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

To: hobbes1
Do you think England could have had similar proclaimations worded to discourage or prevent "insurrection" against the Royal Crown? Maybe we can find it, too....
14 posted on 07/01/2003 7:09:35 AM PDT by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: azhenfud
I see you have a predeliction for the AoC, however, the States entered into a Union....They Did not like Democracy on a grander scale, and threatened to take their ball and go home, Violating the Agreement they entered.


15 posted on 07/01/2003 7:11:20 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: azhenfud
Do you think England could have had similar proclaimations worded to discourage or prevent "insurrection" against the Royal Crown?

I think there certainly are parallels between President Lincoln and King George:

Imagine King George ascending to the throne of England shortly before the Declaration of Independence was signed and making it his first order of business to address his subjects and argue his case for the preservation of the kingdom. The following is an excerpt of what King George might have said. If it seems a little familiar, it should. The bulk of this text was lifted directly from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address. A few words have been altered so that it may fit into the context of a brewing conflict between a king hoping to keep his empire intact and a group of secessionists seeking to form their own independent nation:
I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Laws of Parliament, the Kingdom of Great Britain is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our Parliamentary Laws, and the Kingdom will endure forever-- it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if Great Britain be not a government proper, but an association of colonies in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Kingdom is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Kingdom itself. The Kingdom is much older than the Colonies. It was formed, in fact, by Divine Providence. It was matured and continued by the practice of feudalism. It was further matured, and the faith of all the Barons expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Magna Carta in 1215. And, finally, in 1689 by ordaining and establishing the English Bill of Rights to which its drafters pledged to "most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever..."

But if the destruction of the Kingdom by one or by a part only of the colonies be lawfully possible, the Kingdom is less perfect than before, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no Colony upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Kingdom; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any Colony or Colonies, against the authority of the Kingdom, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of Parliament and its laws, the Kingdom is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as Parliament itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Kingdom be faithfully executed in all the Colonies. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the loyal subjects of the Crown, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Kingdom that it will lawfully defend and maintain itself...

...In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Kingdom will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Kingdom, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and loyalist grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Kingdom, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

(from Lincoln and George: An American History Paradox)


47 posted on 07/01/2003 9:23:39 AM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | 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