Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.
When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.
No brainer!
Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.
I've already quoted Madison verbatim in opposition to secession. One more reminder to all here that bripat doesn't even read anyone else's posts.
Links for secession. You won't find it.
I've already posted dozens of quotes on the subject, moron.
Madison did not support secession.
However, TJ did write that to William B. Giles in Dec. 26, 1825, that secession was only acceptable "when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.” The South faced even remotely neither of those situations.
Taxation is theft.
What would your government look like if there was no power to tax? Be specific.
Having the power to tax and abusing the power to tax are two different things.
I've already posted dozens of quotes on the subject, moron.
Madison did not support secession.
However, TJ did write that to William B. Giles in Dec. 26, 1825, that secession was only acceptable "when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. The South faced even remotely neither of those situations.
It found submission to the federal government intolerable, so the only other options were secession.
Madison did not support secession.
However, TJ did write that to William B. Giles in Dec. 26, 1825, that secession was only acceptable "when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. The South faced even remotely neither of those situations.
It found submission to the federal government intolerable, so the only other options were secession.
Only legitimate subject two very unique, specific situations that neither existed in 1860.
Jefferson, if he had been president, would have ordered the South invaded and subdued.
It found submission to the federal government intolerable, so the only other options were secession.
Only legitimate subject two very unique, specific situations that neither existed in 1860.
ROFL! Every situation is unique, Fakey. If you endorse secession for one situation, then you can't automatically reject it for every other situation.
Jefferson, if he had been president, would have ordered the South invaded and subdued.
Not a chance, hosebag. Jefferson wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant like Lincoln.
It found submission to the federal government intolerable, so the only other options were secession.
Only legitimate subject two very unique, specific situations that neither existed in 1860.
ROFL! Every situation is unique, Fakey. If you endorse secession for one situation, then you can't automatically reject it for every other situation.
Jefferson, if he had been president, would have ordered the South invaded and subdued.
Not a chance, hosebag. Jefferson wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant like Lincoln.
This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:
"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."
~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10
The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.
The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jeffersons famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.
This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.
What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo
It was and still is Constitutional, states can never be subordinate to an entity they created.
Having the power to tax and abusing the power to tax are two different things.
Who determines what abuse is? For a number of years most Americans have desired higher taxes on the rich.
poll + taxes + rich - Bing
So another "patriotic" right wing kook wants to disolve the union because someone he didnt like won an election. Give it a rest already chump. You lost, get over it.
bripat disdains authority and will tell you so. Basically, he does not want to pay taxes and behave appropriately in modern society.
His legal theories are obviously nonsense.
Of course, you are utterly incapable of proving it, Fakey. That's why all your posts are little more than personal attacks.
You are merely describing the anarcho-weirdoes like yourself.
You have never been able to explain your theories in such a way that normal people can understand them.
The Constitution and our state and national governments are a very good way to live today.
Only legitimate subject two very unique, specific situations that neither existed in 1860.
ROFL! Every situation is unique, Fakey. If you endorse secession for one situation, then you can't automatically reject it for every other situation.
Jefferson, if he had been president, would have ordered the South invaded and subdued.
Not a chance, hosebag. Jefferson wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant like Lincoln.
Once again for ohh so slow and ignorant. Lincoln did NOTHING about the States leaving UNTIL South Carolina opened fire on Fort Sumter. ONLY then did he act. And barely in time. The South had already started raising Armies of AGGRESSION.
the states that seceded invaded the states that stayed in the union?
They fired the first shots. Guess it backfired.
The federal government was occupying South Carolina territory, and it sent ships into South Carolina waters to resupply the Fort. Both those are acts of war. Who fired the first shot is irrelevant.
Okay, so let's say a state considers seceding, and by a referendum vote of 70 to 30%,
they vote for secession.
What about the 30% who voted against it? Can the State force them to leave the Union against their will?
1. Ft Sumter was federal property.
2. One Union soldier was killed, and since the South opened fire, that death was murder.
3. South Carolina had no legal authorization to use force against national troops on national property.
