Posted on 07/04/2013 5:14:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week we celebrate the Fourth of July, the day that our founders declared their independence from Great Britain. This declaration action came after a long history of imposition by King George III. While it might seem as though this is ancient history, there are applicable lessons to remember today.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," the document begins, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This was a fundamental structural change in the way that rights and governments were viewed and understood. No longer were rights held by the king, who then gave them to his subjects and took them from his subjects based on his will or his whim. Instead, it was declared that rights were endowed by God to individuals who, in turn, loaned rights to their elected officials. This meant that these loaned rights could be taken back by the people if they were not properly used.
Our founders concluded the document with the pledge to each other and an invocation of God. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The founders signed our Declaration of Independence with the knowledge that the declaration would be viewed as an act of treason by the king. They knew that if they were not successful in their fight for freedom, they risked losing their lives.
They took this risk after great deliberation and with a firm understanding of the potential consequences. This was not a hasty decision, but rather a thoughtful and deliberate act. They were willing to die for freedom for themselves, their families and this newly formed country.
President Abraham Lincoln, when commemorating the Battle at Gettysburg that occurred 150 years ago, from July 1 to July 3, connected the sacrifice of those that died at Gettysburg to our Founding Fathers. While doing so, with only 278 words, he never used the words I or me, but focused on what actions could be taken by those left to honor those who had died.
"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ... It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Our Founding Fathers risked their lives to declare freedom, hundreds of thousands of Americans died during our Civil War to keep our nation together. They gave the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, for our freedom, as have our soldiers throughout our history.
This week, as we watch fireworks and eat hot dogs, we should pause and reflect on those who have sacrificed for our freedom and liberty. We should resolve once more to do our part, to ensure "that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
It not just red, white and blue -- but also red, white and you.
I never encountered lost causers until FreeRepublic. Crap like “Lincoln Idolators” is the simple-minded stuff that repels otherwise open-minded folks.
After reading the claims of LCL’s I went on my own into the archives and read first hand about him...the man did what was necessary to uphold the duties of his office and defend our nation. Thank God he did.
And yet Washington let Mifflin know that either he (Mifflin) would attend to the insurrectionists or else Washington would. And, as you will recall, he didn’t stop at the state border waiting for an answer.
I don’t have a problem with him securing the Union... that War is over and the outcome is History... but he violated the Constitution and destroyed States Rights forever. You can’t learn about Lincoln in one morning and depending on what you read... you may not even be reading the truth.
LLS
Yea he committed a couple of technical violations of the Constitution but what president hasn’t? I’d say that his measures were appropriate to the circumstances. I’ve only been participating in the WBTS threads for six or seven years now but in that time I read dozens of books from all perspectives and looked into the claims of all the neo-confeds. I’m confident of where the truth lies.
Oops - forgot to respond to this: “...and destroyed States Rights forever.”
That’s just foolish hyperbole. You’re better than that.
LLS
States don’t have rights - they have powers.
I’ve always been ambivalent about initiatives. They tend to veer uncomfortably close to pure the democracy favored by the left than to representative republicanism. That said I fell on the side of the proponents of Prop 8 and was sorry to see it gutted by the 9th circus court.
But remember, all SCOTUS said was that the plaintiffs did not have standing to argue the case before the bench - they did not rule on the merits of Prop 8 or homo marriage itself. The only ones who had standing to pursue the case was governor moonbeam or the state AG.
Would you have preferred that they came to the “right” result but at the expense of the rule of law?
I agree with you about Proposition 8 and I also respect the right for California to have these initiatives coded into their Constitution. The SCOTUS was wrong... but these days they usually are... either by being politically active legislators from the bench or via cowardly evasiveness.
The SCOTUS nullified the will of the people of California through their cowardice. I would have preferred that they had stated that the Constitution of California contains the right of the people to modify it via the ballot initiative process and that it was a State matter and not within the power of the Federal Judiciary to legislate it otherwise. I also wish that roberts had not used "legislating from the bench" to declare obamacare a tax when the Federal government itself was arguing that it was not a tax... but we all suspect why roberts ruled the way that he did... and it was not a morally nor Constitutionally correct decision.
And to maintain an economic system that used, bought and sold human beings as chattel. Yup, you got it.
Every day is Memorial Day when you think about it.
I realize that it is a niggling point but rights are endowed unto us by God whereas powers are granted by the people to government (local, state, federal, etc).
IMO we have to be very precise if we are to beat the left. In my state (Washington) we have a great social agitator named Tim Eyman. You can read about him here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Tim_Eyman He has sponsored a bunch of great initiatives. He has lost more than he has won but he learned from each mistake and improved his initiatives until they were as close to bullet proof as possible.
Like I said, a bunch of his initiatives passed only to be killed by legal challenges. The lefties would study and pore over the things until they found flaws that they could exploit. The frustrating is that our left-dominated state legislature would routinely undo everything that Eyman (and The People) accomplished. That’s because the state legislature (representatives elected by The People) hold more concentrated power than The People whose only practical recourse is to toss them out of office by electing someone else.
This is why, as much as I appreciate the sentiment behind Prop 8, I knew that it wouldn’t survive in leftist-dominated California. The only way a law like that can stand is if the elected representatives (legislature and governor) support it.
If (we) don’t like it (we) need to throw the rascals out!
I am all for throwing progressives out of office everywhere... and especially in California!!! Man if only they could get a grip and open the eyes of the low information voter. Reagan reached them... captured their imagination... he did it as Governor and he did it as President. I understand that was long ago and that California has slanted hard left... but I still wish it would happen and I know that it is possible... however unlikely. Sad times these.
LLS
Blaming all this nation's ills on one man isn't sickening...it's amusing.
Specifically what caused the change?
How?
Article III, Section 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Looks pretty explicit to me. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to accept the appeal and issue the ruling it did.
The SCOTUS nullified the will of the people of California through their cowardice.
The Supreme Court nullified nothing. It sent the case back to the lower court.
The War is over and the South lost. Nothing will change anything of the past and in our future we may be fighting common enemies so let’s just drop this now. I have no wish to continue with a thread that divides us further. I should never have posted here in the first place.
LLS
So you're saying that that implies that Mifflin could take his state outside the union? That's debatable. It's also possible that not complying would have made Mifflin a rebel and an outlaw.
That's why Washington and Hamilton also called up the militia in neighboring states. See Paul Johnson's version.
The sense of Hamilton's passage doesn't confirm your interpretation. The federal government is charged with ensuring that federal laws are enforced -- and not just when a state governor allows it to do so.
Worshiping the man that destroyed the Republic ...
If the Republic was destroyed, secession had a lot to do with it. It was recognized at the time that secession was a major break with what came before. What was left of the country was going to be very different from what it was, whatever Lincoln did or didn't do.
Or maybe it was later 20th century developments that killed the Old Republic: Wilson, the Roosevelts, LBJ. It seems perverse to put all the blame on Lincoln, particularly since the federal government wasn't that much larger or more powerful than it had been and wasn't anything like it is today.
Shouldn't you also note that the "Old Republic" didn't give you -- and a lot of other people -- voting rights? I'm all for the Founders and their work, but isn't it the case that changes do come, and not all of them are bad?
What America tried to do is to reconcile a republican structure and republican checks and balances with a democratic expansion of the electorate. Maybe it won't work, but we ought to recognize the effort.
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.