 |
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 08:34 pm |
|
1st Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
hen 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.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
the above is the first two paragraphs from our Declaration of Independence. Notice what the document says about our rights and our duties relative to the government.
- We have the right to alter or abolish it and replace it with one that better suits our needs.
- When a long train of abuse occurs, it is our RIGHT, it is our DUTY to throw off such government.
What is the purpose of Government?
To secure our unalienable rights..nothing more.
Now this document was written with an eye towards putting George III on notice that we were a free and independent people, and no longer interested in being British subjects, but fast forward to 1860. Which sections of this document did not apply to the secessionists? Why not?
If these men believed as did their grandfathers, that they had the right to throw off an oppressive government, who is to say they did not? Seems to me they had a duty to do so. If not, why not?
Is this document a historic relic with no meaning in today's society? If so, why?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:54 pm |
|
2nd Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Bama -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Are you not trying to use a document to justify a cause while that very cause blatantly ignored other sections of the very same document?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
3rd Post |
Old Blu
Member
|
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
One has to remember at the time of this writing, only whites were considered
MEN.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 12:37 am |
|
4th Post |
ole
Member
|
Underlying the entire document is the inalienable right to try. Actually succeeding is not an inalienable right.
I'll also note that it cautions that "...whenever a government becomes obstructive of these ends..."
Those who wrote and debated and signed that document knew very well that they were rebelling ... not seceding ... rebelling. In knowing that, they still pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 01:11 am |
|
5th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
sounds like everyone is engaging in semantics to me.
Ole, a sizable contingent of fplks would and do argue that they (secessionists)did not have the right to try..
Javal, I am asking what changed between the writing of the Declaration of Independence, correct me if I missed something, but slavery was pretty prevelent then too, right?, and 1860. Were not the issues the same? If not, why not?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 03:10 am |
|
6th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Ole, Given that many in the north called it a rebellion, does that make it all right?
Either the document means something or it does not.
What about today, there are many who would say the government is much more oppressive than at any time in our histoy. At what point do we have a duty to throw it off?
What if New England decides to throw it off, but the Western US doesn't agree... what then?
This is not an issue of slavery.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 03:25 am |
|
7th Post |
The Iron Duke
Member
|
"If the South's people thought it in every way better for them to separate from the Union and form a Confederacy of their own, on what just ground could they be prevented from doing so? and whence did the Government of the Union derive authority to coerce them?" -AP Stewart.
Soldier of Tennessee, page 19
____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 04:18 pm |
|
8th Post |
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
9th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
There are two documents that are regarded as the pillars of our way of governmnent and of our liberty, The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Many get them confused, and the constitution for all intent and purposes is an afterthought at best. In the recent rush to bailout the financial industry, not one politician or media type, nor anyone else I am aware of even asked if there just might be a constitutional issue with the bailout.
That leaves the Declaration of Independence. That document spells our both rights and duties we as Americans have with respect to our relationship with our government. I couched the question in light of secession becasue this is, after all, a civil war board, and the only time the government was even seriously threatened was during that conflict. Even then, the issue was "let us go" rather than "get outta here ya bums"
NOt one person seems to be willing to discuss the document and what it meant at the time of the revolution vs the ACw vs today
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
ole
Member
|
Both documents were written with a goal of government by the people. This was a first. All governments were, until that time, run by an aristocracy.(Skipping over the "democracies" of Greece and Rome.)
After a fashion, this republic still operates on that principle. In 1860, the grand experiment was challenged. One side saw in the Declaration that it could declare itself a different nation. The other side saw that the experiment would fail if a part of it could withdraw whenever it pleased.
So we had a situation that only an armed conflict could resolve. Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm rather glad about the way it turned out.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
Bama46
Guest
|
I am not arguing the way it turned out, but rather do these documents have revelance today...
I don't believe the constitution does as it is routinely ignored by our "leaders" from GWB thru Peloski, Reid and down to the lowliest bureaurocrat (if there is such an animal)
You seem to be saying you agree there was a justification for secession to be found in the declaration. Is that justification still valid, in the sense that we still have a duty to throw off an oppressive government. If so, under what circumstances, if not, why not?
|
|
Back To Top
|
The Iron Duke
Member
|
Mr. Duncan I think it puts it very succinctly. Should these documents be relevant today? Absolutely. Are they in actuality? Only when it advances the ambition of a politician or special interest group.
King George III isn't looking so bad right now.
____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill
|
|
Back To Top
|
The Iron Duke
Member
|
I can take it back if you like...
____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill
|
|
Back To Top
|
pamc153PA
Member
|
A question might be, rather than are the two documents relevant today ( I agree that they SHOULD be ), did the creators of these documents EXPECT them to be relevant for the infinite future? I believe that if they did, that means men like Jefferson were extremely short-sighted and naive--arrogant?--and frankly, I think they were none of those adjectives. You can apply that litmus test to any of the ages, Revolution, Civil War, the present day.
Pam
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
Bama46
Guest
|
Well, lets turn it around for a moment... and this is what gets my head spinning... if we are living in a "Post constitutional society" and the Declaration is no longer valid, then what are the anchors? Do we continue to just muddle along like a rudderless ship, going with this wind, then that one, this current, that one.. always giving up more power to the feds and more of our freedoms to the bureaucrats?
It seems like America has lost the instructions, and they are right in front of our noses. Yet, all we can worry about is lipstick painted pigs and who'se got the beer!
those of us with grey hair can remember when the country worked, and it was better. Sad, isn't it
|
|
Back To Top
|
The Iron Duke
Member
|
Ed,
I think part of the problem is that we as citizens feel disenfranchised. I've met a number of people who simply don't care who wins the election. And can you really blame them when our politicians are bought and sold like cattle and cater to special interest groups? Not to mention the pure farce of Congress showing indignation at this financial meltdown when they themselves helped create this debacle.
In addition, I know many people who think the electoral process of selecting our President is a crock. Finally, when you have a Supreme Court case like Kelo vs City of New London where there seems to be little to stop the government from using eminent domain to further their own greed how are people supposed to feel that they can actually influence the outcome???
People are apathetic because they don't expect anyone in Washington to genuinely care. And there's nothing in their track record to change this belief any time soon.
Last edited on Wed Oct 8th, 2008 12:39 am by The Iron Duke
____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill
|
|
Back To Top
|
ole
Member
|
Golly! Take a break to clean up the kitchen a bit and mess it up again making dinner, and I'm behind about six or eight posts. Never mind, I'm particularly pleased to see this board taking off with some spirited discussions. With that being said, I'll have to now go back up the queue to see if there's something requiring a response.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 01:25 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
|
|
