Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Articles of Confederation created a PERPETUAL UNION.
The USCON made a more perfect union - but it was still PERPETUAL.
And the reason for the union was to secure the endowed rights of the people - not the citizens. Citizens, by their consent to be governed, surrendered their rights.
And there was no such thing as "STATES RIGHTS" since state governments only had delegated powers - not rights.
The only people who retained endowed rights were the noncitizen sovereign people... and they couldn't vote for secession, not being participants in the democracy.
- - -
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
BUT
If you consented to be governed, in order to exercise privileges and immunities as a citizen, mandatory civic duties abrogated those endowed rights.
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.
This is the core of the republican form. The people are the sovereigns - the government is their servant, and the citizens are servants / subjects of that government.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
Citizens are NOT sovereigns, but subjects of their sovereign government.
The PEOPLE are the sovereigns.
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves.
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
In summation, the sovereign people cannot own slaves. Slavery was a privilege only available to citizens, under the democracy. And the majority of that democracy was moving away from slavery. That is why the Confederacy had to secede - and break their solemn promise to the perpetual union.
ADDENDUM -
Why did citizenship come with a loss of rights? It's spelled out in the Declaration of Independence - at the end - where the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor (in obedience) to the governments instituted to secure the rights of the people. All citizens are presumed to have made the same pledge.
That's why conscription (Selective Service) was constitutional, and not involuntary servitude. Citizens had already pledged their lives and liberties to the government.
In other words, once you consent, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
Well a lot to read and study on and I will as time allows to valuate what you wrote. Now, just in general, did Lincoln present it this way as you have presented to the rebellion and public before he decided on Violence? If so, what evidence is there on that effort? Also, if it was so cut and dry, why did it take 4 years after the war was over for the Supreme Court make it's ruling in 1869? Also 3 Justices voted against it. Evidently they did not fully accept the above. Like I said, it was a complicated war with complicated legalities.
Now, I also want to state this. I would have been strongly against slavery back then, just like I am strongly against things in the US today, abortion for example.
I am also not against Lincoln or anyone's effort back then to eliminate slavery. But what I'm against is "How". Lincoln's decision to the Real Start the War by Invading Virginia, Causing over 620,000 Deaths, an Untold Number of Wounded, Millions of Dollars in Destruction, plus the Devastation of many Innocent Lives by the likes of Sherman, Sheridan and Hunter, is not my idea of the proper way to accomplish it.
And those who fought against those improper decisions, especially the ones who died for it, were honored.
The issue of slavery was not the instigator of the war but used by Lincoln later on to morally supercharge the Union's ailing campaign. And it worked.
In Lincoln's own words he "would have rather wished to end the war without freeing any slave" but knew he had to if he wanted to end the war. Robert E. Lee was more more keen on ending slavery in the South if you take the time to read his writings. Other prominent generals like A.P. Hill were morally opposed to slavery in all forms.
The south did not fight over the preservation of slavery and ultimately yielded once it became the central campaign of the north.
That Virginia law for "War Memorials" was enacted in 1904 and was set up explicitly to allow for the building of monuments and memorials to Confederate veterans. That was 39 years after the end of the war. It was not enacted to intimidate anyone but to heal still sore wounds.
Well stated.
Also a lot of soldiers were dying off in the late 18's and early 1900's and the Daughters of the Confederacy and others wanted to erect monuments in their honor.
Sure, the law change was announced as all legislation is. When it goes before committees, when it goes to the floor, when it crosses chambers. In this legislation it had public hearings before compromise legislation was passed. This is all on the web. It was in the paper. Here is the link from the Virginia Mercury; https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020...atue-removals/. It was on TV.
In the end, the statues only reflected one short period of Virginia's history and even then only part of the narrative. That the statues have become a rallying cry for the alt-right, it's time for them to go.
The issue of slavery was not the instigator of the war but used by Lincoln later on to morally supercharge the Union's ailing campaign. And it worked.
In Lincoln's own words he "would have rather wished to end the war without freeing any slave" but knew he had to if he wanted to end the war. Robert E. Lee was more more keen on ending slavery in the South if you take the time to read his writings. Other prominent generals like A.P. Hill were morally opposed to slavery in all forms.
The south did not fight over the preservation of slavery and ultimately yielded once it became the central campaign of the north.
You're lying. The articles and ordinances of secession from the various rebel states, including Virginia's, specifically cited maintaining slavery as the reason for leaving the union. Have you ever read the Confederate Constitution? It specifically mentions preserving slavery 9 times, particularly Article IV, Sec. 3. of it.
The issue of slavery was not the instigator of the war but used by Lincoln later on to morally supercharge the Union's ailing campaign. And it worked.
In Lincoln's own words he "would have rather wished to end the war without freeing any slave" but knew he had to if he wanted to end the war. Robert E. Lee was more more keen on ending slavery in the South if you take the time to read his writings. Other prominent generals like A.P. Hill were morally opposed to slavery in all forms.
The south did not fight over the preservation of slavery and ultimately yielded once it became the central campaign of the north.
The Civil War was entirely about slavery. Period. All of the secession proclamations mention continuation of slavery as a reason for seceding. The so called states rights the Confederates fought for was to continue the ownership of other human beings.
The Civil War was entirely about slavery. Period. All of the secession proclamations mention continuation of slavery as a reason for seceding. The so called states rights the Confederates fought for was to continue the ownership of other human beings.
People like VAOutdoorsman love lying about the causus belli of the Civil War so they can push Lost Cause propaganda. Those like him aren't interested in having a good-faith and honest discussion.
Last edited by Aspe4; 07-19-2023 at 09:36 AM..
Reason: type correction
Sure, the law change was announced as all legislation is. When it goes before committees, when it goes to the floor, when it crosses chambers. In this legislation it had public hearings before compromise legislation was passed. This is all on the web. It was in the paper. Here is the link from the Virginia Mercury; https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020...atue-removals/. It was on TV.
The first sentence in the link:
A proposal to eliminate the legal hoops Virginia cities and counties have to go through before taking down Confederate monuments failed in a state Senate committee Tuesday after several Democratic legislators said they were uncomfortable rewriting the law to make public hearings optional.
Also, I want to see where the law was change specifically on the Code of Virginia protecting Virginia's Monuments.
The Civil War was entirely about slavery. Period. All of the secession proclamations mention continuation of slavery as a reason for seceding. The so called states rights the Confederates fought for was to continue the ownership of other human beings.
It wasn't that simple. Virginia always voted to stay in the Union, time after time. It was only when Lincoln called out for 75,000 Troops wanting 2,340 from Virginia to fight the Lower South is what helped to prompt the change. Virginia did not want to fight the Lower South. Virginia didn't want to fight anyone. Just 2 Days later, Virginia voted 55 to 33 to Secede. Unfortunately Slavery was still legal in the United States. The North at the start of the war still had multi-1000's of slaves within it's borders and not only was it still legal, it wasn't ruled illegal in the North till well after the war in December of 1865.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
