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 ...
You neo-Confederates really make me sick, defending slavery.
And I didn't even make it to the true Constitutional definition of treason, either, LOL!
------
I came across this just recently. I haven't had much time to pursue it in its entirety, but what I have seen is verrrry interesting:
A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, 1868
Page 499 - The obvious deductions, which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer than it suits its pleasure, or its consent continues;, that each State has a right to judge for itself in relation to the nature, extent, and obligations of the instrument, without being at all bound by the interpretation of the Federal Government, or by that of any other State; and that each retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve the connection, when such shall be its choice; and may suspend the operations of the Federal Government, and nullify its acts within its own territorial limits, whenever, in its own opinion, the exigency of the case may require.
Story on the Constitution, vol. I, Book 3, Sec. 321
The only right to rebellion is if their inalienable rights are being denied, which they aren't.
Lets all secede from each other and become like the Balkans.
Since you lack the intellectual aptitude to differentiate between acknowledgment and agreement, you might at least attempt to rebut the argument on a Constitutional basis.
Or is that to much of a strain for you?
Oh...like the Library of Congress?
-----
Madison stated that no State had a right to secede from the Union.
Show me.
Maybe YOU need to know what a legal 'precedent' actually is!
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.
There is no constitutional right for secession.
Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.
And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!
The right of a State to enslave people.
This thread is on the Declaration of Independence, and because it was universal in nature the Founders had a hard time justfying slavery and hoped that eventaully it would be ended.
As for the Constitution, you can check out the facts here
Abraham Lincoln’s fidelity to the Declaration of Independence is equally a fidelity to the Constitution. The Constitution takes its moral life from the principles of liberty and equality, and was created to serve those principles. We are divided as a nation today, as in Lincoln’s time, because we have severed the connection between these two documents.
Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” contains the central theme of Lincoln’s life and work. Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve.
The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.
Abraham Lincoln defended the Union and sought to defeat the Confederate insurrection because he held that the principles of the Declaration and Constitution were inviolable. In his speeches and in his statecraft, Lincoln wished to demonstrate that self-government is not doomed to either be so strong that it overwhelms the rights of the people or so weak that it is incapable of surviving.
About the Lecturer:
Kevin Portteus is assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College, where he has taught since 2008. Dr. Portteus is faculty advisor for the Washington-Hillsdale Internship Program, and teaches courses in American political thought and American political institutions.
A visiting graduate faculty member in the American History and Government program at Ashland University, Dr. Portteus formerly taught at Belmont Abbey College and Mountain View College, in Dallas. Having published online through the Washington Times, Human Events, and BigGovernment.com, his book, Executive Details: Public Administration and American Constitutionalism, is under review for publication. He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Ashland University, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in politics from the University of Dallas.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2869815/posts
But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.
Yes and it isn’t precedent regarding Lincoln, who was facing a rebellion.
As for Madison, clearly you have only read what you want on the subject to defend your false view.
James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear
Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832. Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. 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. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.
It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; (emphasis added) and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject. http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/
Please show me the word 'secession' in the Constitution.
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
-----
Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.
The major problem being 'rebellion' is an attempt to overthrow the legitimate authority. The South never tried to overthrow the Constitution, they merely wished to leave the Compact.
As I've already illustrated AND provided Constitutional sources - assistance for rebellions IN the State must come at the request OF the State.
While on the subject-
Article VI. - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
ALL the States haven this provision. To my knowledge, they always have.
-----
And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!
Its called Right to Property. Like it or not, slaves WERE a specie of property acknowledged for over 250 years. Slave owners helped form the colonies. Slave-owners helped write the Constitution. Slave-owners helped fight the Revolution.
You may believe I'm cheerleading slavery if you wish, but it has more to do with holding the federal government to the terms of the Compact than it does with your perceptions.
The Constitution ISN'T Burger King....you don't get to have your Constitutional burger served up 'your way'.
-----
But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.
ROFLMAO!
If Lincoln was adhering to Original Intent so closely, there should be a preponderance of evidence from the Founders to justify his actions.
Surely you can do better than posting some college professors lecture from 2008 as some type of rebuttal.
-----
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist, no. 39, James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45, January 1788, James Madison
Ok, fortheDeclaration, let's for the sake of discussion agree that I'm a racist (which I'm not, and for proof, my family was involved in the underground railroad in Peterboro, NY and I take GREAT offense at your accusation of be being otherwise) and let's further say that I agree with you that the South only wanted to secede because of the slavery issue. Ok, are we all in agreement now?
Let's fast forward to 2012 and 12 States want to withdraw from the compact. These 12 States hold State conventions to reflect the will of the PEOPLE (the only TRUE Sovereigns, unless of course you believe in the divine right of Kings which if you support Lincoln, you might). And lets say a super-majority of the PEOPLE decide they want their State to separate from the Union because their inalienable right to let's say property was being infringed or they BELIEVED it was being infringed. Maybe Washington DC doesn't.
They've tried every other peaceful means for redress and have been met with opposition from the national government. And the assembled legislators of these 12 States meet and solemnly agree to withdraw and forward correspondence to that fact to Washington DC.
Does President fortheDeclaration:
A. Assent to the wishes of the PEOPLE of those States and begin proposing and establishing embassies in this new country?
B. Begin war preparations against this new country with the intention of slaughtering as many PEOPLE of those States as necessary to compel them to stay in the Union AGAINST THEIR WILL? Even though the Declaration of Independence is what caused a separation between the PEOPLE of the 13 Colonies operating through their assemblies in 1776?
My suspicion is you will embarrassingly answer "B" and join the other tyrants of history who stopped people who sought freedom but could not attain it because of the likes of Lincolnian thinkers like yourself. And also because you contend that a State has no right to secede even though this was fully understood by the Ratifiers (read below). Your defense of your position is a video lecture you saw from Hillsdale College. Perhaps you should read Professor Kevin Gutzman's new book "James Madison and the making of America" before you write so authoritatively about what Madison did or did not believe about the Union and the Compact.
This is not hard fortheDeclaration, you are making it so. You have no facts to support your contention that Lincoln had Article II authority to wage war against the South. So you do your best to try and weave together an argument, again, buttressed with ZERO, ZIP, NADA Article II delegations of authority to do what he did. By the way, your latest post was very Lincolnian, very similar to his 1st Inaugural Address, you have read that I assume. He wasn't all that anti-slavery was he? And wow, his elucidation of contracts was well, stunning.
And again, I contend, you would be willing to slaughter me and my family if we lived in a State that joined other States and decided to withdraw from the Compact.
By the way, a little tidbit of history the guys at Hillsdale left out, are the ratification documents of NY, Rhode Island and Virginia. You've read them I assume and by the way, if not, they're VERY easy to find. Here's paragraph 4 of NY's (it will give you a little insight into how the Ratifiers thought about that quaint silly and anti-Lincolnian notion of secession):
"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.
Did you catch that first line? That the powers of government may be resumed...? They obviously weren't referring to the yet to be created new federal government were they? Hmmmm...so who could they have been referring to. I'll let you answer that.
Finally, I am not a "neo-confederate" friend. Though I am impressed it took you a while to get to name calling. Most people who lose arguments on FACTS jump to this much earlier. So I'm impressed you had the self-control. I don't think I'll benefit from that if I'm with a State that is seeking to secede...I continue to believe you'll shoot me.
That said, I am however:
1. Pro-Inalienable Rights
2. Pro-authority (Lincoln had none)
3. Pro-Rule of Law (Lincoln not so much)
4. Pro-habeas corpus (Lincoln not so much)
5. Pro-first Amendment (Lincoln not so much)
6. Pro-self governance (Lincoln not so much)
These are the FACTS and they cannot be disputed. That you don't like them tells me that you're probably a big-government conservative and no friend of Jefferson OR Madison (or Henry, Mason, Lee etc).
Ummmm...we're not a "nation," we're a Union as in "to form a more perfect Union." Might want to read Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755 to better understand WHY the Framers chose the work "Union."
You've got your history all wrong, so did I until Dr. Walter Williams helped me take the blinders off. I know, I know, you think he's wrong to.
Public opinion, not governmental force.
A Union of the States seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
------
In fact, he previously notes:
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.
Intolerable abuse....like refusing to uphold Constitutional provisions, placing punishing tariffs on [mostly] Southern goods, and threatening to obliterate the entire economy of a agrarian based society?
--------
You might also bother to note he is talking of a single As for Madison, clearly you have only read what you want on the subject to defend your false view.
ROFLMAO! False view? That's rich, particularly coming from someone who's idea of research is doing a verbatim copy & paste.....from a BLOG!
Public opinion, not governmental force.
A Union of the States seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agist. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
------
In fact, he previously notes:
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.
Intolerable abuse....like refusing to uphold Constitutional provisions, placing punishing tariffs on [mostly] Southern goods, and threatening to obliterate the entire economy of a agrarian based society?
--------
As for Madison, clearly you have only read what you want on the subject to defend your false view.
ROFLMAO! False view? That's rich, particularly coming from someone who's idea of research is doing a verbatim copy & paste.....from a BLOG!
I LOVE Dr. Williams. If only HE were our 'first black President'
[sigh}
-----
Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled argument. LOL!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at some of these comments. The colonies SECEDED from Britain. The states abolished their govt by adopting the Constitution. The people are the sovereigns (popular sovereignty) and are above the state and federal govts. The South seceded from the Union... so it wasn’t a rebellion.
If you don’t believe the South could secede then you obviously don’t believe the colonies could secede from Britain. You don’t believe in the consent of the governed. You don’t understand delegated sovereign powers — certainly not in the sense the founders and framers did (i.e. read Vattel on this subject as that is who they relied on).
It also means you give consent to unlimited submission to a national government. It means you believe in one large consolidated, all-powerful centralized government. As history has proven repeatedly these regimes fall... every single one of them.
It also means that the federal government, as the agent of the people and by extension the states, can determine the extent of the powers delegated to it. That is akin to giving your teenager instructions, rules, and a time to be home on a Friday night... but when the teenager comes home he says I have the power to interpret those things... I am the final and sole arbiter of that... And, naturally, the teenager says I could stay out past 11pm, I could drive more than 50 miles, I could drink and drive, I could speed because I’ve determined those are the powers you delegated to me.
Are you coming back to respond to the facts that have been submitted by me, mamatexan and TJ1776?
They were in rebellion and Lincoln was constitutionally correct in putting down the rebellion.
Now, what you neo-confederates need to do is get down on your knees and thank God that the North won because you live in the greatest country in the world.
Now, Furthermore, I have posted the letter from Madison which showed he did not believe the States had any right to secede.
I have linked to the lecture on the constitutionally of Lincoln's actions by Hillsdale college.
Sorry, it was not a 'noble' cause, it was a cause to spread slavery and you guys try to wrap yourselfs around the constitution which you despise and the freedom it represents as well as the Declaration, whose universal truth, you originally disputed.
The States had agreed to follow the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows States to leave the Union.
Now, what you are is a anarchist, as well as the rest of the neo-confederate cabel.
I never said you were a racist, but nice red herring.
The PEOPLE are the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
So, why don't you get your little group of malcontents together and hold a State convention and see how constitutional it would be to withdraw from the Union?
If it is constitutional try and do it!
More word games.
Yes, to form a more perfect union, meant a stronger union then the Articles of Confederation, which meant more unity, not less.
We are the American People, not the Texan people, New York People.
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.