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.”

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan from post #175, referring to secessionists many acts of insurrection, rebellion and war during the period from November 1860 through their declaration of war on the United States on May 6, 1861:

"As I have never had any curiosity concerning governmental actions after Lincoln's election, your efforts would be wasted.
The election itself was sufficient."

I take it then that you concede another of my key points: that South Carolina secessionists had no legitimate claim of Northern states' "breach of contract", and that their only real reason for secession was the 100% constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery Republicans, in November 1860.

That means South Carolina declared secession strictly "at pleasure."
And that means it was not in accordance to our Founders' Original Intent, their declarations were unconstitutional, and the Federal Government was in no way obligated to recognize it.

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan from post #175: "Please show me the Constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in new states and territories.
I've shown in a previous post where the House of Representatives themselves admitted they had no such authority to regulate slavery in the States.
If the legislature didn’t possess the authority, neither could the executive."

It's odd that you don't seem to know about the 1789 Northwest Ordnance.

"On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 into law after the newly created U.S. Congress reaffirmed the Ordinance with slight modifications under the Constitution.

The Ordinance purported to be not merely legislation that could later be amended by Congress, but rather

'the following articles shall be considered as Articles of compact between the original States and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent....' "

"...The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the boundary between free and slave territory in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River.

"This division helped set the stage for national competition over admitting free and slave states, the basis of a critical question in American politics in the 19th century until the Civil War...."

I would call that a very strong expression of our Founders' Original Intent regarding the power of Congress to set limits on the expansion of slavery.

[MamaTexan]

Anyway, as you know, back in 1776, the people of the Colonies plainly, clearly, and simply stated in the Declaration that Natural Law and transcendent law of our Creator supersedes all other laws.

And they would probably be disgusted with the fact that the general diffusion of knowledge concept has been used to obfuscate the VERY principals they fought to uphold.

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782

-----

Good luck today, BTW!

[MamaTexan]

Vermont remained independent from 1777 to 1791, at which point it was admitted into the Union.

That's interesting,. Thanks for pointing it out!

I'm adding it my list of things to look up more details on while I'm roaming around the Library!

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan from post #183 regarding the alleged Law of Nations:

"LOL! "Alleged"? You totally disregard the evidence presented in the words of TWO signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and two other men who..."

Our Founders' respect for the Law of Nations does not mean that it must somehow supersede the Constitution.

Nor does the Law of Nations authorize secession "at pleasure."

See my post #218 for more...

[MamaTexan]

It's odd that you don't seem to know about the 1789 Northwest Ordnance.

The term of the last elected president, Cyrus Griffin, ended on 2 Nov 1788. Since that date Congress never had quorum to elect the next president because of the organization of the new Government under the Constitution. Thus, between November 1788 and April 1789, the United States had no chief executive.

.....and Madison said it was unconstitutional because the general government had NO authority to hold a territory to a greater standard than a State.

With respect to what has taken place in the N. W. Territory, it may be observed, that the ordinance giving its distinctive character on the Subject of Slaveholding proceeded from the old Congress, acting, with the best intentions, but under a charter which contains no shadow of the authority exercised. And it remains to be decided how far the States formed within that Territory & admitted into the Union, are on a different footing from its other members, as to their legislative sovereignty.
James Madison to Robert Walsh 27 Nov. 1819

[MamaTexan]

Nor does the Law of Nations authorize secession "at pleasure."

§ 160. Nullity of treaties which are pernicious to the state.
Though a simple injury, or some disadvantage in a treaty, be not sufficient to invalidate it, the case is not the same with those inconveniences that would lead to the ruin of the nation. Since, in the formation of every treaty, the contracting parties must be vested with sufficient powers for the purpose, a treaty pernicious to the state is null, and not at all obligatory, as no conductor of a nation has the power to enter into engagements to do such things as are capable of destroying the state, for whose safety the government is intrusted to him.
Law of Nature and Nations, Book II, Chap XII

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan from post #215: "It was widely believed at the time and since that the Court was fully prepared to use the 5th Amendment to declare state laws abolishing slavery to be unconstitutional.
Wouldn’t have worked, of course.
But the decades of southern dominance in DC and the repeated caving in of northerners convinced many southerners that they could pull it off.
That the despised Yankees would never develop the backbone to resist."

Curious how few words would need to be updated to make yours a cogent comment on today's Democrats attitudes towards us "despised conservatives". ;-)

[MamaTexan]

Our Founders' respect for the Law of Nations does not mean that it must somehow supersede the Constitution.

The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted 23 Feb. 1775 http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/alexander-hamilton-the-farmer-refuted

[Sherman Logan]

Quite true.

I suspect the reason is similar. The dominant group in the South were slaveowners, who to a very considerable degree based their lives on working for the defense and expansion of slavery.

Most northerners, OTOH, just wanted to get on with their lives and have the whole issue go away. There were exceptions, of course, the abolitionists. But right up to the outbreak of the War, abolitionists were wildly unpopular in most of the North.

Few conservatives derive their sense of personal worth from politics. Sort of by definition, we believe other things are more important. Government, and politics, should be limited. Liberals and radicals, OTOH, have no governor on their desire for power. Of course they routinely move the ball in their direction.

Sometimes they provoke a reaction they didn’t expect, of course. And that reaction often goes overboard in the other direction.

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan from post #214, responding to Madison's remarks at the end of his Nicholist Trist letter:

"I took his words in a more literal sense: I'm old, I'm tired..."

No, you simply chose just those words you wished to make your point, and ignored those which supplied Madison's context.

Of course, that's not uncommon on these threads, and seriously, I do give you credit for at least trying to use actual historical data, with all the extra effort that requires.
Sadly, some posters here are not disciplined by facts, and feel free to project their Rorschach interpretations unhindered by reality.

But you are not unique in posting actual data -- our old Texas FRiend rustbucket also posted long quotes from original sources, making such exchanges interesting and fun.
Indeed, in my mind at least, old rusty is Madison and young MamaTexan is young Trist, picking up whenever JM leaves off... ;-)

Point being: rusty and I both understand the nature of, ahem, "maturity", perhaps a bit better than youngsters such as yourself, and might even be more willing to give old Madison some benefit of doubt. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan from post #214: "Please show me the part of the Law of Nations that governs "unions' or 'compacts'."

Is that not the point?
You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.

Here is an interesting discussion on how the Law of Nations related to the Founders' new Constitution.

So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.

And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.

[MamaTexan]

No, you simply chose just those words you wished to make your point, and ignored those which supplied Madison's context.

James Madison to Nicholas Trist;

The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.

Please see previous posts for absolution 'by an intolerable abuse of the power created.'

[BroJoeK]

MamaTexan from post #214, referring to Prigg v Pennsylvania and Northern Fugitive Slave Laws:

"Until the decision in Priggs came along a mere 7 years later, and POOF! all of a sudden the already settled law had the ability to be legislated on again by the federal government.

"If the fact of unconstitutional actions at both the State and federal level is NOT 'injury or oppression', what IS?"

See my post #240 for additional discussion...

The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.
This lead some Northern states to rewrite laws to forbid their state officials from enforcing those Federal Fugitive Slave laws which required runaways be returned to their owners.

This "problem" was corrected by the Compromise of 1850 after which by law, northern states were required to enforce Federal Fugitive Slave Laws, and return runaways to their owners.

Point is, in both Prigg v Pennsylvania and the Compromise of 1850, the Southern Slave Power demonstrated its control over Washington Federal Government, and through it over those Northern states who wished to protect runaways from Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

So the Constitution was still being enforced, despite wishes of Northern anti-slavery Republicans.

There is no evidence I'm aware of if any South Carolina fugitive slave was ever protected and refused to be returned on demand by any Northern state.

[MamaTexan]

You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.

Vattel's Law of Nations [first English Edition] was printed in 1758.

I've showed 3rd party evidence where the Founders were using it in the Senate with the Franklin letter of 1775.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

----

From your link-No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

Once the dissolution of the Compact was acknowledged by the Ordinances of Secession, the Confederate States WERE a 'foreign country' according to the Law of Nations.

So I ask AGAIN - Where is the Constitutionally REQUIRED Declaration of War?

-----

So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.

You don't look very hard.

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Book I Chap. I, Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel

BTW - I've also shown where Tucker said it WAS a treaty.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

-----

And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.

Why? Because you say so?

Again, your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion.

[mek1959]

So, can we advance this conversation a little?

Suppose the good people of the State of Texas in December 2012 decide they want to exercise their Inalienable Rights, Natural Law Right, or transcendent Rights from their Creator to withdraw from the Union because they believe their Rights have been infringed upon by the national government in DC.

Do they have this right?

Or, do you believe, as most pro-big government living constitution conservatives seem to believe, that Texas must seek permission from the other States, Congress, the Supreme Court? And if they cannot obtain this permission, and press ahead with the withdrawal, should they be subject to attack in order to preserve the Union?

This boils this whole thread down to a practical question. Will you support a State withdrawing if the body-politic of that particular State believes their Rights have been infringed upon? Or, are you a big-government nationalist conservative?

Can't wait to read the responses. Believe me, I can predict some!

"C'mon you idiot, let's get real...that'll never happen!

"No, the State cannot withdraw without permission."

Etc, etc!

[MamaTexan]

The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.

BS! That was a finding by the Appeals Court FOR the Supreme Court. Appeals Courts set LEGAL PRECEDENTS:

precedent
1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1573

This what's known as settled law. The question cannot be re-asked, if you allow it, there can never BE any 'settled law'.

At that point, the only LEGAL way to change it would be for the northern states to get the Constitution changed, but they knew they couldn't do that.

But that's exactly what the northern states did. They asked, and asked, and asked... until they found a Supreme Court [not an Appeals Court] to agree with them.

----------

I'd like to take a moment during this emotionally charged moment to make it quite clear I'm no cheerleader for slavery. I'm here on a quest, because over a decade ago, some blatantly Unconstitutional garbage was [yet again] spewed out by Congress.

I decided...THAT DAY., I was going to find out where my rights went.

After mucking about the Codes until my brain felt fried, logic dictated [SHOUTED really] to just go back to the beginning.

So I did.

What I found, for me, clarifies a great many of the Founders words concerning natural rights, the laws of Nature, natural law...etc.

We all know we came from England, so England's laws affect ours. What we were never told is that at about the same time, a Frenchman was coming up with basically the same ideas as Blackstone, but on a more natural, individual basis and how that individual relates within a nation, and how nations relate within each other.

The Founder's held both these works in high regard.

Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44

IMHO, in order to lessen English influence, they used Vattel more for the federal government. Blackstone, for all practical purposes was already in the states as it came with the colonists.

This still hold true. [Don't believe me? Go back to the law.com dictionary and look up the term Natural Law]

------

To believe these facts or not is purely your choice, but until you see where it all went wrong, without that 'slave power' thing rolling around in your head, you never WILL see it.

And, with all Due Respect, I have no desire to continue to engage in a virtual 'pissin' contest' because you can't.

I do appreciate your responses, but political persuasions DO NOT dictate Constitutional Law. That's what the damn thing was written to prevent.

I bid you adieu, Good Sir.
MamaTexan

[MamaTexan]

Or, do you believe, as most pro-big government living constitution conservatives seem to believe, that Texas must seek permission from the other States, Congress, the Supreme Court?

LOL! No. As Webster basically put it, one side can't be held accountable for a contract the other side fails to observe.

And it's been pretty much ignored for quite some time now.

------

Will you support a State withdrawing if the body-politic of that particular State believes their Rights have been infringed upon?

Yep, that's another 'gotcha question'. LOL!

That's one of the biggest problems. No one has yet to show me where government gets the authority to define what the Inalienable Rights of the People are!

That was kind of what makes them Inalienable..... right?

;-)

[mek1959]

Precisely MamaTexan...sorry for hijacking your post to ask the question. I knew what your answer would be.

Check your email, I sent you a message. Let me know.

[rockrr]

You've already expressed your feeeelings on this but I am curious - what do you think is the potential for this happening? How many of those "millions more than the just me and MamaTexan" are going to lead the charge?

When can we expect your opening salvo?