homeschooling anyone!
Madison was stating 'public opinion' to remove the notion that secession was a legimate option and that he and Jefferson supported it
If it isn't secession, then it is rebellion and can be put down by force. LOL!
Yes, I am a Lincoln man, a far greater man that that traitor Jefferson Davis.
Point two, will you shoot me and my family or authorize the shooting of me and my family, or support a government who would shoot me if I'm part of a State that desires to secede? Please answer with yes or no so I can see just how strongly you are committed to your ideology. Yes or no, will you point a gun at me and shoot me to "preserve the Union?" Talk is easy, but if my side is successful, and a few States decided to go their own way and form a new Union...will forthedeclaration not just talk about his support for Lincolnian policy, but will you actually shoot me? Talk is cheap friend...will you live out your political theory and kill me to preserve the Union?
And you ignored where Madison's own hand wrote-
or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.
bump for later....
You feel free to be insulting, ignore questions directed to you, and continue to harp on a single letter of Madison's while blatantly disregarding his continued provisos contained in other correspondance:
James Madison to Charles Eaton Hayne 27 Aug. 1832
It is true that in extreme cases of oppression justifying a resort to original rights, and in which passive obedience & non-resistance cease to be obligatory under any Government a single State, or any part of a single State might rightfully cast off the yoke.
I noted you also managed to select one that doesn't contain his protestations of ill health and age:
[also from the above letter]
I have sketched these few ideas more from an unwillingness to decline an answer to your letter than from any particular value that may be attached to them—You will pardon me therefore for requesting that you will regard them as for yourself & not for publicity which my very advanced age renders every day more and more to be avoided. Accept Sir, a renewal of my respects & regards
Talk about selective knowledge.
So, for the sake of ideological purity we can all rally around mittens, right?!
/sarc
You care to explain this non-sequitur?
I contend that attempts to split the US geographically when our divide is ideological rather than regional are unlikely to succeed.
And your response is an anti-Romney remark?
I don't know any American who would disagree.
Many, including myself, will disagree rather vehemently that there was any oppression at all of southern states prior to their secession, much less that it met the standard here posed by Madison of "extreme" oppression.
No southerner was imprisoned or executed or oppressed in any other way. Except of course for their slaves.
Of course secession and revolution are sometime justified. But that does not mean they are always justified whenever someone takes it into their mind to rebel.
The Constitution specifically authorized suspension of civil rights during times of invasion or insurrection, thus explicitly stating that some insurrections are illegitimate and should be suppressed by military force.
Just curious. When you secede, what will you do to that large minority of citizens who resist secession, possibly by force, in your state?
Will you use lethal force to put down their insurrection? If not, how can you maintain your secession against violent resistance?
If you will use lethal force against those who resist secession, how is your position morally different from that you posed?
1. I believe a "super majority" would be necessary for a State, based on the CONSENT of the governed of that State to withdraw from the compact.
2. Those who oppose the consent of the super-majority have a few choices.
A. Stay and put up with the governance of the new sovereign State
B. Leave
C. Work politically to overturn the existing power.
D. Attempt to secede themselves and break apart.
E. Take up arms against the new sovereign State.
So, there you have it, 5 options for any individual to take. I personally would have no problem with Texas breaking into 300 little sovereign city-states sharing a common defense pact (something the duchy's in Italy didn't do to well when Spain came a knocking). So little "r" republicanism offers an UNBELIEVABLE number of options for self-governance and the free-market to EXPLODE. The Founders understood this clearly.
Now, I understand the Founders (and other historical figures all the way back to Plato) have fallen on hard times these days with big-government progressives AND conservatives. And this has led to very heated power struggles for generations and most have come to put most of their hope in getting "their guy" into office. Never realizing that they're just pawns in a BIG-GOVERNMENT chess game between the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation! ( in jest I'm sure you understand)
Be that as it may, the issue of secession has emerged again, mainly by modern day Jeffersonians and as expected, the legacy of Lincoln emerges as well. And the debate rages on between the two camps yet only 1 can lay claim to the 10,000 year understanding of Inalienable Rights. Hint - it ain't ole' honest Abe. It simply cannot be disputed, Lincoln's anti-constitutional actions in the 1860's fertilized the ground from which a HUGE oppressive national government emerged. And perhaps people should read a little more into Lincoln's law practice before they Knight him. He's not quite as white as the driven snow as we've been taught by the big-government propaganda machine.
Please point out the caveat in the 1850's Constitution where the Right to property extend to only that which is popularly approved.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
Essay on Property, James Madison.
I wonder what Madison would have thought of the NULLIFYING laws passed by the northern States that were contrary to the Constitution.
--------
The Constitution specifically authorized suspension of civil rights during times of invasion or insurrection, thus explicitly stating that some insurrections are illegitimate and should be suppressed by military force.
Article 4 section 4 has been fully examined in post #36.
You might want to reconsider your claim to Plato as a precursor of the idea of human rights.
Plato was a strong proponent of an utterly totalitarian government with hereditary philosopher-kings as absolute rulers.
He trotted off to Sicily and spent some time trying to be the power behind the throne of a powerful tyrant.
He was, in fact, the forerunner of all the intellectuals since who have been in love with the idea that if only they were given absolute power they could solve all man’s problems.
Your idea that “unalienable rights” has a 10,000 year history is ludicrous. You can search all the classical authors, and through Chinese and India history, and wherever you look you will find not a trace of the idea that “all men are created equal.”
Its germ is found in the Hebrew prophets, was expanded in the NT, and didn’t really begin to develop fully until the Reformation, when people began to realize that we are all equal because we are all equally children of God.
It’s not only not an old idea, it is utterly unique to western civilization.
That’s quite the recipe for chaos you have there.
Too true.
Yet they're refuse to acknowledge the fact the South tried to extract herself for the simple purpose of self-preservation. To them, preventing the annihilation of an entire economy isn't a 'good enough' reason.
Nor can they ever seem to verbalize just how much IS 'enough'. They are so blinded by the immorality of slavery, they can't see the underlying issue - property.
So now that 'they won', our money has no value, our property confiscated without due process, our children can be arbitrarily taken by the State, we don't own our real estate [even after it's paid for], we have to have governments permission to drive, to work, to improve our own homes...... the list of unconstitutional actions is endless.
All because they unleashed the beast from its Constitutional cage.
One has to wonder if the concept of ENOUGH even exists to them, or are they merely the contemporary lap dogs of our perverted government.
And a facade of “order” is better? What do you think is going to happen when the house of cards comes down?
And what I suggested is certainly not chaos...just change. Scary to some, liberating to others.
Mama, think of the Stockholm Syndrome and the picture will become much clearer about why people suspend reality like they do now. We’re all Patty Hearsts now! :)
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.