Free Republic

And I thought you were actually going to act like an adult, so I answered one of your posts. That's what I get for doing my own thinking.

Here is the personal attack: Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.

Before you sent that garbage, I had emailed Mr. Quakenbush to tell him that I would answer his posts when I had the material together. Unlike some people on this site, I don't go off half-cocked. I gather data, marshall facts and arguments. I check to see if I might agree with some of the arguments made by the other person. I do not claim to be infallable and if an argument is valid, I am willing to change my mind.

That's what people do who are serious about discussing an issue. It might take more time than just putting down the first bit of nonsense that comes to mind. But respect for the people on this forum demands that we take the time to do things right.

My objection is that it is a hypothetical exercise; wholly unrealistic. To comment further is a waste of time.

You were the one who asked for my comments. I didn't seek you out. But the reason to discuss hypothetical concepts is that they can help us understand where we are now and help us get ideas for how to fix our problems.

For instance, the politicians in Washington say there is a huge problem with the way campaigns are run. That the current system leads to unbridled corruption. Their remedy is to eviserate the First Amendment. Surely, it makes sense to discuss alternate means of solving this problem.

I have proposed an alternative. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Don't post.

Not so. A southern minority of the citizens of the US no longer consented to a valid constitutional republics overall views on ending a violation of human rights, - slavery. They rebelled against their own constitutions principles.

The point is that they had the right to withdraw their consent to the Constitution. The government belongs to the people and when they decide that it no longer serves their needs, they have the right to change it.

Someone once wrote that we chartered ourselves a government just like someone might charter a bus. If you hired a bus to go to Florida, but the driver insisted on going to Maine, you have every right to get off the bus. If a group of people go together and charter the bus and some decide in the middle of the trip that they no longer want to go where the bus is going, they have the right to get off. It's the same way with government.

We hired it. When it no longer does what we want it to do, we have the right to fire it. This is the best protection of our rights that we have.

The people of the south had no right to oppose the clear intent of the constitution to abolish slavery, as Article I section 9, infers. - They chose violent rebellion to resolve political differences over human rights, in the stead of constitutional remedies. Big mistake. Their fellow citizens had every right to enforce & defend the constitution & the entire republic from such a division.

They did not choose violent rebellion. They chose peaceful separation. They sent a delegation to Washington to pay for any federal property that was within the states and to arrange to pay the South's portion of the national debt. They did demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, and had been promised that it would be surrendered. When it became apparant that Lincoln was going to break that promise, they took the fort by force.

Also, Article I, section 9 does not imply an intent to abolish slavery. It was put in the Constitution to keep the federal government from doing so.

But be serious. The northern states "achieved emancipation peacefully," so I don't know what you mean by "that was not even tried here." It was repudiated in the most solemn way as even an ultimate, distant goal by the Southern states who cast their lot with a regime based on slavery, after they had almost a century to think the matter over carefully, and while the rest of the world moved toward emancipation and substantially accomplished it. The civilized world of 1776 was very clear on the moral issues involved in slavery, and the civilized world of 1860 was even clearer -- the South just ILLEGITIMATELY DISAGREED. And they quite openly based their revolt on that disagreement. So let's see what statements by seceeding states you have that a) offer reasons for the justice of secession as an avoidance of tyranny, and b) don't make slavery the principal, even only, cause of secession.

Actually, as pointed out, the whole of the world didn't move away from slavery. It is still alive in much of the world. Africa, the Middle East, much of Asia still practices slavery. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before we eliminate slavery.

In the places where slavery was abolished, it was almost without exception done peacefully, generally through compensated emancipation or through phasing out slavery over a period of years. And while the Psalms singers like to take credit for ending slavery, it was really simple economics that did the trick. Owning slaves just didn't pay. (We might as well face facts, for many people, if not most, money counts for more than morality.)

Don't think I am defending slavery or defending the South's stance on slavery. But this is not a question of whether slavery was right or wrong. There's no question that slavery is wrong. It is a question of whether people may decide what kind of government they will live under.

PRECISELY so you wouldn't say this:

My apologies.

Yes, it does. Or rather, it means that the right to self-determination is not conditional, but qualified. The right to self-government arises from human equality and the divine endowment of rights, and its legitimate exercise must, accordingly, to be rational, be claimed in light of its origin. You disagree with the Declaration when you speak of an absolute right to self-determination.

I disagree with you. Read it again. You are wanting to read the section about prudence as a requirement for self-determination. It says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Not, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the goverened as long as the people are prudent. Or even morally right.

I don't believe that the people in Iran, for instance, are morally right. They certainly don't believe in human equality. But I also believe they have the right to determine their form of government. I disagree with that form of government. But I don't think that anyone has the right to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent. Do you?

And if it would be wrong to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent, how can it be right to impose a government on the people of the South without their consent?

I will look forward to seeing the official statements of secession that offer this reason, even supposing (which I do not think true) that the claimed economic abuse was true or intended.

What is the Southern explanation, by the way, for the enormous tariffs DURING the war, after the South was gone?

As I have indicated, my bookmarks for the reasons for secession are at home. I will post the links when I can.

But even if they do not list the tariff, it was an issue they felt so strongly about that they outlawed protectionist tariffs in the Confederate Constitution.

As for tariffs during the war, Lincoln had to get money somewhere. He used high tariffs and paper money.

Were the secessionists acting prudently?

It is not for you or me to decide whether they were prudent. And you will notice that the D of I says whenever the people think their government needs to change, they can change it. It then goes on to say that if they are prudent, they won't do so rashly.

I do not believe that the people of Sweden are prudent for adopting socialism. But who am I to impose my will on the people of Sweden? I do not consider Islamic fundementalism a prudent form of government. But if the people of the Middle East wish to live under that form of government, it's up to them.

The fact that you may not believe the South was prudent does not mean that you would be right to deny them their self-determination.

Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.

As I have pointed out in a private reply to Mr. Quackenbush, I have not forgotten him and will reply when I collect the necessary data.

Mr. Paine, I have asked you to quit these childish personal attacks on me. I will ask you one more time to cease. Your personal attacks on people (and I'm certainly not the only person you routinely attack) do not add to the debate. They do not do anything except disrupt this forum.

If you have something to add, some fact or some, reasonable, logical argument, then by all means, add it. Don't distort other people's arguments. Don't insult people. And don't play out childish vendettas against people.

Lay out the long train of abuses prior to 1860 of the type that TJ lays out in the D of I.

Read the D of I. It says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Yes, The D of I lists greivences against King George. But the heart of the matter is that whenever the people no longer consent to a particular form of government, the just powers of that government are at an end. The people of the South no longer consented to be governed by the United States. The government of the United States did not have the right to impose their will on the people of the South.

You may not agree with what the South believed, but it is not your place (nor was it Lincoln's) to impose your beliefs on the people of the South. To impose a government on the unwilling is tyranny.

If the government becomes abusive of its powers, then is the time to call the D of I into play.

Which the South did when it seceded.

The Congress is charged with providing for the general welfare and the common defense of the United States. Anything inimical to those ends are covered in Marshall's ruling. The Congress clearly is empowered to deal lwith them. This includes secession. The right to secession CANNOT be retained to the states because the right of perpetuity is retained by the federal government.

Walt, the only way you can get to this conclusion is to throw out the Declaration of Independence and say that "We the people" belong to the United States government instead of the other way around.

I agree, the decision must go to Congress. BTW, when was the last time the US Congress "officially" declared war?

WWII I think. I don't remember hearing of one since. Korea is the only other possibility, but I don't think they did it then. They called it a "Police Action" not a war.

A country without federal judges. Doesn't seem like a crisis to me.

You can't mean this as a universal principle. Hitler no doubt had reached an honest judgment that the Jews manifested an undeniable resolve to tyranize over the Arians. I trust you won't think I intend the comparison beyond this basic point -- the Declaration cannot mean only that groups of "sincere" people have the right to establish whatever form of government they sincerely want. Fanatics and tyrants are frequently quite sincere.

You're not really suggesting that the South's decision to peacefully withdraw from the Union is in any way comparable with Hitler's decision to murder millions of Jews, are you? Perhaps not. But you should be more careful in your analogy.

Yes. I do mean that the people have the right to establish the form of government that suits them. Even if they choose unwisely. (That does not give the government the right to murder people though.)

I consider socialism tyranny. It is nothing more than slavery to the government. But the people of Sweden have chosen such a government. Do I consider it wise? No. But it is their right to chose such a form of government.

The Declaration of Independence makes this very clear. The Declaration does not say that the right to self-determiniation is conditional. No court of world opinion may deprive people of that right. World opinion may disapprove of Islamic fundementalism, but if the people of the middle east choose to live under such a system, we have no right to force them to adopt another.

As for the argument that the North had something to lose if the South seceded, that is true. Over 80% of the federal taxes were paid by the South and most of the expenditures were made on improvements in the North. The Republicans had promised to raise tariffs so that the South would pay even more and had also promised to spend more on Northern industries, railroads, and canals. We in the South were the cash cows that the North was determined to milk dry. If the South left the Union, the North might have to pay their own way. The power to tax is the power to destroy and the North was determined to use that power to destroy the South.

I'm not fan of Pat's but I remain unconvinced of the need to go to war with Iraq. He makes a good case.

If Bush can make a case, fine. Let him do it in Congress. But, like you, I'm not convinced. Of course I wasn't convinced when his daddy did it either.

Women in the Army. It causes trouble all over the world.

Of course Scalia feels free to ignore the Constitution when it suits him. But he is at least saying the right thing here.

Pat says a lot of things I disagree with, but I have to agree with him when he says that if we are going to go to war, it should be done in a Constitutional manner. The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. We shouldn't do it without an official declaration.

So where does the Treaty of Paris overrule the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution of the United States. It could refer to them as whatever they want, unless the Constitution or the Articles agree then the Treaty is meaningless.

We make progress.

If I remember correctly, the contention was that as of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, a single country was formed and that the states were not separate, independent, soveriegn entities. We have now worked through the Declaration of Independence -- which clearly indicates that the states were independent entities and now the Treaty of Paris.

Shall we go on to the Articles of Confederation? Here it is even more plain. In fact, it is explicite. Article II says:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Notice how this foreshadows the 10th Amendment. No accident there.