Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag
Dixienews.com ^ | December 24, 2001 | Lake E. High, Jr.

Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa

I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag, and to the Southern People and the Culture for which it stands

by Lake E. High, Jr.

The Confederate flag is again under attack, as it has always been, and as it always will be. It is under attack because of what it symbolizes. The problem is that to many Southerners have forgotten just what it does symbolize.

The Confederate Nation of 1860 - 1865 was the intellectual, as well as the spiritual, continuation of the United States of America as founded, planned, and formed by Southerners. It was the stated, and often repeated, position of almost all Southerners in the 1860’s that they, and the South, were the heirs of the original political theory embodied in the U. S. Constitution of 1789. In 1860 their attempted to separate from the rest of the states and form their own nation since that was the only way the South could preserve the philosophy and the virtues that had made the United States the magnificent nation it had become.

In both of these contentions, that is, the South was the true repository of the original political theory that made the United States great, and the South was the true home of the people who took the necessary actions to found, make, and preserve the original United States, Southerners have been proven by the passage of time to be correct.

The Southern colonies of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Maryland were where the majority of the original American population resided until the 1700’s despite the fact Massachusetts was settled only 13 years after Virginia and New York was settled 18 years before South Carolina. As the population of the colonies grew, the New England States and the middle Atlantic states, gained population so that by the time of the American Revolutionary War the two general areas of the north and the South were generally equal in size with a small population advantage being shown by Virginia. This slight difference in population by a southern state was to have a profound effect on the development of the United States.

First of all, the New England states managed to start a war with England, which they verbalized as "taxation without representation." In truth the problem from their point of view was the taxes on their trade. Having started the war they then promptly managed to lose it. The British, after conquering the entire north from Maine (then part of Massachusetts) to Boston, to Providence, to New York, to the new nation’s capital, Philadelphia, shifted their military forces to move against the Southern colonies. They secured their foothold in the South by capturing Savannah and Charleston and then proceeded to move inland to subdue the Southern population. They planed to catch the Virginia forces under General Washington in a coordinated attack moving down from the north, which they held, and up from the South that they thought they would also conquer.

The British army that had mastered the north found they could not defeat the Southern people. Once in the backwoods of the South they found themselves to be the beaten Army. The British defeats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens were absolute. Their Pyrrhic victories at Camden and Guilford Courthouse were tantamount to defeat. In both North Carolina and South Carolina they were so weakened they had to retreat from the area of their few "victories" within days. Their defeats at those well-known sites among others, along with their defeat at Yorktown in Virginia, led directly to their surrender.

Having secured the political freedom from England for all the colonists, Southerners then mistakenly sat back and took a smaller role in forming the new American government that operated under an "Articles of Confederation." That first attempt at forming a government fell to the firebrands of New England who has started the war and who still asserted their moral position of leadership despite their poor showing on the field of battle. These Articles of Confederation, the product of the Yankee political mind, gave too much economic self determination to the separate colonies (as the Northern colonies had demanded in an attempt to protect their shipping, trade and manufacturing) and too little power of enforcement to a central government.

After a period of six difficult years, when the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of government, another convention was called and a new form of government was drawn up. This time the convention was under the leadership of Southerners and they brought forth the document we all refer to as the U.S. Constitution. Even northern historians do not try to pretend the Constitution and the ideas embodied therein are anything other than a product of the Southern political mind. (Yankee historians cannot deny it, but they do choose to ignore it so their students grow up ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is Southern.) So, as it turns out, when the new nation found itself in political trouble it was the South which, once again, came to the rescue just as it had when the nation found itself previously in military trouble.

With the slight population advantage it enjoyed over other states, Virginia was able to give to the new nation politicians who are nothing short of demigods. Their names are revered in all areas of the civilized world wherever political theorists converge. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Henry, Taylor and Monroe are just a few, there are many more. These men along with the leading political minds of South Carolina, Rutledge, Heyward, and, most importantly, Pinckney, saw their new nation through its birth and establishment.

The military leadership, as well as the political leadership, of the South saw the nation through its expansion. Under Southern leadership the British were defeated a second time in 1814. Under Southerners, most obviously John Tyler and Andrew Jackson, Florida was added as a state. The defeat of Mexico in 1846, under the Southern leadership of James Polk and numerous Southern military officers, established of the United States as a force to be feared. That was an astonishing accomplishment for so small and so young a nation

Thomas Jefferson, who added the Louisiana Purchase, barely escaped impeachment for his efforts. The north argued continuously against the war with Mexico that added the area from Texas to California just as they had argued against the Louisiana Purchase. One Congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was particularly vehement against Texas being made a state. Northerners, having seen Mexico defeated and the United States enlarged all the way to the Pacific Ocean, then objected to the methods and motives of the acquisition of the Washington and Oregon territories in the northwest. Polk, who had added that vast area from Louisiana to California to Colorado to the pacific northwest, served only one term as President due to the constant attacks he sufferer in the Northern press. Left to the people of the north, the French would still control from Minnesota to Louisiana and Mexico would control from Texas to the Pacific while Canada would still include Washington, Oregon Idaho and Montana.

Every square inch of soil that now comprises the continental United States was added under a Southern president, and they did it over the strenuous political objections of the north. The provincial and mercenary Yankee people fought every effort to expand the United States. The expansion of the United States became a regional political disagreement that spread ill feeling north and South. Its accomplishment by Southerners was no small feat. It was accomplished under Southern military leadership and with much Southern blood. (Which is why Tennessee is called "The Volunteer State" and the names of Southerners are almost exclusively the only ones found on memorial tablets and monuments from Texas to California.). The expansion of the original colonies into the continental power it became was completely the results of the Southern mind and Southern leadership.

Having secured the freedom of the United States from England and then having formed and led the successful government into a new political age under a written constitution that is still the envy of the whole world, the South gave the entire military and political leadership that formed the United States into the boundaries it now enjoys. But these magnificent accomplishments were soon to be overshadowed by population shifts and the ensuing results that brings in a representative government. By the early 1820s the north had finally secured just enough additional population that it had achieved enough political clout to start protecting its first love, its money. The unfair and punitive tariffs that were passed in 1828 led to the South’s first half-hearted attempt to form its own separate government with the Nullification movement of 1832. The threat of war that South Carolina held out in 1832 then caused a negotiated modification of those laws to where the South could live with them. For the time being, the political question was settled by compromise.

While those changes pacified the political leaders of the South for the time being, some statesmen could see, even then, that if the North ever became totally dominant politically, the South would be destroyed, not just economically, but philosophically and spiritually as well. Those statesmen, with Calhoun in the lead, then started planting the intellectual seeds that led to the South’s second attempt at political freedom in 1860.

Unfortunately, in the 1840’s Yankee abolitionist introduced the new poison of the "voluntary end" of slavery as a political issue. There were attempts by many Southerners to defuse this situation by offering an economic solution. That is, Southerners offered to end slavery in the South just as England had ended it in the West Indies, by having the slave-holders paid for their losses when the slaves were freed. The abolitionist Yankees would have none of that. Their position was simple, the South could give up it slaves for free and each farmer could absorb the loss personally. There was to be no payment. To the Yankee abolitionists it was either their way or war.

The fact that the abolitionist movement became a dominant presence in the northern part of the United States from the 1840’s on is primarily because a liberal can politicize any subject and enrage any body of people regardless of the level of preexisting good will. (As current liberals have turned the simple good sense argument that one should not litter one’s own environment into the political upheaval of "the ecology movement." The effectiveness of liberal methods can currently be seen in the simple instance that most people believe such nonsense as the chemical cause of "ozone depletion" and "the greenhouse effect" despite any evidence of either. Liberals are absolutely capable, by their strident, activist natures of raising any question to harmful emotional heights.)

Unfortunately, the loss of the War for Southern Independence in 1865 caused the very thing that Southern statesmen had foreseen in the 1830’s; that is, the north became dominant and the cultural, spiritual, and economic base of the South was decimated. The loss of the war was most severely felt in the South, of course, but it has also had political repercussions in the north as well.

Without the South in a position of dominance, the leadership of the United States has gone from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler and Polk to the inept, or leftist, Grant, Harding, Arthur, Harrison and Roosevelt, among others. Plus, the ascendancy of the leftist north to national prominence has also caused the rise of leaders in the South who had to be acceptable to the north. Such spectacularly immoral or totally incompetent Southern politicians as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are examples of the quality of the men that the South must now produce to garner northern votes. When these modern day jackals are contrasted with the demigods the South produced when unfettered by the northern voter, that in itself should be enough to make all people reject northern philosophy and northern politics and embrace all things Southern.

As the forces of the left have gained ascendancy in the United States, the pressure intensifies to completely obliterate anything that remains between them and complete leftist victory. That means that the traditional enemy of leftists, the South, must be erased in its every form. That is why leftists always demand that even symbols of the South be eradicated.

We, therefore, now have a coalition of people who want the Southern flag taken down and hidden from public view. This coalition is composed of three main groups. First of all are African-Americans, whose emotional position is totally unmitigated by any knowledge of history. Secondly, there are Yankees who have moved to the South and who, despite their remarkable political failures in their own states, have learned nothing and continue to vote leftist here too. Or either these northern imports have been transferred here to run the newspapers that are owned by the people who live outside the South. And, thirdly, there are leftist Southerners, or Southerners of "politically correct" leaning, who have apparently learned their history from the television and movies and who feel the South is a bad place because it is not egalitarian enough.

But the demands of this coalition of political thinkers need to be put in proper perspective. Before anyone starts to tell someone else how to act and how to think, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate the success of his own ideas and actions. So far the introduction and enforcement of leftist ideas in our world has led to nothing but sorrow and degeneration. The force necessary to make people live under a leftist government has been the direct cause of the murder of over one hundred million people in this century alone. Leftist political theory has enslaved and impoverished billions of people worldwide. Its introduction has weakened even such great nations as England and France and reduced them to the status of third rate nations. Socialism in Scandinavia has reduced it to an economic level even less than that of England. In the United States leftist ideas have turned our country into the increasingly sick society it has become.

So until this coalition of leftist can point to a single successful instance of where their leftist philosophy has improved a country, or a people, rather than to the spectacular political failures the left has precipitated in any place into which its poisonous philosophy has been introduced, they have no right to demand anything of anybody. Leftist, the most spectacular political failures in all of history, have no standing to demand that Southerners accept anything that flows from their false philosophy. And of all people, leftist have the least demand on Southerners, the people who formed, guided, expanded and gave them a great country.

The Confederate flag is a symbol. It stands for the people who had the spirit, the courage, and the intelligence to give the world its greatest governmental entity. As long as the Confederate flag flies there is hope that the terrible scourge leftists have placed on the world will pass. It represents the culture that produced the most wished for, the most just, and the finest political system on earth. And as long as the Confederate flies there is hope that the greatness that was once ours may someday be reestablished.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 561-572 next last
To: rugggud
I'm sure many modern day Nazi throwbacks would argue that the swastika symbolizes German economic success, unity, and determination of spirit. All could be argued true. But most would agree that baby needed to be thrown out with the bathwater. Time for a new, untainted symbol.


341 posted on 01/02/2002 9:37:28 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It is wrong to say that I -ever- said that the states were not sovereign

Well which is it? Either the states are sovereign on everything except what is covered in the Constitution or they aren't.

342 posted on 01/02/2002 9:38:54 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
You're right, he is fun to play with. It was either WP or one of his cohorts that told me that, because the word "permanent" appears in the preamble of the A of C, that was proof that secession is illegal.
343 posted on 01/02/2002 9:43:46 AM PST by Leesylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
To author of article. Whether it's Walker pledging allegiance to the Taliban or this nut case pledging alle giance to to the Confederate Flag. A Traitor by any other name is still a traitor.
344 posted on 01/02/2002 9:44:24 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
Ah, you are wise in the ways of the Constitution, Grasshopper, but you must be lying as am I.

WP even lies when he tries to insult me. Follow the "reply to" thread and work backwards, and you'll see that when he originally started this lying stuff, he said either I'm lying or I didn't retain my lessons in school very well. With his most recent reply, though, he says he wasn't implying but rather stating flat out that I was lying. He is so intellectually dishonest that its almost funny.

345 posted on 01/02/2002 9:51:59 AM PST by Leesylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: billbears; Who is John Galt?
Just some grist for the mill on the subject:

James Madison to Daniel Webster

15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.


346 posted on 01/02/2002 9:52:27 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
WIJG: Are you suggesting that a simple act of Congress. such as the “Judiciary Act of 1789,” can take precedence over the Constitution itself?

WP: You know that's false. The Constitution says that the Constitution, and the laws passed in pursuance, shall be the supreme law of the land. You don't fool anybody who doesn't want to be fooled.

We’ve been over this before (repeatedly). Are you suggesting that Congress may pass a law (prohibiting all political speech, for example) “in pursuance” of one part of the Constitution (the ‘common welfare’ clause) that would somehow free the federal government from all limits imposed by another part of the Constitution (the First Amendment, in this case)? And that such a simple act of Congress would be constitutional and somehow supercede part of the Constitution itself (voiding the First Amendment, in this example, as well as Article V)? You have never responded to this (or any similar) hypothetical, apparently because your ridiculous argument can not pass even the most elementary of tests. (It would seem that you "want to be fooled" by your own asinine claims. ;>) No simple act of Congress can modify or repeal any constitutional amendment – including (no matter how much you may wish it) the Tenth Amendment...

Better luck next time!

;>)

347 posted on 01/02/2002 9:53:21 AM PST by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
Damn, you're good! You are what WP has deluded himself into believing he is.
348 posted on 01/02/2002 9:55:18 AM PST by Leesylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
My friend.....I have long admired your work. Deo vindice.
349 posted on 01/02/2002 10:00:00 AM PST by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Nimitz
Nimitz: I just read WhiskeyPapa's return salvo (reply 333) to what you stated. What abuse is he talking about, and how does he consider you hateful? Have you two had previous encounters, or is this your first entanglement with the self-annointed "big dog?" Just curious?
350 posted on 01/02/2002 10:01:14 AM PST by Leesylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Leesylvanian
I don't recall ever having an exchange with WP. That's not to say I haven't. It is possible that he is both a self appointed "real american" and a jackass. Me thinks he confuses hate speach with truth. Ah yes, like so many despot serving fools before him, WP may goose step his way to the gallows. I will not be the fool that follows him. As for now, we as freepers and Americans can be thankful for the intellectually honest such as WIJC and yourself. The forgoing begs the question: what series of life events or perversion of education was WP subjected to such that he draws the conclusions that he has? I don't want to debate him because enjoy pitying him.
351 posted on 01/02/2002 10:22:08 AM PST by Nimitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

bump
352 posted on 01/02/2002 10:35:39 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Good to hear from you! Allow me to give the handle a crank... ;>)

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy...The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government ... subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases...

(For the sake of argument, I will accept Mr. Madison’s statement, although it was made a generation after he argued for ratification of the then-new Constitution.) Allow me summarize: Mr. Madison differentiated between secession “at will,” and secession resulting from “from intolerable oppression,” referring to the latter as “revolution,” and noting that the government established by the Constitution was “subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.” All well and good. But who, I must ask, determines when the “extreme case” has arisen, and “oppression” has become “intolerable?” Walt’s argument suggests two alternatives. Either the high court, itself a part of the federal government, must determine when federal government “oppression” has become “intollerable,” or (apparently) “the people” of the “-whole-“ nation must make that determination. Both options are laughable: can you picture any five members of the Supreme Court ordering the people to revolt? Is it any easier to picture a national plebiscite authorizing revolution, so long as 50.0000000001% of the "-whole-" people approve it?

Let us refer to Mr. Madison, once again, for the answer:

The...position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution," or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection...It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, 1800

Clearly, the individual States must decide when “oppression” has become “intolerable.” This position is not inconsistent with Mr. Madison’s earlier declarations in Federalist No. 39 & 40, and it is entirely consistent with his Virginia Resolutions and Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions. And it is consistent with history: only a few States (notably Virginia and Kentucky) objected to the notorious and “palpably” unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities... But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact.

Here, again summarizing, we see Mr. Madison refer to the potential “dissolution” of the union into “separate communities:” the latter obviously referring (given the context – “the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it”) to the "separate" States. And we find the phrase: “whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved.” It would seem that Mr. Madison recognized the right of the States to secede, if the States deemed federal action sufficiently tyrannical to warrant such action...

353 posted on 01/02/2002 10:48:07 AM PST by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: rebelyell
God will vindicate - in His own time...
354 posted on 01/02/2002 10:50:55 AM PST by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Nimitz
Thank you. I won't debate him because it would break one of my New Year's resolutions not to waste bandwidth on FR! Actually, I think Who Is John Galt did such a good job that WP may not be a vocal for a while. (What am I, crazy?)
355 posted on 01/02/2002 10:56:28 AM PST by Leesylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
Here, again summarizing, we see Mr. Madison refer to the potential “dissolution” of the union into “separate communities:”

No, he doesn't refer to dissolution of the union; he refers to dissolution of the Constitutional Compact. Different animals.

And we find the phrase: “whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved.” It would seem that Mr. Madison recognized the right of the States to secede, if the States deemed federal action sufficiently tyrannical to warrant such action...

Where does Madison explicitly suggest that a state may dissolve the compact? He had asserted, 30 years prior, that a state may interpose, under certain circumstances, on Constitutional grounds. Whether or not one agrees with that idea, a state dissolving the Compact is far removed from a state declare a law unconstitutional. Quite near the opposite, it seems to me.

And what of the last line in the letter, which you neglected to include?:

It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

It seems to me then, that Madison saw the obligations of a compact as vital, and yet, not necessarily expressed explicitly in the Constitution itself. I wonder what Mr. Madison's ideas were on the nature of and obligations of parties to a compact.

You quoted his Report, which asserts that the states, i.e., the parties, are the final judges of Constitutionality. Let's just accept that as it is, OK? But then you leap to the conclusion that this means a state may "secede". In fact, you say this is "clearly" so. I must be blind. I don't see it! Looking at the Report, we see that Virginia has found a Federal law unconstitutional. They have written some resolutions which spell it out in painstaking detail. And they let us know what they intend to do about it. Did they propose to write their own Constitution? Cease to obey the US Constitution? Quite the opposite! Madison wrote:

The object, being to maintain what the Constitution has ordained, is in itself a laudable object.

As opposed to the Slave states, which sought to remove themselves from it.

The means are expressed in the terms "the necessary and proper measures." A proper object was to be pursued by the means both necessary and proper.

Now what could he mean by "necessary and proper" means? (I can't help finding some humor in the choice of words, given the context, but I digress, except to say surely he intended a strict construction of the phrase?)

To find an objection, then, it must be shown that some meaning was annexed to these general terms which was not proper; and, for this purpose, either that the means used by the General Assembly were an example of improper means, or that there were no proper means to which the terms could refer.

And he goes on later...

These observations appear to form a satisfactory reply to every objection which is not founded on a misconception of the terms employed in the resolutions. There is one other, however, which may be of too much importance not to be added. It cannot be forgotten that, among the arguments addressed to those who apprehended danger to liberty from the establishment of the general government over so great a country, the appeal was emphatically made to the intermediate existence of the state governments between the people and that government; to the vigilance with which they would descry the first symptoms of usurpation, and to the promptitude with which they would sound the alarm to the public. This argument was probably not without its effect; and if it was a proper one then to recommend the establishment of a constitution, it must be a proper one now to assist in its interpretation.

They are "assisting in interpretation." A far cry from exiting and re-writing.

The only part of the two concluding resolutions that remains to be noticed, is the repetition, in the first, of that warm affection to the Union and its members, and of that scrupulous fidelity to the Constitution, which have been invariably felt by the people of this state. As the proceedings were introduced with these sentiments, they could not be more properly closed than in the same manner. Should there be any so far misled as to call in question the sincerity of these professions, whatever regret may be excited by the error, the General Assembly cannot descend into a discussion of it. Those who have listened to the suggestion can only be left to their own recollection of the part which this state has borne in the establishment of our national independence, or the establishment of our national Constitution, and in maintaining under it the authority and laws of the Union, without a single exception of internal resistance or commotion. By recurring to the facts, they will be able to convince themselves that the representatives of the people of Virginia must be above the necessity of opposing any other shield to attacks on their national patriotism, than their own conscientiousness, and the justice of an enlightened public; who will perceive in the resolutions themselves the strongest evidence of attachment both to the Constitution and the Union, since it is only by maintaining the different governments, and the departments within their respective limits, that the blessings of either can be perpetuated.

Union. Fidelity to the Constitution. It seems to me the Report asserts a state's responsibility to interpret the Constitution, to interpose as a last resort (when the Congress has failed), as a means of preserving the Constitution, preserving the Union. Does this mean a state may secede? No. Secession may well have been considered "improper means." Judging by Mr. Madison's great support for Daniel Webster (shall we post Webster's speech, to which Madison referred?), I would say he would have considered "secession" an improper violation of the compact, as opposed to the Virginia Resolution, which was performed in service to the Compact.

356 posted on 01/02/2002 12:28:20 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa

The Constitution says that the Constitution, and the laws passed in pursuance, shall be the supreme law of the land.

Walt, I'm impressed.  

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US Cranch, (1803).

Laws can be changed by congress, the Constitition only by amendment and approval from the states.   The hierarchy here is still with the Constitition being the supreme law of the land, followed by legislative acts.   Here Justice Marshall explains why we have a written Constitution,

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not he mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.

The legislature cannot pass legislation that expands the powers of government, that can only be achieved by an amendment.   If the legislature could simply pass a law granting itself (or even a President) more powers, then we'd have no need for a "written" Constitution.

But don't forget that Marshall also delivers this gem as well,

That the people have an original right to establish for their ... government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

Well, I did leave one word out.  The first line actually reads like this,

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.

Considering he wrote this in 1803, I wonder what he meant.  < /sarcasm >

357 posted on 01/02/2002 12:52:35 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
If so;

* Then the Founders were worse than the worst sort of used car salesmen,..........

Partially true. Madison, Hamilton, Washington and others clearly went to Philadelphia with the intent to 'start over' if I can use that phrase. They realized that the independence so hard won as a nation only a few years eariler was in jeopardy under the weak Articles. They knew we needed a more 'perfect' and powerful Union if any of the states were to remain independent. In fact, Washington agreed to assume the Presidency of the convention only under the condition that a new form of government would result. They also understood that if they stated their intent before hand, the petty demogogs in the states would have sabatoged the convention. They did work in secrecy through the summer of 1787 and produced as near a perfect document as has ever been developed by man.

I guess if you consider Lincoln a tyrant, calling calling Washington a 'used car salesmen' is not all that bad. History simply does not agree with you

358 posted on 01/02/2002 12:53:18 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The original Union was voluntary. That's the one George Washington wanted. "Consent of the governed" with him was key. He was the Anti-Lincoln.

"No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V, US Constitution.

Now why do you suppose a state could consent to being denied their equal suffrage in the Senate? Could it be because they had the legal option under the Constitution to SECEDE??

Illinois motto: "State Sovereignty, National Union" Ole Abe was shot too soon. The 39th Congress wiped out half his state's motto. Walt cheers.

359 posted on 01/02/2002 1:53:08 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
The original Union was voluntary. That's the one George Washington wanted. "Consent of the governed" with him was key. He was the Anti-Lincoln.

You can't make that a true statement based on anything Washington said.

Walt

360 posted on 01/02/2002 2:07:20 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 561-572 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson