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


1 posted on 07/01/2003 6:12:02 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Aurelius; Gianni; azhenfud; annyokie; SCDogPapa; thatdewd; canalabamian; Sparta; treesdream; ...
for discussion
2 posted on 07/01/2003 6:16:02 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Prof Engineer
history ping
3 posted on 07/01/2003 6:17:47 AM PDT by msdrby (I do believe the cheese slid off his cracker! - The Green Mile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Yes. It Was. And the Author convieniently leaves out the salient points of the DOI.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Oh, yes, an P.S. it was under pain of Treason that the Founding Fathers pledged their "Lives, Fortunes, and "....(their)"Sacred Honor"....

The Winners write the History Books.....Sorry.

4 posted on 07/01/2003 6:28:31 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Bump. IMHO, no.

The Southern States weren't trying to overthrow the Federal Government, they wanted to leave the Union.
6 posted on 07/01/2003 6:37:52 AM PDT by SAMWolf (My dad fought in World War II, it's one of the things that distinguishes him from the french.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Stainless,
The Articles of Confederation of the United States also explain there is a joint agreement among the several sovereign states and that each reserve and retain all rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution, AND that no rights may be abridged without the consent of the United States Congress assembled....

Here is the introduction and first three articles:

"The Articles of Confederation


Nov. 15, 1777

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

Treason is defined best depending upon which side of Liberty one stands.

Regards,
Az
10 posted on 07/01/2003 6:46:23 AM PDT by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Not only do states have the constitional right to secede they have an obligation to secede from an opressive government which many feel is our present condition.
12 posted on 07/01/2003 7:06:07 AM PDT by sandydipper (Never quit - never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Oh give me a break.

The South Lost.
History is written by the winners.
QED: Secession was treason.

The quality of the precedents and arguments on either side are meaningles.
They ceased to matter when the first shot was fired.
All that matters is that we (The South) lost.

Join back up with the real world.

So9

18 posted on 07/01/2003 7:25:28 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
So was secession treason?

You need to run this by Ann Coulter. ;-)

23 posted on 07/01/2003 7:37:06 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds (Summertime!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
"The point was raised in the convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution, which remains the U. S. government charter today."

That seems to say it all right there.

26 posted on 07/01/2003 7:41:54 AM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
This issue is addressed in a book written by Alfred Bledsoe, Was Jefferson Davis a Traitor or The War Between the States. Bledsoe spent the entire Civil War in England researching the only other copy of our Constitution so that he could defend Davis and the South in the case Southerners lost and were persecuted by a court of law. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, knew that he would have to meet Bledsoe in a court if any of the former Confederates were charged with treason and he knew that the North would lose in an honest court of law. Ask yourself, why wasn't any of the secessionists ever tried for treason or prosecuted in a court? One knows that the radical Northerners would have liked nothing better than to hang Southerners but they didn't, why? The answer is in the knowledge of Chase and Bledsoe.
28 posted on 07/01/2003 8:04:47 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Gore lost. Get over it already. ;-)
62 posted on 07/01/2003 11:11:24 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Secession was not treason. The facts in the posted article are correct, including the assertion that the federal government created by the founders was destroyed by the Civil War (as well as by the income tax and direct, popular election of senators). Speaknig strictly from a point of view that would like to have seen state sovereignty preserved, it's truly, truly unfortunate that South Carolina, and subsequently the entire south, chose violence rather than a secession challenge through the courts. South Carolina gave Lincoln the opening he needed to go to war.

But what's done, is done and we cannot go back. Besides, what's under threat today is our national sovereignty from the internationalist Left, which will never be satisfied until it creates a world super-government.

76 posted on 07/01/2003 12:44:34 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB — a truly great President — we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
Actually, Chase and the Supreme Court he led did hold (in Texas v. White, I believe) that the Constitution forbids secession. I find the arguments used unconvincing, but that's what they held. However, it's a different matter whether Jefferson Davis and others could have been convicted of the crime of treason (which would have required their knowledge that they were committing treason), and I think Chase and others judged that there was no reasonable prospect of a jury finding them guilty.
87 posted on 07/02/2003 5:32:55 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
bump
88 posted on 07/02/2003 5:33:39 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
History aside for a moment, if states could leave peaceably whenever the federal government over stepped it's legitimate powers we wouldn't be in the current mess. Freedom would have been better served in the long term and the people would leave any state which usurped their rights and go to another state where they were not. Instead we have universal tyranny with no where to flee to.

Fight or flight? Which do you think is better? And when do you think the next war will begin?

100 posted on 07/02/2003 7:41:17 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stainlessbanner
"So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No."

Article II Section 3 Clause 1:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

In the United States, secession is a political act. If a state had, hypothetically, in 1860 proposed seceding from the Union and attempted to test its political theory in court, it may have succeeded. Also, had that same hypothetical state asked the other states to vote on its release from the union, it may have succeeded. Or, if that state had attempted to pass a constitutional amendment, spelling out how it and other states could leave the Union, it may have succeeed. I see nothing treasonous in attempting to secede through lawful means.

However, when the southerners took up arms against the rest of the United States, which had not acknowledged or recognized the right of unilateral secession, in the eyes of the faithful citizens of the Republic, the southerners were indeed treasonous.

130 posted on 07/02/2003 11:25:02 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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