Posted on 04/09/2016 9:39:16 AM PDT by EveningStar
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
I enjoyed that. Love the flags.
They took away our battle flag from the South Carolina State House not once, but twice.
Here where Mom lives in Tennessee, I often see convoys of pickup trucks flying the Confederate colors. PC hasn’t won yet.
Yes. It argues that God's law and Nature's law is higher than man's law, and according to Nature and God, people have a right to be independent if they wish to be.
The authority of the D of I is not mandatory, but it is presumed and persuasive authority in regards to the Constitution.
Well it is mandatory for a nation that points to it as their authority to leave a larger Union. They needed to invoke a higher power than man made law to justify their independence, else they would have been morally obliged to obey the law of the Union to which they belonged.
You cannot very well assert that You have a right to secede from a Union, but nobody else does. That is hypocrisy.
As I said, the things contained in the D of I are not constitutional dictates, but as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
More like Providence. Again, the source of their authority for the Declaration is God. Yes, the Declaration of Independence is not a mere constitutional dictate. It is the authority under which the US constitution obtains it's own legitimacy.
What I quote in that list, what you call “projecting”, are exact quotes in the D of I regarding justification for secession.
I am not disputing that those listed reasons are in there. I am disputing that they are a requirement to secede.
The text clearly states that the only requirement is a desire for independence.
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.
The Southern States had every right to leave for any reason they D@mned well pleased. The Union was voluntarily joined, and states should have been allowed to leave when their consent to being ruled from Washington D.C. was withdrawn.
“Let’s open our eyes. It is a skull...the death of Lincoln’s Republican Party.”
Well then to you, there's no need to justify succession. Depending on how fast you hold to that view, the rest here may or may not matter to you.
I used to see it that way was well. But I agree with the authors of the D of I, the part you stop just short of...
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Like other associations, the freedom to join doesn't necessarily mean you can justifiably leave anytime you want. The D of I was written to explain what it takes to justly "change" or "dissolve political bands".
I’m sorry, that war ended in 1865. I have no desire to re fight it now. You have your approach to it, I have mine.
CC
“No, it’s the “wawuh of northrun agreshion”. Or that’s how i’ve heard it proclaimed in Dixie.”
Sounds like how a Nu Yawker babbles.
100% accurate.
Damn insiders and their stealthy bs.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
The reason I stopped short is because that next section adds nothing to the point. "Should not" is a suggestion, not a requirement.
Furthermore, your point ignores the fact that the Southern States did not consider their independence movement to be a consequence of "light and transient causes." They considered the issues separating the North and South to be quite serious and intractable.
Like other associations, the freedom to join doesn't necessarily mean you can justifiably leave anytime you want.
Associations like the Mafia perhaps, but I know of no legitimate association that says they will kill you if you try to leave.
The military battles may have ended in 1865, but the consequences of that war are far from over. Much of the current dysfunction in our government can be traced directly back to that war.
"Gay Marriage", "Abortion", "Banning prayer in public schools", "Anchor Babies" and all sorts of other issues of the day are directly traceable to the fallout from that war.
The war is still with us, and still casting a long dark shadow on the nation.
Why, then, should the D of I have not simply been a one-liner announcing that fact? You explain away all the D of I except what suits you with "'should not" is a suggestion, not a requirement." We've already been over that - the D of I is not mandatory legal authority but rather persuasive authority and yet the D of I does state some requirements for secession already mentioned.
Here's one I haven't yet mentioned:
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.
The rest of the D of I, which you summarily reject, explains and shows what a declaration of session should look like, including what are NOT "light and transient causes".
Of course, there's a problem with your rather simplistic free-to-come-free-to-go premise about formal associations. When you as a principal freely join or form a corporation or a partnership with others, mutual trust is formed, mutual benefits are conferred, and you and the others generally have skin in the game. And it is generally contractual. You don't just "back out" of a contract simply because you freely entered into it. Usually you cannot just "leave" a formal association or break a contract just because you decide to without a penalty because others who have relied on your association are now suffering detrimental consequences from your decision. Marriage is probably the easiest example. Associations in the business world like partnerships and corporations are another example.
Usually, a good business association includes agreements on how disassociations will work. Usually you have to have a good reason for leaving and if not, you may have to pay some kind of penalty. The point is your simplistic scenario of freedom to leave without consequences, is not how formal, contractual associations, including political associations, work out in real life.
In this case, the Constitution itself was tailored and ten amendments added to accommodate all potential ratifying states. Those that hated slavery held their nose and allowed it in the Constitution believing that the Union was the most important thing and that slavery would naturally die out, which it would have I think. And there is a legitimate argument that statehood is a contractual agreement with the Union and one that can't simply be broken without certain steps having been taken.
The D of I is persuasive authority about what it takes to legitimately disassociate or secede from a government. Your premise denies the need for a D of I that explains session to the world, only possibly an announcement of secession. I and our Founders would disagree with you. Not sure what else there is to talk about.
No it did not. An organization, voluntarily entered, ought to be voluntarily leavable.
Why, then, should the D of I have not simply been a one-liner announcing that fact?
Because it wouldn't have produced the sort of impact the founders were wanting. King George III mostly ignored it, but the rest of the European countries marked it, and so did the English public.
We've already been over that - the D of I is not mandatory legal authority but rather persuasive authority and yet the D of I does state some requirements for secession already mentioned.
It asserts that it's authority derives from "the laws of nature and of nature's God." There is no higher authority. This was at the pinnacle of the "Natural Law" enlightenment which was sweeping Europe and America at the time. In the 1770s, "natural law" was a thing. It was a body of thought that explained the rights of man in regards to certain fundamental assumptions. That men were created by God, and " endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.
What is the target object of that sentence? It is "A decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
It isn't setting forth a necessary requirement to leave, it is setting forth a requirement for what must be done if you wish to demonstrate respect for the "opinions of mankind."
Whether "mankind" respects you or not is irrelevant to your having a fundamental right to stop associating with other people, if you so wish.
The rest of the D of I, which you summarily reject, explains and shows what a declaration of session should look like, including what are NOT "light and transient causes".
Should? Who are you to say what a Declaration of Independence should look like? That's just a bunch of formal pomp and circumstance gobbledygook.
I am talking about natural rights, and you are talking about "following symbolic precedent." It's like asserting to someone that they must be your friend until they have given you some sort of formal written document which gives you reasons that you consider satisfactory.
No. You aren't owed an explanation, and your friend's right to leave your company is not contingent upon whatever formalities and flowery language you wish to demand.
A friend or a girlfriend does not have to justify her reasons for leaving you.
And there is a legitimate argument that statehood is a contractual agreement with the Union and one that can't simply be broken without certain steps having been taken.
When you explain to me how this bond should have been regarded as stronger than the English Union, you will have my attention. Bear in mind, your explanation must clarify how we had a right to leave England, but how the Southern States did not have a right to leave Washington D.C.
Not when it is a formal association with contractual obligations. You conveniently skip over the whole contractual agreement argument. There is a strong argument that statehood is a contractual political treaty and agreement that carries benefits and obligations and penalties for breach.
clarify how we had a right to leave England, but how the Southern States did not have a right to leave Washington D.C.
Already did that but I'll do it again, but we're starting to go around in circles because that which the D of I sites as justification for session you reject as "not a requirement" and we're back to square one with your simplistic view of "free to come, free to go" regardless of contractual, formal, or political agreements. I'll give it one more try, and after that I'm done.
The D of I lays out the extensive level of England's breach of political agreement. Whatever political compact existed between England and the colonies, including the laws of nature but not limited to that, was broken repeatedly and eventually "insufferably" by England. It is generally understood backed by common and state law, One party breaches a contract or agreement, the other party is free to abandon it.
However, the authors of the D of I wanted to make it very clear that it wasn't just one breach, but 27 listed, specific "injuries and usurpations".
So, as I have said, the D of I announced that after 1) “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable” 2) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses), and finally 3) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government” as “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
The South on the other hand showed very little "patient sufferance while evils are suffereable". The South did not deliver any notification of a list of unconstitutional acts by the North, because as far as I know, there were none - only the anticipation of such. So no "patient sufferance". What about the "long train of abuses and usurpations" that justify secession?
So the colonies had more than enough evidence of extensive breach by England of their agreement. The heart of the contractual political agreement between the Southern states and the Union is of course the Constitution. The South showed no unconstitutional acts, much less "a long train" of such, by the North that would constitute a breach their agreement.
If you respond again with "no requirement" then we're done, just going around in circles. As far as I and the Founders and "Prudence" and "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" are concerned, without this or some equally valid rationale for political breach, the South was required to show such and failed to do so and the North was in the right to take action.
Again, I used to think like you do about this but after long study and reflection, I changed my mind. Also bear in mind, on a personal note, if you look at my posts you'll see I'm one of the few that I know of on FR that calls for states to exert their sovereignty by nullifying unconstitutional federal acts which by are acts of tyranny. I don't call for session - yet - because I believe it is necessary to resist on a case-by-case basis first.
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.