|View single post by Unionblue|
|Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 06:05 am||
In an effort to bring this particular thread back on topic, I would like to repost part of post #1 by Bama46:
"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?"
Perhaps we should take another look at what the Declaration of Independence actually says. We can view it in its entirety at this website:
I suggest we look at the first question asked above, which, as I read it, is "Which sections of this document did not apply to the secessionists? Why not?"
Looking at the Declaration, I see the following statement.
"...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. 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..."
Now I suggest we go through each of the complaints, the "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," one-at-a-time, and see if the South suffered from the same type of 'Tyranny' from the North or federal government of 1860-61.
The first complaint reads:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
What evidence can be provided that the North was refusing 'assent to laws' to the South necessary for its public good?
Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 06:08 am by Unionblue
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.