What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

The Founders Revolution ^ | April 13, 2012 | Scott Strzelczyk

[mek1959]

This Friday, April 13th is the birth day of Thomas Jefferson. In recognition of his birthday I thought we’d revisit the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. On the surface the meaning of the Declaration may be self-evident, but the true meaning of many of the sentences and phrases escapes most people.

The Declaration of Independence stated to the world that the thirteen colonies were separating from Great Britain. In other words the colonies were seceding from Britain. The first paragraph says “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.”

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[mek1959]

I'll respond to this at length in later today though I must take one initial forray into this.

You cite Madison's "flip-flop" and then apply the in relation to the S. Carolina "efforts" to nullify, even secede and then ascribe the notion that the Founder's implicite and explicit intent was found in this letter. I can assure you that you are wrong...or Jefferson (and a younger Madison) in 1798 were not founders...which is it? You can't have it both ways. Madison was an evolutionary founder and not completely consistent, I'm sure you understand that about him. As a federalist, he no doubt held a deeper desire for a more consolidated government so his letter is not some stunning new revelation about the "intent of the Founders." Far from it. Your bias towards a consolidated can is exposed; that's fine. Mine is towards State sovereignity which was not "surrendered" during ratification but "delegated." So, continue with your big-government propoganda...it's seen for what it is, meshed together letters and opinions.

I'll rely on historical LEGAL documents like the NY Ratification Document, paragraph 4:

"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

[mek1959]

I apologize for the typo's...I accidentally posted this before I was completely finished. Again, my apologies; I will respond at length later.

[rockrr]

What you cite is a signing statement which is designed to make people feel better about the commitment they are entering into, but carries no force of law.

It is the equivalent of a nod & a wink, or fingers crossed behind ones back. What the various states signed, when they ratified (and this explains why some took so long) was an “all in” agreement. There were no special deals.

[BroJoeK]

mek1959: "I can assure you that you are wrong...or Jefferson (and a younger Madison) in 1798 were not founders...which is it?
You can't have it both ways."

Our Founders were those who first wrote the new Constitution, publicly supported it (i.e., The Federalist Papers), and then voted to confirm it.
They alone are entitled to tell us what was their Original Intent -- and that is a rather small group of men.
It certainly includes James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay -- the Federalists.

Those who voted against the new Constitution -- the anti-Federalists -- were not Founders, and their opinions were not the Founders' Original Intent.

And you may also be an anti-Federalist, and that's fine, it's a legitimate point of view, and can be argued reasonably.
But then you cannot at the same time claim the US Constitution is the source of authority for your opinions, because it's not.

You can't have it both ways.

As for Madison's "flip-flops" -- both real and alleged -- if you will study his words carefully, indeed the words of all True Founders, you'll see that whenever they approach the subject of "disunion", "disolving", "breaking the compact", "dissolution", or secession, etc., it is always with the subtext that this is an extreme measure only valid under extreme conditions such as "injury or oppression", and never authorized simply "at pleasure".

But none of those extreme conditions existed in November 1860, and so those Deep-South slave-holders who organized, met and declared their secession were doing so strictly "at pleasure."

And not even Southern sympathizing Dough-faced President Buchanan could accept their actions as constitutional or lawful, though he refused to take any serious actions to oppose them.

By the way, I've recently found a partial listing of Federal properties unlawfully seized both before and after formal declarations of secession.
It's an impressive list, including:

• 39 customs and court houses
• 34 light houses
• 26 military forts, including Fort Sumter
• 24 other military posts, camps & barracks
• 11 weapons arsenals & warehouses
• 7 naval vessels
• 3 mints with millions in coin
• one naval yard

That's 145 places in total, worth many millions at a time when total Federal receipts were less that $60 million per year.

[MamaTexan]

With all due respect to MamaTexan, who makes an effort to be both factual in presentation and somewhat neutral in tone...

Thank you kindly.

I do note, however, your post begins without even a whiff of neutrality.

their false history, their bogus narratives, their misdirections of arguments, unfounded accusations, baseless claims and fanciful conclusions

-----

only if it meets certain conditions such as mutual consent

1) Madison's letter, as in others of that time, state not only that his opinion be kept confidential: I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye.
but also that it should not be trusted:A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not,

***

necessity caused by "injury or oppression".

Virginia's Ratifying document states:
declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

Since it was the People that gave their consent, it would be logical to assume that THEY were the sole judges of whether or not they were being subjected to 'injury or oppression'.

-----

2)As I see no point in rehashing this previously covered subject, please see post #36

-----

3)In November 1860, no material conditions existed for a constitutional and lawful secession

LOL! Can you say Personal Liberty Laws?

You know...those NULLIFYING laws passed in Northern States in order to prevent the return of fugitive slaves DESPITE the Constitutional enumeration to the contrary?

While one must recognize the immorality of slavery, anyone wishing to be a true, impartial judge of history is forced to recognize the [then] LEGALITY of it. Ones opinion cannot make the legal illegal.

In the law of contracts, breach by one party free the other(s) from obligation

If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Speeches of Mr. Webster, 1851

-----

4) This one is unsourced opinion, so I see no reason to remark upon it.

-----

5)Beginning the process in November 1860, Deep-South slave-holders' formal Declarations of Secession were followed (and often preceded) by many unlawful acts of insurrection, rebellion and war against the United States.

While the Declaration of Secession is acknowledged, please give sources for your other accusations.

BTW - I'd also like to point out the Declaration was lawfully delivered via personal service to Congress on December 24, 1860

-----

6)Outgoing "Dough-face" President Buchanan did not agree that Deep-South secessionists were constitutional

He also erroneously thought Congress has power to make war and to make peace, so he didn't appear to be Constitutionally literate. The point of posting his speech was what, exactly?

-----

7)culminating in the April 1861 firing on and seizure of Federal Fort Sumter.

After the filing of the Notice of Intent, or Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter reverted to the State.

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States – 1803 [paragraph 337]

It was fired upon because it was unlawfully occupied.

IMHO, being used as an excuse by the federal government to crush the South, it was pitiful. Not only had it sat unfinished for 30 years, the only battle fatality was a donkey.

-----

8) the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

Which is the way it's supposed to be. A Declaration is a legal procedure REQUIRED before action can be taken. It's a requirement stipulated in the federal Constitution. Do you, perhaps, have a link to the federal governments Constitutionally required Declaration of War as signed by Congress?

To my knowledge, there was no Declaration of War, merely Lincoln’s Proclamation, and a proclamation does not a Declaration make.

-----

9) Again, unsourced opinion.

-----

10)four states of the Upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- voted to join the Confederacy and the war.

True. Other States joined after the fact.

-----

So the bottom line is: where the Deep-South first unconstitutionally declared secession, and then declared war on the United States, the Upper-South voted simultaneously to secede and thus join the already declared war. Finally, our "Neo-Cons" often compare their secessionists of 1860 to our Founders in 1776. The comparison is laughable, the contrasts are stark.

What is 'laughable' is you show up so late to the party, say nothing that hasn't been said, and crow like you've made some type of pertinent point.

Although your post did have some pretty cool pictures.

[Sherman Logan]

Excellent post.

The Confederate secession was unAmerican, indeed it was in its very nature anti-American, based as it was on full-throated opposition to the American ideology that “all men are created equal.” Changing this to “all white men are created equal, and endowed by Creator with the right to enslave men of other colors.”

The Confederate ideology was a master race philosophy, and had it won out would have probably headed in a similar direction to that of another well-known master race ideology. There’s really nowhere else for such an ideology to go.

[Sherman Logan]

He also erroneously thought Congress has power to make war and to make peace, so he didn't appear to be Constitutionally literate.

I'm unsure why you think this was erroneous, as Congress most surely shares this power with the executive. Unless you think the President is empowered by the Constitution to make war and peace at his own pleasure?

BTW, in his speech denying the right to secede, Buchanan refers to seditious pamphlets spread by abolitionists throughout the South in 1835. Let's leave aside this was 25 years before. Do you know of anywhere the text of such pamphlets is available? I'm curious to read them.

[MamaTexan]

I'm unsure why you think this was erroneous, as Congress most surely shares this power with the executive.

It's not a shared power.

The authority to declare war belongs to the legislative branch via Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

The ability to make peace belongs to the executive branch via Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

IMHO, the Founders rightly believed it should be difficult to start war, yet easy to end it.

§ 1168. In the convention, in the first draft of the constitution, the power was given merely "to make war." It was subsequently, and not without some struggle, altered to its present form. It was proposed to add the power "to make peace;" but this was unanimously rejected; upon the plain ground, that it more properly belonged to the treaty-making power. The experience of congress, under the confederation, of the difficulties, attendant upon vesting the treaty-making power in a large legislative body, was too deeply felt to justify the hazard of another experiment.
Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution

-----

Let's leave aside this was 25 years before. Do you know of anywhere the text of such pamphlets is available? I'm curious to read them.

No, but doing a general search for the year and the subject usually brings up something.

[BroJoeK]

BJK from post #100: 9. "Prior to that Declaration of War, [May 6, 1861] no Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force."

Mama Texan: "9) Again, unsourced opinion."

I'll take this one first, since it's a simpler matter.

A number of people on both sides suffered injury or death before the first real battle between opposing military forces, a battle in which the first Confederate soldier was killed directly by a Union force.

It was the Battle of Big Bethel, also called the Battle of Bethel Church or Great Bethel, on June 10, 1861, more than a month after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.

The Confederate soldier killed at Big Bethel was Pvt Henry Wyatt of Co A 11st North Carolina.

Here is a more detailed account of the events.

Yes, back on June 1, 1861, at the Battle of Fairfax Court House,

"Captain John Quincy Marr of the Virginia Warrenton Rifles militia company of Fauquier County, Virginia[1] the first Southern (Confederate) officer or soldier to die in combat with Union soldiers, was killed in this small battle."

But actual circumstances of Captain Marr's death are unknown, and include the possibility of fratricide:

"Whether he had moved up to challenge the Union riders or to scout out a better position for his company as some accounts suggest, Marr was not in the immediate presence or line of sight of any of his men on the very dark night when he fell in the dense field..[16]
Soon, no one knew where he was or what may have happened to him.[16]
His body was found in the clover field later in the morning.[17]"

Here's the bottom line: there are no reports of any Southern soldiers being killed directly by a Union force before the Confederacy's Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.

So, unlike for example, in the American Revolution of 1776, there was no actual war going on before the Confederacy started it, especially at Fort Sumter, then formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.

And by the way, I should say: this was absolutely no accident, since President Lincoln had announced in his Inagural Address on March 16, 1861, that:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, Is the momentous issue of civil war.

The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.
I am loth 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 battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth-stone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

I'll answer your other items in sequence, when I can get back to it.

[Sherman Logan]

The ability to make peace belongs to the executive branch via Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

This is incomplete. The treaty-making power is shared with the Senate, which is required to "advise and consent" by a 2/3 majority to any treaty.

The "advise" portion has never really been implemented, but the consent portion still works. So the president cannot make peace without 2/3 of the Senate consenting. Though the Congress also does not really have the power to force the C in C to wage a war of which he disapproves.

The power to make war is also not exclusively legislative. Depending on what you define as "war," the US has been involved in some dozens of wars. The Congress has formally declared war only five times, most recently in 1941.

The control of the Congress over presidential war-making is much more related to the power of the purse than to the power to declare war, which we don't do anymore, though congressional authorizations to use force, as in the Iraq War, are IMO the functional equivalent.

As I said, the war and peace making powers are both shared between the legislative and executive.

[MamaTexan]

As I said, the war and peace making powers are both shared between the legislative and executive.

As I've given the Constitutional Articles and clauses for my assertion, please be kind enough to provide sources for your claim.

[MamaTexan]

I'll take this one first, since it's a simpler matter.

Fair enough. No Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force prior to the Declaration of War.

Since the subject was the constitutionality of secession and not battle casualties, I really don't see what it has to do with the subject.

-------

I'll answer your other items in sequence, when I can get back to it.

I look forward to you response.

[MamaTexan]

you=your

[AuntB]

Actually, the civil war was proceeding in and around Indian Territory as early as March, 1861. Confederate Colonel Stand Watie and his Cherokee troops had taken Fort Smith, held raids into Missouri, along with some Texans in the early spring.

A little here:

http://www.civilwaralbum.com/washita/OR.htm

I’m looking for some dates on this, just going from notes in a book about the Civil War in Indian Territory.

“Jesus Wept” An American Story

http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/

Watie was also the last to cease hostilities, June, 1865, months after Lee surrendered. Watie did not surrender, but agreed to cease hostilities. My grgrgrandfather wrote the agreement with the Union.

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan: "Fair enough. No Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force prior to the Declaration of War.
Since the subject was the constitutionality of secession and not battle casualties, I really don't see what it has to do with the subject."

My argument in post #100 included 10 items, of which items 1 - 4 dealt with the constitutionality of secession.

Items 5 - 10 covered the Confederacy's insurrections and formal declaration of war on the United States.

Item 9 simply pointed out that there was no physical war -- and no Confederate soldiers had been killed -- before the Confederacy decided to start, wage and formally declare war on the United States.

The real truth of the matter is that Confederates wanted war, because they expected to win, and believed war was by far simpler than waging many years of compromising legal battles in the Supreme Court, in Congress or in elections necessary to achieve a constitutionally authorized secession by mutual consent.

[MamaTexan]

Confederate Colonel Stand Watie and his Cherokee troops had taken Fort Smith, held raids into Missouri, along with some Texans in the early spring.

Your post it very timely, particularly since I was just searching for a FReeper by that name less than an hour ago, but I couldn't remember the correct spelling.

Interesting information. Thanks for posting!

[Sherman Logan]

Article 2, Section 2: (The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

If that isn't a description of a shared power, I don't know what would be.

Article 1, Section 3: The Congress shall have power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Force

Article 2, Section 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

This again shows shared power. Neither branch can make war if the other refuses to proceed. The President cannot make war unless Congress provides the funds, and Congress cannot order the military to make one move except through the President.

If these aren't shared powers, what would you call them?

[MamaTexan]

My argument in post #100 included 10 items, of which items 1 - 4 dealt with the constitutionality of secession. Items 5 - 10 covered the Confederacy's insurrections and formal declaration of war on the United States.

All of which were sourced and refuted in post#106.

-----

Item 9 simply pointed out that there was no physical war -- and no Confederate soldiers had been killed -- before the Confederacy decided to start, wage and formally declare war on the United States.

To which I agreed.

-------

The real truth of the matter is that Confederates wanted war, because they expected to win, and believed war was by far simpler than waging many years of compromising legal battles in the Supreme Court, in Congress or in elections necessary to achieve a constitutionally authorized secession by mutual consent.

The REAL truth is the South had two choices: leave or have their agrarian based economy obliterated....all because a 250 year old institution acknowledged by the Constitution had become unpopular.

Had the Union not decided free association could be kept by force of arms, they would have then have had the legitimate ability to change the Constitution to prohibit slavery, and could have rightfully protected every slave that managed to make it across the border....but I guess THAT would have been too easy.

-----

I've given sources to support the constitutionality of secession, yet you ignore them and rattle on as if your conjecture is fact.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to show me the Unions Constitutionally required Declaration of War.

-----

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
Abraham Lincoln ~ Letter to William Herndon Feb. 15, 1848

[BroJoeK]

AuntB: "Actually, the civil war was proceeding in and around Indian Territory as early as March, 1861.
Confederate Colonel Stand Watie and his Cherokee troops had taken Fort Smith, held raids into Missouri, along with some Texans in the early spring."

Near as I can tell, Watie's official role in the Confederate Army began in July 1861.

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Watie quickly joined the Southern cause.
He was commissioned a colonel on July 12, 1861, and raised a regiment of Cherokees for service with the Confederate army.
Later, when Chief John Ross signed an alliance with the South, Watie's men were organized as the Cherokee Regiment of Mounted Rifles.
After Ross fled Indian Territory, Watie was elected principal chief of the Confederate Cherokees in August 1862.

"A portion of Watie's command saw action at Oak Hills (August 10, 1861) in a battle that assured the South's hold on Indian Territory and made Watie a Confederate military hero."

Battle of Wilson's Creek aka Battle of Oak Hills, August 10, 1861:

And here is a second version of events:

"After a majority of the Cherokee Nation voted to support the Confederacy in the American Civil War, Watie organized a regiment of cavalry.

"In October 1861, he was commissioned as colonel in the 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles.
Although he fought Federal troops, he also led his men in fighting between factions of the Cherokee, as well as against the Creek, Seminole and others in Indian Territory who chose to support the Union.

"Watie is noted for his role in the Battle of Pea Ridge, Arkansas, on March 6–8, 1862.
Watie's troops captured Union artillery positions and covered the retreat of Confederate forces from the battlefield after the Union took control."

Battle of Pea Ridge, March 6-8, 1862:

So my point here still stands: no Southern soldier was killed by any Union force before the Confederacy started and formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

And the simple reason that's true is because President Lincoln on his first day in office had ordered that there could not be war unless the secessionists started it.