Happy 4th of July

[David]

Happy Independence Day everyone! :happybday: USA!



And many thanks to all who serve(d) and sacrifice(d) for this great country. We sincerely appreciciate your efforts. :clap:

[Rich]

Yes - happy 4th to everyone.

[giddonah]

indeed ;)

[TnAndy]

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 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.


Unfortunately, here in the occupied South, I find little to celebrate on the 4th of July. The last time ( 1861-65) a group of people attempted to actually pursue their rights under the above principles, they were crushed by a tyrannical government to which they were formerly joined.

We asked nothing but to be left in peace to enjoy our happiness, free from the taxes and control of northern business interests, but such was not to be.

So I find it hard to believe in, and celebrate a document, which really only has meaning if you just happen to win the inevitable military conflict that will result should a group of people actually try to travel that road.

[David]

Andy, truth be told, isn't it somewhat ironic that it says all men are created equal, yet the South was forcing some into slavery? (I'm asking this in a friendly, non-cobatative way that probably won't convey as such over the 'net.)

[TnAndy]

You'll get no argument from me on the slavery issue, David. It was clearly wrong and inhuman.....I fail to understand how men of liberty like Thomas Jefferson could turn a blind eye to that fact..... and BOTH the North ( as slave ship owners ) and the South, where they were used as workers, were guilty of the practice.

However, it was dying a natural death, and would have gone away on it's own....probably with LESS hard feelings between races than came about after the War when whites were often lorded over by blacks put in positions of authority by the North.

But all that aside, the War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery or freeing slaves.....Lincoln said "If I could hold the Union together without freeing one slave, I would do so."

And the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Lincoln ( the great emancipator ) ONLY freed slaves "in those States in rebellion", over which one might argue he had NO control, and yet did NOT free slaves in States still in the Union, in which one might argue he had SOME control. It was merely a political move at a time when the North appeared to be loosing the war, in hopes that slaves would rise up and take men from the Southern fighting forces back home to defend their properties.


The war was about taxes and control. The South paid far more in taxes than the North, and once the North realized they were about to loose their cash cow, the fight was on.

[David]

Good points. I don't understand how men of faith (from the North or the South) could live with forced slavery. I suppose that in itself is another topic.

So, the real crux of the argument would come down to how small of a unit (geographical unit or population unit) could "alter ... abolish ... institute new government." I know some in the south feel they had the right to secede. But it's hard to determine if they had that right from within the Constitution. What if the southern half of TN wanted to institute new government today, but the northern half didn't. Or what if 10% of Florida wanted to alter the federal governement? I know these are just what if's, but I'm trying to understand the intent of the founding fathers. Not what you, I, or even Lincoln himself personally feel/felt.

What if women wanted to vote? And blacks? Would the south still collectively wanted to secede?

Was the intent meant to be a majority? It doesn't say so.
Was the intent to be up to each state? It doesn't say so.
I could find logical arguments for both sides.

Perhaps the rest of the document explains it more clearly. I've just never heard an intellictual argument go anywhere.


I believe Lincoln was a great man who actually did care for people, including slaves. But I also believe his main MO was to save the Union and he personally felt that this country should be 'one'. He didn't hide behind that fact, as your quote clearly explains. I believe the war was influenced by taxes, but I don't believe that was the only reason.

My opinions aside, though, and onto yours ( :) ), would you prefer to have 2 seperate countries now?

[TnAndy]

What if the southern half of TN wanted to institute new government today, but the northern half didn't.



You mean like the situation Virginia, and West Virginia still find themselves in ? In CLEAR violation of : Article 5, Sec 3

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

Don't mean to cherrypick your post, but this one just jumped out...ahahahaaaa...


We were, under the original Constitution, 13 separate countries, sovereign and independent, joined at the federal level simply to provide a means of commerce and defense.

The Constitution is NOT a limit on the rights of States or The People.....it was written for the above, and to place limits on the federal government. Sadly, that, along with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, all got trampled in the dust during and after the War of Northern Aggression.

Human rights exist, whether or not they are listed on a document anywhere.

If, for example, there were no "Bill of Rights", you, in my opinion, would STILL have the right to free speech.....you would have the right to self defense.....you would have the right to basically be left alone to pursue happiness in your own manner.....the listing of SOME of the human rights in the first 10 amendments was never construed to be a COMPLETE list, and in fact, that was a strong concern of many of the founders in putting that in the Constitution. The fact the 9th and 10th amendments ( the most forgotten of all ) were specifically put there to point out that not all rights were listed.

IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In those two amazing powerful amendments lie the power of the States or The People to separate from the Union, as well as a host of other rights.

It ALSO should point out the unconstitutionality of much of what the federal government does today, since none of it is delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.

If, for example, you think the right to seceed is somewhat in question, then kindly find for me which section of the Constitution authorizes the feds to have: Social Security, Medi-anything, welfare, the Departments of Education, Energy, etc., a standing army, agencies such as the FBI, ATF, CIA, and the list could run for pages......

As to the size of a group that split off ? I don't know.....I suppose, carried to the extreme, it would be one person and their property.....but CERTAINLY, there is no question in my mind it would include an entire State, especially if the elected representatives of that State voted to do so.....and an entire group of States, again, with their elected representatives voting, or with a simple popular vote, without question.

Do I believe the country would be better off split today ?

Actually, I'd like to hope that after the split, somewhere down the road they could have worked things out, and gotten back together. We are, pretty much, one people with common interests.

But IF the split remained, and the Declaration of Independence, and Constitutions instituted by The People were respected and maintained, then, yes, that IS a price I would be willing to pay.

Because, ultimately, I think the abandonment of the principles of those dusty documents will be our downfall. We have allowed our government to grow into a monster that is pretty much out of control, and is now a "government by the powerful and for the powerful" and we, the people, shall suffer for that down the road. Any chance for meaningful change at the ballot box is gone, and yet, those running the government, and their power backers, are smart enough to keep The People just fat, dumb and entertained enough to prevent the use of the cartridge box.

Most probably governments have always migrated toward that end, and our fleeting departure from that in the first 80-90 years of our history was simply outside the normal course of events.


On Lincoln, and history of the time......you might want to read some the stuff at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Lot of history that never made it to the public school books.

I've enjoyed the debate, David. :D

andy

[David]

You mean like the situation Virginia, and West Virginia still find themselves in ? In CLEAR violation of : Article 5, Sec 3

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

Don't mean to cherrypick your post, but this one just jumped out...ahahahaaaa...



Ah, no worries. But that still doesn't answer the question. What if half of TN wanted to split? According to the D of I, they have the right to abolish and reestablish new gov't. So shouldn't they be allowed to?



Well, anyway, I do agree that gov't has become bloated and self-serving and the democratic process is all but gone. Nonetheless, I'll still celebrate the 4th of July :mrgreen:.

[TnAndy]

Well, based on the fact there are currently TWO Virginias, despite a Constitution prohibition against it, then I have to say yes.

AND considering the welfare 'gime gime gime' mentality of much of West Tennessee versus the pride in work ethic of most of East Tennessee ( you would have to live here to appreciate the difference ), then personally, I'm all FOR splitting off that welfare, tax loving bunch down that way :D

By the way, your own State of Texas entered the Union as a sovereign republic, and the treaty that they entered under specifically gave them the right to withdraw if they decided to do so at a future date.....the only State to ever enter the Union with that distinction !

Unfortunately, the Great White Fathers in DC have a bad habit of ignoring treaties they later find troublesome......ahahhaaaaaa

[David]

By the way, your own State of Texas entered the Union as a sovereign republic, and the treaty that they entered under specifically gave them the right to withdraw if they decided to do so at a future date.....the only State to ever enter the Union with that distinction !

Yes, true (though I affiliate myself as an Iowan more than a Texan). Many people here view themselves as foreigners because we feel Texas really is another country. I personally dislike the two mentalities we have here, but oh well.

The clause is probably in there because when Texas first applied to become a state, the US actually turned them down. The US told Texas to go be on your own for a year, then come back to us.


Well, we haven't been a country who has lived up to their word. We have broken treaties and promises. I couldn't agree with you more.


I didn't realize there was such a gap in TN. As for splitting, imagine if a few people each declared national independence. What a mess that would be!