Jefferson vs Lincoln

I think I have found the proof for secession being allowed:

“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.”

Note the key word ‘alter’. To leave the national government would be to alter it. After leaving, the remaining government would have fewer representatives; in fact, fewer of just about everything.

It was THIS that could keep the national government ‘on the straight and narrow’ and THAT’S why Lincoln and his fellow conspirators had to get rid of that option. The states thence forward became servile to the national government.

You’re all welcome.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I hate people that disagree with me on PWI.

[/quote]

True.[/quote]

I hate people that hate Bible colleges even more. I mean I am a burning cauldron of jet fuel when it comes to Bible college haterzzz.[/quote]

Perfectly reasonable.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Push:

I always pictured you as more of a Riverboat Gambler (ala Clark Gable in mannerisms and look) than a plantation owner.

Whatcha’ think?

Mufasa[/quote]

I actually won my plantation in a poker game on a riverboat queen near Natchez.
[/quote]

LOL!

We may grate each other’s nerves from time to time, Push…but for me, that’s as far as the “hate” goes!

TOUCHE!

(…Tell “The Missus” pure Mandinka, from head [i]to[/i]…)

[quote]Dustin wrote:

By whom, you? I have the book sitting on the shelf at home. Give me an example of him not using primary sources in “good faith” and I can look it up tonight.[/quote]

Sure thing. DiLorenzo cites Lincoln’s “quote” as an indictment:

Lincoln even mocked the Jeffersonian dictum enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He admitted that it had become “a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation,” but added, “I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese Twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism”. So, with the possible exception of Siamese Twins, the idea of equality, according to Lincoln, was a sheer absurdity. This is in stark contrast to the seductive words of the Gettysburg Address, eleven years later, in which he purported to rededicate the nation to the notion that all men are created equal.

Here is the actual quote:

[i][There are] a few, but an increasing number of men, who, for the sake of perpetuating slavery, are beginning to assail and to ridicule the white man’s charter of freedom, the declaration “that all men are created equal.” So far as I have learned, the first American, of any note, to do or attempt this, was the late John C. Calhoun; and if I mistake not, it soon after found its way into some of the messages of the Governors of South Carolina. We, however, look for, and are not much shocked by, political eccentricities and heresies in South Carolina. But, only last year, I saw with astonishment, what purported to be a letter of a very distinguished and influential clergyman of Virginia, copied, with apparent approbation, into a St. Louis newspaper, containing the following, to me, very extraordinary language:

[u]I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles that is not in mine. Professional abolitionists have made more use of it, than of any passage in the Bible. It came, however, as I trace it, from Saint Voltaire, and was baptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since almost universally regarded as canonical authority ‘All men are born equal and free.’

This is a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation. I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese Twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism.[/u]

This sounds strangely in republican America. The like was not heard in the fresher days of the Republic.[/i]

So, the quote DiLorenzo attributes to Lincoln as an indictment is actually Lincoln quoting a Virginia clergyman and then criticizing the clergyman’s quote.

Michael Moore couldn’t be prouder of such dishonest editing.

So, a discredited hack is a discredited hack.

Uh yeah, they are. Start on page one of this thread. We have had such wacky inventions that Lincoln started the war to make sure and keep the federal tax revenue stream from the South in place and that Lincoln had the power to make slavery illegal throughout the United States all by himself at the stroke of a pen but he chose not because he hates Black people.

Sure thing, Dustin. Get some new material.

“Legal” or not, if there were a civil war today wherein the seceding side was propounding a return to a constitutional republic, or something even closer to my principles, I would fight for that side. No human document or institution, no matter how noble, carries the authority of holy writ as if it were Divinely inspired and hence ultimately binding upon the conscience above all else.

In other words it is conceivable to me that something like our constitution be violated in one way so as to preserve the rest whether the majority sees it that way or not. I am thinking in general principle with no reference to the actual civil war or related history at all.

What are you talking about?

If your fathers were sold into bondage to a given government with (supposedly) at the time agreement that they and their descendents could never leave, though probably most voting had no idea they were agreeing to such a thing and it was not plainly stated, how dare you think that is not binding upon you and at this time you and others could be free to make your own decision?

Today the citizens of the States are born into “perpetual Union” under the Washington DC central government and if those of any state thought to do differently, they should be invaded and, if necessary to force their return, destroyed just as the South was. “Insurrectionists” and traitors.

You actually think you or anyone has a right of freedom and self-determination that amounts to anything beyond paling into nothingness compared to the God status of the Federal Government?

What a maroon!

What would happen if a number of states actually did “re-adopt” the constitution, chopped their federal government down to the functions prescribed in that constitution, declared themselves to be the United States, had the power of principle on their side and then told the other states that THEY were seceding from THEM and were free to take their communist government with them?

What if it were more states than remained loyal to DC. What if less states, but more people? What if more people, but generally spread throughout all the states? What is sacred and binding? The principles or DC? Both sides are claiming foundational U.S. law as their authority and for the sake of argument let’s assume that the seceding side was actually correct in that they really were protecting constitutional principle with the exception of the right to secede further assuming that is not constitutional.

The remaining side is enforcing the union, but pissing all over the rest. Which has the constitutional authority or does neither or both or the side that’s better armed? =] In my view the answers are not at all staring us in the face.

I’m not even thinking about the civil war. I’m thinking about the future

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What are you talking about?

If your fathers were sold into bondage to a given government with (supposedly) at the time agreement that they and their descendents could never leave, though probably most voting had no idea they were agreeing to such a thing and it was not plainly stated, how dare you think that is not binding upon you and at this time you and others could be free to make your own decision?

Today the citizens of the States are born into “perpetual Union” under the Washington DC central government and if those of any state thought to do differently, they should be invaded and, if necessary to force their return, destroyed just as the South was. “Insurrectionists” and traitors.

You actually think you or anyone has a right of freedom and self-determination that amounts to anything beyond paling into nothingness compared to the God status of the Federal Government?

What a maroon![/quote]

Whom are you addressing?

Tiribulus. I had thought (as it’s the case on my screen) that my post immediately followed his.

If not – if in fact another post or posts sit between them – then indeed this was unclear, and I should have used the quote function.

“[State sovereignty] was understood by the founding fathers and by statesmen for decades thereafter. Neither President Jefferson nor his successor, President Madison, believed that they had any authority to use military force to compel a state to abide by their political dictates.” - Thomas DiLorenzo

Maybe DiLorenzo needs a crash course in the Jefferson presidency. Jefferson most certainly did use “military force to compel a state to abide by” his political dictates in attempting to enforce his disastrous embargo.

Leonard Levy, in Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Dark Side - “The embargo, begun as a means of coering and starving England and France into respect for American rights, rapidly became an instrument of coercion against American citizens. To avoid foreign war, Jefferson made domestic war…Jefferson inclined to attaint a blockade a whole locality, because some of its citizens dared to speak again his embargo policis…[President Jefferson], shortly after accepting the doctrine that the ends justify the means, ordered out the regular army as a normal enforcement agency, without the formality of public proclamation, and without lawful authority. Her permitted his Attorney General to experiment with a treason prosecution as another means of enforcement. He deliberately and lawlessly ordered collectors of customs to ignore a decision by a Supreme Court justice who ruled that the President had acted without authority. He recommended a new enforcement act that subverted the Bill of Rights and posessed little semblance of constitutionality. The gentle libertarian philosopher, who never forgot the painful criticism that he had been a timid and indecisive war governor of Virginia, had become a presidential autocrat.”

And that wasn’t the only time.

I believe Madison v Calhoun during the nullification crisis has been covered here. Madison, Hamilton and Washington opposed secession.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The point being there was no consensus then and apparently even 189 years later…there still isn’t.[/quote]

You say “consensus”, I think the fairer term is “unanimity”. The only folks who believed in the principle of secession were the ones who directly benefited from it at the immediate time, i.e., those who didn’t want a tariff in the 1830s and those who wanted to preserve slavery in the 1860s, and so the general “principle” of secession was not generally in dispute.

No less than Robert E. Lee declared secession nothing but “anarchy”. The idea that the subject was somehow just an open intellectual question from the birth of the Republic to the Civil War is, not to put too fine a point on it, preposterous, especially after the 1830s.

There was a pretty fair consensus, especially when you control for self-interest - the point being, who was arguing that there was a general right of secession when the argument wasn’t a pretext or otehrwise wrapped in some big issue that they wanted to go their way but wasn’t getting it?

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:

And that wasn’t the only time. [/quote]

Exactly - Jefferson prosecuted Aaron Burr for attempting to stage a rebellion to secede and break off part of the Union.

Good to see you.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

“Legal” or not, if there were a civil war today wherein the seceding side was propounding a return to a constitutional republic, or something even closer to my principles, I would fight for that side. No human document or institution, no matter how noble, carries the authority of holy writ as if it were Divinely inspired and hence ultimately binding upon the conscience above all else.

In other words it is conceivable to me that something like our constitution be violated in one way so as to preserve the rest whether the majority sees it that way or not. I am thinking in general principle with no reference to the actual civil war or related history at all.[/quote]

If true, why not request a constitutional convention and states that form the “side” of wanting to return to the principles of a constitutional republic can make an ulitatum or respectfully request to leave and form their own government? When the document itself proscribes the peaceful way of addressing exactly your concerns, why would you skip this step (assuming you would)?