Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foundersrevolution.net ...
At some point, a State or States will make a declaration, terminate relations with the national government in DC, evict national government facilities from their sovereign country and get on with independence. Of course, they'll have to settle shared debts and such.
At that point, the only ones who will fire the "first salvo" will be the national government to "preserve the Union." Oh, wait, where have I heard that before.
Sadly, it will be people like yourself who will drum up new theories about "universal law" or odd notions of contracts, or perpetual contracts to support the anti-constitutional actions of your national government. As for me, I want to PEACEFULLY seek independence, not attack the national government.
Wait...please be assured that I'm not going to cry because after all "Gad, what a drama queen" I am! What an excellent, profound and well reasoned response. Geez.
Last entry before adjourning on May 10,1794.:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1
MARCH 10th 1794.
Guess I'm still aggravated.
The last time someone attempted to unilaterally break the compact it was the initiators - the southern fire-eaters - who opened fire. I suspect that the same same sort of hotheads and hooligans who will initiate their treason again at some point.
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.
From Prigg v Pennsylvania [my emphasis and explanatory insertion below]:
The clause [the Article IV, Section 2 clause in the Constitution regarding the return of fugitives from service or labor] manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control or restrain. The slave is not to be discharged from service or labor, in consequence of any state law or regulation. Now certainly, without indulging in any nicety of criticism upon words, it may be fairly said, that any state law or state regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the right of the owner of the slave to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service and labor, operates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom.
That doesn't seem all that ambiguous. The Prigg case stemmed from the 1837 arrest of fugitive slave Margarette Morgan by Edward Prigg, an agent for the slave owner. Prigg had been tried and convicted under Pennsylvania's 1826 law that had, as part of its provisions, punished people who returned fugitive slaves who had escaped to Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court in the Prigg case ruled the 1826 Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.
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.
As I remember, Northern states were not compelled to return slaves by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. The Federal government was tasked with the return of the fugitive slave. Under that law, Federal commissioners determined whether the person in question was a fugitive slave. The Federal commissioner was typically presented with a court affidavit from the home state of the slave that gave a description of the slave, pointed out that the slave had escaped, and said that the slave owed service to the claimant. If the commissioner ruled that the person was the one being sought, then the northern state had no jurisdiction in the case, and its personal liberty laws did not apply. At that point, the status of the person being charged as a fugitive slave instantly changed to that of a slave under the laws of the home state of the claimant.
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.
I understand the wish of some states to free slaves and not have slavery in their states. I am glad, of course, that slavery no longer exists in this country, and I wish that it had never started here. But states that objected to the return of fugitive slaves were bound by the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution to which the original Northern states had agreed. As you have probably noted in the past, the Constitution was supreme law of the land, and any state laws that violated it were unconstitutional and void.
I'm sorry, BJK, but I will be off the board for a week or so.
When it comes to bird identification, your memory is apparently still good....if that helps. LOL!
-----
The Supreme Court in the Prigg case ruled the 1826 Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.
Which is true, but they also said the federal government had the authority to legislate on the subject, which is false.
To prevent the federal government from claiming that authority is precisely why the Founders put in such a strange place, and not under the powers of Congress.
The problem is that an earlier case in 1835, Jack v. Martin, the appeals court found the federal government didn't have the authority to regulate it either, BUT the clause and the Act of 1793 made it uniform, so the clause and act together were judged to be perfectly constitutional.
Enforceable by all [via the Fugitive slave act of 1793], yet actionable by none [via the 10th Amendment of the Constitution].
There was no authority for the federal government to hear any case again based on the issue of slavery....period.
As the north continued to pass laws contrary to the already established rules of evidentiary procedure [established with colonial law] to make special rules concerning slavery and despite the Constitutional precedent, they broke the contract
When the federal government decided to re-hear the case on a subject already established to be beyond the legal scope of their authority THEY broke the contract.
It wasn't so much the South left the Union as the Union left them.
-----
I understand the wish of some states to free slaves and not have slavery in their states. I am glad, of course, that slavery no longer exists in this country, and I wish that it had never started here.
To that, I heartily agree.
---------
Sorry to ramble on about things you may have already read, or we might have discussed before. Maybe MY memory isn't what it used to be. LOL!
Don't know if you'll be gone because of travel or not, but safe journey!
He violated more than the Constitution.
CHAP. XV. / OF THE FAITH OF TREATIES
§ 221. He who violates his treaties, violates the law of nations.
He who violates his treaties, violates at the same time the law of nations; for, he disregards the faith of treaties, — that faith which the law of nations declares sacred; and, so far as depends on him, he renders it vain and ineffectual. Doubly guilty, he does an injury to his ally, he does an injury to all nations, and inflicts a wound on the great society of mankind. "On the observance and execution of treaties," said a respectable sovereign, "depends all the security which princes and states have with respect to each other: and no dependence could henceforward be placed in future conventions if the existing ones were not to be observed.
-----
That piece was beautifully done, BTW!
“Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.”
I have to give you credit for acknowledging Karl Marx as a fellow traveller in the neo-yankee hate fest against the South. You all ought to consider inducting him as an honorary member in the Bloody Shirt Society.
“Most northerners, OTOH, just wanted to get on with their lives and have the whole issue go away”
The North had large population of 48ers, European radicals from the failed revolutions of 1848. 48ers were one of the founding groups of the Republican Party.
They were far from peaceful, many having fought in revolutionary armies. They were as enthusiastic for war as the abolitionists. A large number served in the Union Army and several became General officers.
You are correct.
However, it is fair to point out that a great many, possibly a majority, of the “radical” 48ers that came to America were no more radical than the American revolutionaries of 1776.
An unfortunate meme has been floating around that the men of 1848 were all pre-commies. They were not. A significant majority were classical liberals opposed to the absolutism of their rulers, a position fully compatible with American values.
“An unfortunate meme has been floating around that the men of 1848 were all pre-commies. They were not.”
Maybe not pre-commies, but there was a strong leftist streak that persists to this day in the communities they established. The leftism in Wisconsin and environs traces back to the 48ers.
“However, it is fair to point out that a great many, possibly a majority, of the “radical” 48ers that came to America were no more radical than the American revolutionaries of 1776”
Oh, I think there is a very big difference between the two camps. Russell Kirk among others points out that the American Revolution began as conservative enterprise- it was an attempt by the colonials to protect their rights as Englishmen. They didn’t start out seeking to overturn anything, they wanted to preserve their rights, which were being trod upon by Parliament and the King. Only after their repeated requests were rebuffed did they decide upon independence.
The 48ers in contrast were cultural as well as political revolutionaries. Theirs wasn’t a fight for independence, it was a fight to revolutionize society. When they came to the US they came with their ideology intact, and wanted to make the US conform to it.
I merely acknowledge that if Marx said the sun came up in the morning that does not automatically mean it doesn’t.
Facts are facts. People wrong on some things may be right on others. That you pretend that because Marx said something means it must be wrong shows you are poorly educated.
Fact: The south pretended secession and made war to support and further the cause of Slavery, in which the southern ruling class was heavily invested, and thankfully lost.
Fact: The northern states fought to put down the southern insurrection and thankfully won.
But of course any dispute between the states was to be settled by legal means, with the supreme court acting as original jurisdiction, per Article 3.
Congress had rights to regulate commerce, and slaves transported across state borders were commerce, just as slaves transported across the US national borders were commerce, which congress had authority to regulate after 1808.
So Priggs, and other cases involving the states were to be resolved by the courts, with the courts agreed by taking the case.
State courts set their own rules of evidence, and SC had no authority to intervene in PA rules of evidence, nor would SC have any right to declare themselves oppressed by PA rules of evidence. They were welcome to keep their slaves out of PA, as much as they wanted to avoid being subject to PA law. Once in PA, they were subject to rules of evidence in PA to determine if the subject was indeed a fugitive, or if the documents and testimony were fraudulent or forged, at least until the SCOTUS ruled to the contrary.
Quite true. However, the societies they were rebelling against were not the liberal (in the original sense) Whig society of significant freedom the American colonists were attempting to conserve. The 48ers fought against the true Right Wing, the King and Church absolutism that the Whigs in England had triumphed against in the Glorious Revolution.
The men of 48 weren't fighting to keep their rights, because they had no rights. The 48er revolutionists were largely, though not exclusively, fighting to acquire the rights the American revolutionists were fighting to retain. But the American Revolution could be conservative only because a previous revolution, that of 1688, had acquired those rights. IOW, the conservative European societies the men of 48 rebelled against deserved to be overthrown.
Some conservatives seem to be under the mistaken impression that conservatism is always a good thing. This is nonsense on stilts. It depends utterly and entirely on what is being conserved. The conservation of evil and oppression is never a good thing.
Islamists really are fighting to conserve what they see as true Islam. Does that make their cause just? Of course not.
American conservatism is, from a long-term historical perspective, the most radical ideology in history. All other ideologies dispute over which group will be given the power to domineer over others. Only the true American ideology American conservatism attempts to conserve tries to keep any group from domineering, allowing the people to lead their own lives as they see fit.
This has never been fully or perfectly implemented, of course, and is in the process of slipping away, but it is what the American project stands for.
“That you pretend that because Marx said something means it must be wrong shows you are poorly educated.”
I pretended nothing of the sort, but it would be too much to expect you to follow the logic of an argument. You need to address your own weak ability before assuming others are as poorly educated as you are.
I agree with you that it’s a mistake to conflate Continental European conservatism with that of America or even its parent England.
But I don’t think that affects my point that 1776 was an independence movement, whereas 1848 was both a social and political revolution.
1776 was a revolution that replaced monarchy with self government. It was a political revolution, but it left daily life intact. There was no “class struggle”.
1848 was another matter. It was an attempt to overthrow the old order, socially as well as politically. The 48ers encompassed a wide variety of beliefs, from Whigs all the way to the likes of Marx and Engels.
Just as it’s a mistake to equate Continental conservatism with that of America, it’s a mistake to equate the 1848 revolutionaries with those that led to the creation of the American culture.
“American conservatism is, from a long-term historical perspective, the most radical ideology in history. “
I don’t know that I’d agree with you here; like Russell Kirk I believe that American conservatism is the absence of ideology; when what you have is an ideology it’s something other than conservatism.
You pretended that exactly
“You pretended that exactly”
Then you should have no trouble linking to a post where I did that.
But you haven’t, which isn’t a surprise. Making false accusations is more your style.
I get your point about the American revolution differing in character from that of 1848. I contend, however, that it was more a difference of emphasis than of type.
The American Revolution was not solely one of a conservative nature. There were Americans who wanted the revolution to go farther, towards the direction of what we would call social revolution. An example being Shay’s Rebellion in MA, but such outbreaks occurred in most states. The Constitution was in fact largely proposed and adopted to provide the government with a more effective way to oppose and put down such rebellions.
I think it is pretty clear, however, that the American revolutionists would have been on the barricades had they been living in 1848 Europe. Since these revolutions were crushed, we don’t know whether they would have followed more closely the American or French/Russian path.
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.