Secession - A Peculiar Concept [Archive]

NealStanley

13th August 2005, 09:46

Hmmmmm. . .interesting thread. I think we do have in a democracy a peculiar problem when it comes to a Christian 'submitting to the authority of rulers." This is not the classic case in Biblical history. Early Christians were to submit to the rule of Ceasar but they did not have the opportunity to chage course every 2, 4, and 6 years as we do in the U. S.

If you take the view that we are to follow the leader now in authority and never dissent then it would become treason to ever throw an elected official out of office, obviously it is not morally wrong to support an orderly change in government.

I will give you this much of my thought process on this subject, if the the original 13 colonies had not thought it possible to leave the union then they would have never joined. So legally I think the founders would have said a state can leave the union. That means that the state government, elected by the people can decide to leave the Union. A Christian who followed his state governments decision and then started thinking of himself as a Virginian or Kentuckian rather than an American, has not violated the Christian command to submit to governing authority, rather he would be obeying his government, that of the state, to leave the Federal Government. Many who have a problem fail to see that the state in the early view was superior to the federal authority.

samsamsamm2003

15th August 2005, 05:35

What i think is irrelivent is it? Well the "agent" is going into deeper debt everyday keeping you in good health and safe is it not? Also i did not say the United States is like Russia i was making an example don't like Russia i'll try another one Rome, Britain, Spain, pick another one i could care less. Let me tell you a story that happend here in Australia a farmer decided to calim his farm as a Kingdom so he did'nt have to pay Tax he of course stoped. Now what if we all were little Kindoms, Republics, Confederacy's, we would have no central government no Hospitals, no Police. Now America has been a great nation so far and it has become the richest, and greatest Nation on the Planet so think about that next time you preech Secession. And no before you twist my words i don't think America doesn't have problems that have to be worked out if i did i wouldnt be a member of this party.

SWhiteman

15th August 2005, 09:43

A few quick clarifications, if necessary, that I tried to make clear in the Article. 1.) I reject "secession" as an abstract. The question is "Secede from what, to what?" We are not lawfully permitted by God (though procedurally we may be) to Secede from a Christian Republic to an Anti-Christian regime. We, however, do not have to struggle with that question in America. We are also not permitted lawfully by God to organise and seceded from one Anti-Christian regime to another.

2.) On the rights/duties of Christians under an anti-Christian regime, and the duty to Civil Magistrates, may I suggest my article "When a King is not a King." There are several execellent book written by thoroughly Christian men that I recommend on the subject: Lex, Rex by Samuel Rutherford, Vindicae Contra Tyrannos, by Stephanus Junias Brutus, and Politica by Johann Althusias (ranked in order, though Lex Rex and Vindicae are really both must reads.) Each of these are readily available. I can get you Lex Rex for a decent price (about $15, hard-cover) if you ask.

You may also be able to get your hands on a pamplet written in 1749 by Jonathan Mayhew entitled "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: An Exposition of Romans 13:1-7. (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/sermons/mayhew.htm) " It is remarkable in its content and brevity by which it disposes of the arguments. I have provided a link to an abbreviated version since I could not find the whole text on-line. I acquired my copy from Sprinkle Publications, but I do not believe they publish that work any longer.

Over the coming months, Lord willing we will flesh out these views more thoroughly, but on the "submission to magistrates" thing, let me be clear -- we've been sold a bill of lies. Those who say we may lawfully throw off any old law or disregard any command of a tyrant are wrong; as are they who say we must follow every command of theirs.

I follow the historic Reformed position on this that 1.) we must follow every lawful order, even those given by a tyrant; 2.) we must follow every unlawful order except a.) the "impious" orders that prevent us from doing that which God requires and b.) the "immoral" orders that require we do that which we are prohibited from doing. For example, when a King denies Christians the right to speak on their Saviour, we must respond as did Peter: "We must obey God rather than man." Peter was never condemned by God for such a statement. Also, we must refuse to be used as the Sword of the Tyrant when he engages in killing his, or other, subjects, unlawfully. For example, when the Tyrant engages is unjust war, the Soldiers may not without offense, fight; when a man is knowingly unjustly condemned to die, the Governor or Warden must not flick the switch. A Governor, Sheriff and/or State's Attorney General judge must refuse to adhere to Roe v. Wade and prosecute the murder in their jurisdiction.

We must also remember that the present expositors of "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, and to God that which is God's" are sympathisers of the tyrant. We give to Ceasar his due, and nothing more, for to give more to Ceasar is to rob God, and I am prohibited by the King of kings from giving that which is His to a mere human vassal -- to do so would be to dishonour the Sovereign Lord.

Jaime

15th August 2005, 12:47

Dear samsamsamm2003:

I did not mean that your questions/thoughts were irrelevant. Sorry.

The authority of a State to secede exists despite of what our individual feelings are.

Whatever is going on in Australia has no bearing to our legal system here. And, at any case, if enough people wishes to establish their own government why take up arms against them? If they leave in peace and maintain peace with neighbors, what's the issue?

Are you an expatriate living in Australia? If you are not a uS citizen what party were you talking about?

You state that "we would have no central government no Hospitals, no Police." Huh? It all depends on what you think government's exists for. I prefer Peace Officers over Police. Do a little internet "Googling" and learn the difference.

When the united Colonies joined hands and fought for their independence they were under a covenant called The Articles of Confederation, which they joined under their authority as self-declared free Republics. Each of the former Colonies, upon acceptance of the Treaty of Paris of 1784, were declared and recognized as Free and Sovereign States/Republics. By and large they were Christian Republics. Then, in 1787, a revolution occured. In violation of the Articles of Confederation (amendments were to adopted by unanimous constent only and only the States were to vote on an amendment) a new Constitution was presented. This new Constitution broke the covenant and since then, the uS has been involved in the Mexican War, Wars against many North American Indians, tyrant Lincoln's War against Southern Independence, Spanish-American War, Philipine-American War, WW 1, WW 2, overthrow of the Iranian government (1950s), temporary control of Nicaragua's government (late 1800s), occupation of Santo Domingo, overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii, financing of the Panama revolution against Colombia, etc, etc, etc.

My view of what a great country is has nothing to do with world government, nor with the size of the land it occupies.

We have broken the original covenant and our gracious God has simply given us time to repent. The fall of nations do not occur in short period of times.

samsamsamm2003

16th August 2005, 03:25

Dear Jaime
First i would like to apologise for getting angry. The only point i was trying to get across is i do belive in secession but i belive that there must be reason for it. I agree with the American Revolution, as well as Taiwanese Independence what i was trying to say is. If we were all just givin the right to just secead and some guy declare's a house a nation and doesnt pay tax and eventually everyone declares there house a nation then who is left to guide them. I don't like to use the word expatriate that would imply i don't wish to return. I would like to apologise again and hope for a more peaceful disscusion.

Samuel S. Ahern

Jaime

16th August 2005, 09:32

We are at peace.

Are you in Australia because ... ?

celticlassie54

17th August 2005, 10:32

Excellent discussion, Gentlemen! As both a Constitutionalist AND an active member of ChristianExodus, you have given me much to ponder, and I thank you.

jtw

17th August 2005, 01:06

Excellent discussion, Gentlemen! As both a Constitutionalist AND an active member of ChristianExodus, you have given me much to ponder, and I thank you.

I agree! I've been watching this one closely. I am a member of both as well. Glad to meet you celticlassie54!!

After being in computer support business for over 13 years I know how easily people misinterpret simple email messages. Honestly it's one of the crudest forms of communication. There's no gestures, tones or anything to let you know where you stand.

I would like to tell Sam that it's ok to be angry but don't let that outweigh your common sense. When you get angry take a few minutes and come back when you have had time to cool down. Don't jump on an issue when you are angry. Remember God loves each of us the same. When you read a hate filled message while you are in a good mood your response will be better than when you read a love filled message while you are angry. In other words your state of mind has everything to do with the way you will respond.

Personally I will keep this post in mind http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155

Take care,
Ty

samsamsamm2003

18th August 2005, 03:25

Thank you Ty, i hope you don't mind me asking but what is ChristianExodus?

jtw

18th August 2005, 11:28

Thank you Ty, i hope you don't mind me asking but what is ChristianExodus?

I thought you would never ask!!

ChristianExodus.org (http://www.christianexodus.org/) is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. This includes the return to South Carolina of all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." 1 It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our American principles in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

There are many families moving to South Carolina, I believe, to make South Carolina heaven on earth.

Take care,
Ty

Nathan Grooms

15th November 2005, 11:49

I have been reading some insightful books on the subject of Secession. I believe that history clarifies that the Southern states had every right to do what they did. By destroying the right of secession Lincoln and those who supported him struck at the root of the American Republic. He successfully obliterated one of the major checks on federal government that the founders had sett up.
I would highly suggest the book A Constitutional History of Secession by John Graham.

Nathan G.
The Madison Journal (http://madisonjournalonline.blogspot.com/)

SWhiteman

16th November 2005, 09:33

Here's a tooting of my horn. After reading my article, Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby, John Graham called me and we talked about his book. It comes highly recommended by me as well.

DixieCol

16th November 2005, 12:50

exmarine

16th November 2005, 04:27

I have been enjoying this discussion very much, and would like to provide some quotations from the Founding Fathers regarding the subject of State sovereignty and secession.

When you read the Declaration of Independence, you will find that the document proclaims the thirteen American colonies to be “Free and Independent States”, adding “that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

When the U.S. Constitution was presented for ratification, the Union was briefly dissolved, but was reunited as the States each ratified the Constitution. Any State that declined to ratify it would have remained outside the Union, but in the end all rejoined. Even so, three States ratified on the express condition that they reserved the right to “resume” or “reassume” the powers they had delegated to the Union, that is, to withdraw from the Union. The right to secede, or “separate,” was taken for granted, and the first States to threaten secession were the New England States during the War of 1812.

In the Kentucky Resolutions, which were written in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts which Thomas Jefferson saw as unconstitutional, Jefferson reminded his countrymen that the nature of the Union was that of a voluntary confederation of those free and independent States. It was not a capitulation to a new sovereign power. The powers of the Federal Government were limited, specific, and delegated; and if it exceeded them the States must have some recourse. This was clearly the intent for the inclusion of Amendments IX and X to the Bill of Rights. It is now generally agreed that Jefferson was right. He stressed that if the Federal Government were to be the final and exclusive authority on what the Constitution meant, it would be free to define the extent of its own powers, which would defeat the whole purpose of a written constitution.

On this occasion Jefferson didn't call for secession. He treasured the Union, but he abhorred the idea that the States could or should be kept in the Union by force. They were still, in principle, “Free and Independent States.” They could remain free and independent only if they remained sovereign.

In 1816 Jefferson wrote that “if any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in union ... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’” He hoped it would never come to that, but he saw that the ultimate right to withdraw from the Union was essential to the Union’s free and voluntary character.

It his clear from his many writings that Jefferson would certainly have agreed that the Southern States had the right to secede in 1860 and 1861. His grandson, George Wythe Randolph, served the Confederacy as a general in the army and as Confederate Secretary of War.

There are many other citations by our Founders on this subject, but they are too numerous to list them all here.

I believe this is accurate. Please note that ole Jefferson Davis believed in the right of secession (he wrote extensively in defense of it) right up until his death.

The key point is that Union is voluntary. Voluntary union is not possible without local self-government. Forced union is a violation of Christian freedom of association and Liberty. Here are some quotations on that subject:

"Let us now consider what a Church is...I say it is a free and voluntary Society...NO Man by his nature is bound unto any particular Church or Sect...For if afterward he discover anything either erroneous in the Doctrine, or incongruous in the Worship of that Society to which he has joyn'd himself, why should it not be as free for him to go out as it was to enter?" JOHN LOCKE - "A Letter Concerning Toleration"

We know that American Union was a civil extension of Christian Union, and the same principle applies.

"The Rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament...a commwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, UNITED together to promote their MUTUAL safety and prosperity by means of their UNION...no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others." SAMUEL ADAMS, "The Rights of the Colonists" - 1772

The very first union of the American colonies combined Christian self-government with Union:

"Articles of Confederation between ye Plantations under ye Governmente of Massachusetts, ye Plantations under ye Governmente of Conightecute, and ye Government of New-Haven, with ye Plantations in combination herewith. Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and ye same end and aime, namly, to advance the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, & to enjoye ye liberties of ye Gospell in puritie with peace....we therefore doe conceive it our bounded duty, without delay, to enter into a presente consociation amongs ourselves..." [spellings all original] WILLIAM BRADFORD "Of Plimoth Plantation" - 1647.

"Union, when built from below by mutual faith, is natural and solid. Union, when dictated from above by arbitrary command, is artificial and brittle. We should have learned that from the unnecessary tragedy of our Civl War...the sure signal of a return to slavery is the tacit subordination of God to the dictates of almighty centralized government." FELIX MORLEY, 1962.

Behold, how good and how blessed it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. Psalm 133:1

A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another." John 13:34

Nathan Grooms

16th November 2005, 07:05

Here's a tooting of my horn. After reading my article, Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby, John Graham called me and we talked about his book. It comes highly recommended by me as well.
What I enjoyed about Graham's book is that he delved far deeper than just the Southern secession. He showed his knowledge of English history as well as American history. This is a great source to prove that it was not just a bunch of mad slave owners who thought secession was a legal alternative.
Nathan G.

bluebird

21st November 2005, 11:21

The question is "Secede from what, to what?" We are not lawfully permitted by God (though procedurally we may be) to Secede from a Christian Republic to an Anti-Christian regime. We, however, do not have to struggle with that question in America.

I think it is yet to be determined IF we will have to struggle with that question as Americans. IF our form of government continues to reject what the founding fathers intended -- and does not protect and defend the Constitution, then we must first try to remove the offenders from office. IF their behavior of noncompliance becomes the accepted norm, then I believe, many states will entertain the idea of seceding again.

exmarine

21st November 2005, 12:14

IF their behavior of noncompliance becomes the accepted norm, then I believe, many states will entertain the idea of seceding again.

I don't see that happening. The leadership in the states is almost as bad as the national leadership. Generally speaking, our country is cursed with bad leadership form top to bottom. In addition, it will require leadership from within the church.

In the Revolutionary period, the church was full of pastors and people who understood the difference between Liberty and Tyranny, and these pastors fired the flames of the American Revolution. Today, with a few noted exceptions, most pastors go along with the program and do not preach political sermons so as not to lose their 501(c)(3) status. Many other pastors are mere Republican cheerleaders, and many others exhort Christians to obey the rulers even when those rulers do not rule according to the Law.

Finally, most Christians today are ignorant and/or apathetic about their American Christian heritage and how their faith relates to Liberty and vice versa, as well as their duty to be salt and light and honor Jesus Christ in ALL areas of their life, including their vote. But the consequences will be very grave: The children and grandchildren of these Christians will likely not have the freedom to worship as they please. Once Liberty is lost, it is almost impossible to get back.

bluebird

21st November 2005, 12:51

Finally, most Christians today are ignorant and/or apathetic about their American Christian heritage and how their faith relates to Liberty and vice versa, as well as their duty to be salt and light and honor Jesus Christ in ALL areas of their life, including their vote. But the consequences will be very grave: The children and grandchildren of these Christians will likely not have the freedom to worship as they please. Once Liberty is lost, it is almost impossible to get back.

I totally agree, all the more reason for those of us who "see" to understand we have a very serious and no doubt heavy burden before us. The present generation does not see because they were not only Not exposed to the truth about Liberty and Tyranny, they were taught falsehoods. The extreme liberal left has been very successful for the past 40 to 60 years of dumbing down young students when it comes to understanding American History and Civics. For years they have plodded forward with their false doctrines and they accuse, harrass and berate those who are not in lockstep with them. A perfect example is how the Evolutionists are treating those who would even attempt to consider the merits of Intelligent Design. They ostracize these would be students and bright thinkers basically calling good evil and evil good.

We are all too aware of what is going on and has been going on, many of us are looking for concrete ways to counteract this one way street of indoctrination in our public schools and public media.

If this generation, we, us, you and I -- do not do something to inform, excite and generate the need to discover what is being sacrificed for lies and tyranny, our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences.

My first thoughts are that we, Constitutionalists, must have a piece of the pie when it comes to the national media. If they won't let us play, then we need to establish our own media outlet and grow it. With as many lawyers as inhabit the Constitution Party, we should be on solid ground each step of the way as we legally overthrow the monopoly the left has on the airways....just for starters.

exmarine

21st November 2005, 06:01

With as many lawyers as inhabit the Constitution Party, we should be on solid ground each step of the way as we legally overthrow the monopoly the left has on the airways....just for starters.

I have an innate distrust of lawyers, and we need some non-lawyers in leadership positions in the Constitution Party. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the Constitution.

awaitHim

21st November 2005, 06:25

I have read with interest the article by SWhiteman on Secession and the subsequent link by Jonathan Mayhew on Romans 13 and Charles I. This is a subject that we Christians all need to ponder thoroughly and seek wisdom concerning for I believe we will need much in the upcoming years. Our country continues its downward slide and we seem unable to arrest its heading for judgement. What are we to do? "Iron sharpens iron" and these dicussions on this forum sharpen me.

I have some thoughts on secession that I have some time now to present and ask you all to consider them.

First, secession from evil or ungodliness is always the right moral thing for a Christian to do. It is his duty. This is obvious from Scripture, "Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord,... and I will receive you." (II Cor. 6:17)

Secondly however, to then take up arms in defense against a power who does not want you to secede is another matter. By what authority can one or a group do this if it is not granted to him? I may want to establish my own moral righteous nation and authority - but if I do not have the power to do so will I not be slain as a rebel?

Is this not what happened to the Jews at Masada? Would Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have been honored as martyrs for their country had they taken up arms against Nebuchadnezzar to prevent themselves from being thrown in the firery furnace?

The ability, power and authority to remove Charles I from the kingship of England was accomplished over the centuries on the blood of many Christian martyrs spilled on English soil. These martyrs for the most part, did not take up arms but submitted to persecution and death just as Romans 13 exhorts Christians to submit to the higher powers. Slowly but surely over the years the power of the Lords and common people gained authority legally for their cause as God granted it to them over the years of petitions and pleas for freedom.

I believe our own county is an answer to the prayers of thousands of petitions and prayers and martyrs over the centuries. We had been granted authority by God to set up a nation governed by Christians and to follow the model of the government of the church.

awaitHim

23rd November 2005, 07:43

I have some further thoughts on this subject of secession and Charles I.

In discussing this issue, it is not only,- does one or a group have power to secede and defend with arms, or in the case of Charles I have power to dispose from authority with arms - but whether one has the legal right to do so. David had the power to kill King Saul twice, but he would not touch the Lord's anointed though Saul had committed murder and was not worthy to be king.

While I am not an English historian, I wonder if the right to depose Charles I does not go back far into English history when the lords of the manors in England united against their common enemies and gave authority to chosen leaders. I think of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. Thus the authority of the people and Parliment over tyranny was long established by God as an higher power. They had the right and power to depose Charles I.

Now with the 13 colonies, I remember reading a book,The Revelution Myth published by BJU Press which made the case that the colonies were given sovereignty in their original charters. Thus the war of Independence was really an assertion of their original right and power in the same analogy as the lords in England had sovereignty over their lands.

Plus, the colonies had no representation in the English Parliment and thus taxation without representation. So they had the right and hoped they had with God's help, the power to resist the tyranny of a king who wanted to restrict the God given freedom they had.

Now we come to the Southern cause where I believe I will receive some disagreement. I believe there is a subtle difference between the colonies relation to England and the South relation to the U.S.

1. The colonies had their land area ceded to them. They were under English government in a sense but not under the king.
The South had signed the Constitution which contained the Supremacy clause and thus they belonged to the nation of the United States. This is distinct from the colonies relationship with England.

2. The colonies had no representation in Parliment.
The South had representation in the US government. Though "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it", the southern states were represented in Congress and had no authority in themselves but only when represented in the whole. As in England, a lord may want to secede from Parliment but he cannot take up arms against it without authority to do so.

The South may have had the moral high ground - but so did David over Saul. Yet without authority to enforce the moral high ground we will fight against God who has established all higher powers.

I wonder if the South had yielded to the decision of the US as a whole if they would have kept most of their culture and lands intact but as it was, their land was gone with the wind.

I am reminded of Esther and her appeal to the king for the salvation of her people. ...If we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my tongue.." Esther 7:4

Jaime

23rd November 2005, 10:29

Saul was God's annointed and David was not to raise his sword against Saul. David God's promise that he would be the king after Saul, so there was nothing for David to do but wait.

There is no comparison between the colonies and the theocracy of Israel. A point that is lost on many trying to apply Israel's wars and Israel's kings authorities to these uS.

"... belonged to the nation of the United States." Huh? What uS? The uS did come into existence until 1789. And where in the uS Constitution does it say that a member State could not leave the Union? The uSC is a compact among sovereign States and the States did not give away their authority to leave the compact. Any power used by the Federal government, not explicitly granted by the States to it, is an usurpation, a violation of the compact and an act of tyranny.

bluebird

23rd November 2005, 10:41

I believe our own county is an answer to the prayers of thousands of petitions and prayers and martyrs over the centuries. We had been granted authority by God to set up a nation governed by Christians and to follow the model of the government of the church.

Many christians, realizing that our government is a far cry from it's original model, would love to have the ability to sail to a "new" land. Unfortunately, new real estate is all but gone.

With a solid two party system that is virtually one party, most Americans have very little true say in the direction the government takes us. Those with the Gold, rule. Therefore, Americans are left with the choice of to stay and persevere - in order to preserve the Union and bring it back to it's christian roots, OR conside still another option - that of secession.

At what point do citizens say enough is enough. We will not continue to have the matastisized federal govt usurp our individual freedoms procured by the Constitution. Assuming they love this country and what the founding fathers originally intended for government, but, are unable to effect change - what are the alternatives?

It does seem to me, that government as the founding fathers intended was meant for relatively smaller communities -- as the states existed back in the 17 and 1800s. I don't know if they could have envisioned mass highways, cars, polution, mass media and its mind controlling abilities.

It does seem that if we are to get a handle on the original intent of the founding fathers we need to, at the very least, ensure that each state is autonomous to some degree, and maybe only as far as national defense - be in relationship to the federal government. Not being a history or political science major, I wouldn't know what type of system this is called.

It does seem ironic though, that as Europe "unites"; the U.S. is striving for states' rights.

SWhiteman

25th November 2005, 02:44

First, to brief my understanding of Charles I and his proper and lawful execution, and its relation to Saul. All magistrates are ministers of God to thee for good. If they go tyrant, it is proper and necessary for the lawful powers to depose him. David was not that lawful power, the Civil Elders of Israel were -- but the elders were for Saul, so no one did the right thing.

Under Charles, the proper authority, the People acting through the Parliament, intervened. They did their duty, whereas the Civil Elders of Israel sided with the tyrant, Saul.

In Vindicae Contra Tyrannos by Brutus, he (in book iv, I think) goes through the various checks on a Kings authority. We should not be tricked into believing that in 15-16th century England, Kings were "absolute" by right. The claim that English Kings were "absolute monarchs" is akin to the modern American claim of Judicial Surpemacy and stare decisis. It is rooted in fiat declaration, not fact. James I, and moreso his son Charles I asserted the "divine right to rule [however the king wanted]." Prior to that time, all Englishmen understood that their liberties were to be guarded by the King (pursuant to Magna Charta).

Also in Vindicae (id.), as well as Althusias' Politica, the ancient office of Ephor is written about. Ephor is a Greek office for anyone with the right to interposition against the tyrant. In Ancient Greece, it was an actual office, in America it is a number of offices, from Sheriff, to Governor, to State Legislature (the People), to U.S. Congress (the People), as well as Elector for President, and each individual voter. Voters are not required to vote for Republican or Democrat, and everytime they do (in rare exceptions), they fail in their duty of office and contribute to, and connive at, the present tyranny.

In Vindica (id.), and I've written this several times on this and other posts in this and other forums at TAV, Brutus makes a masterful statement about what happens when the Ephors fail in their duty to interpose. Then, tyrants rule by the authority of God because of the wickedness of the people. Then, there is only one remedy, II Chron. 7:14. Repent, and God will heal the land.

In Saul's Israel, God has permitted the tyrant to rule because of the sinfullness of the People. The Ephors failed, but that did not give David the authority to kill Saul. No individual, as an individual, has the authority to kill the King. The People must act, through their legislature, Governor, judges, Sheriff's or whichever is proper in the circumstance. In the instance that the legislature is not acting pursuant to its duty, one sole legislator (like Cromwell at first) can resist, and the People become duty bound to follow him.

awaitHim

25th November 2005, 09:49

"... belonged to the nation of the United States." Huh? What uS? The uS did come into existence until 1789. And where in the uS Constitution does it say that a member State could not leave the Union? The uSC is a compact among sovereign States and the States did not give away their authority to leave the compact. [QUOTE]

We need some discussion on the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Does this not supercede states rights, - not with regard to interposition but with regard to secession?

Jaime

27th November 2005, 09:34

Have you read all the posts, from the begining?

The "supremacy clause" deals only with those powers delegated to the Central government. The States remain "supreme" in that they are the principals and they can determine when their agent exceeded its [delegated] authority and either dissolve the union or leave the union.

awaitHim

27th November 2005, 11:56

The "supremacy clause" deals only with those powers delegated to the Central government. The States remain "supreme" in that they are the principals and they can determine when their agent exceeded its [delegated] authority and either dissolve the union or leave the union.

I went back and reread the posts on this thread. I did need to do that, I agree.

Here's the problem (and this applies to SWhiteman's excellent posts and articles as well). Because I sign to be under the Constitution and its government as all the states did - does not mean I can sign out from its authority and power when it goes corrupt. It is not like a contract between two equal parties which becomes null and void when one party reneges on its obligation.

It has to be unequal parties because I put myself under its authority and its the government has power over me. The Articles of Confederation did not have sufficient authority in the Federal government and each state was an equal - kind of like a friendship club. It did not work.

The Constitution is like a marriage covenant and not a contract. That is, for better, for worse I am in this thing. I start out with what we both agree will make for an excellent marriage, ie. the Constitution. However, if one of us goes corrupt, divorce cannot occur without leaving the jurisdictional area of the other.

If I want to secede from my corrupt country, I must leave its jurisdictional area which includes all of the United States. Thus I must renounce my citizenship and go to another country. Maybe I will get to take some of my stuff with me as in a divorce, but I must leave. I cannot recarve the country and establish my own authority.

Jaime

28th November 2005, 12:31

"It is not like a contract between two equal parties which becomes null and void when one party reneges on its obligation."

Who says? What does the contract stipulate? Have you ever hear of a Limited Liability Partnership?

"The Articles of Confederation did not have sufficient authority in the Federal government and each state was an equal - kind of like a friendship club. It did not work."

It did not work or was it not allowed to work? The Constitutional Convention was called to modify the Articles of Confederation but the convention ran amok. The uS Constitution is a document crafted in deceit.

"If I want to secede from my corrupt country, I must leave its jurisdictional area which includes all of the United States."

Do you mean you as an individual? The Union is not like a marriage and a State seceding from the compact is not a "recarving" of anything.

I do not know your background or the amount of history you have read but your analogies indicate, to me at least, that you have some ways to go. The uS did not exists until 1789. These united States are not a geological land formation and the States did not give away their power to leave the Union. As a matter of fact, States as existing political entities were the ones to join in Union, therefore, the States are the principals (higher) and the Central government the agent (lower).

If you think that agents are higher than the principals I would suggest that you never sign a proxy or hire an agent to represent you in any capacity.

Areopagus

28th November 2005, 09:01

Secession of one state from others was considered again in 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written and two years after it was ratified by the ninth State, making it effective.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=6

In closing, I want to mollify the concerns some might have – I am writing about secession from despotism. There is no right to secede from a just civil government to do evil. A State has responsibilities to God for the maintenance of His people, and if it is not able to perform those responsibilities because of a tyrannical federal head, it is incumbent upon it, the State, to interpose to arrest the evil. If interposition does not work, secession is the final alternative,

Is government that grants licenses via unconstitutional judicial opinions to mass murders just?

The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 has an enormous growth clause, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper….,” which could be deflated by the 9th Amendment. The commerce clause could be checked by the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment covers the right to revolt.

In our socialist state, citizens are not seeking secession, or interposition since their servile conditioning will not allow them to contemplate, much less prepare for such an arduous task. A secessionist or interposer is viewed as a disruptor in the path of pleasure, or a tsunami in a sea of calm resignation.

The right of secession, or interposition is immaterial to Christian materialists in a secular socialist state who have everything to lose and little to gain.

awaitHim

30th November 2005, 07:53

[INDENT] These united States are not a geological land formation and the States did not give away their power to leave the Union. As a matter of fact, States as existing political entities were the ones to join in Union, therefore, the States are the principals (higher) and the Central government the agent (lower).

If you think that agents are higher than the principals I would suggest that you never sign a proxy or hire an agent to represent you in any capacity.

I see that you view the "uS" as an agent or proxy of the States. Thus it seems you view its authority only as it acts in the interest of the states of which it is proxy. The states give it authority and they can remove it if it (the Federal gov't) is not doing according to the Constitution.

To a certain extent, this is true, but only in the sense as states act in unison or in the designated legal means to change or abolish Federal power. It is the "right of the people to alter or abolish it" - not an individual or group of people or even a state.

The states when they ratified the Constitution joined the "people" who formed it. Thus they cannot individually remove it or leave it unless they have the backing of the whole. They have no authority to do so because the authority resides in the whole not in the individual parts.

I can leave, but if I do, I must leave everything. On a football team, I cannot take part of it with me because I am upset with the corrupt coach. If I take some players with me I can no longer play football. Thus I must leave everything and join another team (country).

Also, a proxy does not have any authority over the principal as you say. Yet it is obvious that the Constitution gives limited authority to the Federal gov't over the states, as per the Supremacy clause. In the military a lieutenant acts in lieu of the captain. If the federal gov't acts in lieu of the states and for all the states, then only all the states as a whole have authority over it .

awaitHim

30th November 2005, 08:07

We have no king in this country. To a certain extent our gov't, state and federal, is modeled on the gov't of the Protestant separatist church which was the gov't our original pious forefathers were familiar with.

Jesus was their king who is not present on the earth. His "body" is here on earth, "the church". The church is the religious equivalent of the "people". Authority resides in the church body - not the individual members. The church as a "whole body" must be consulted (proxied in the elders and deacons perhaps), before a member is excommunicated. (Matt. 18) The church functions as a team, as a body under their absent head, Jesus Christ.

SWhiteman

30th November 2005, 09:32

The relation between the States is not analagous the relationship between the players on a football team. The States ARE THEIR OWN FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES by nature. On July 4, 1776 through July 9, 1776, there was not one nation on this continent, there were thirteen. Our "nation" was not born on July 4, 1776.

On July 9, 1778, the thirteen states combined efforts under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union for limited and specific purposes, but other than in those matters that were expressly mentioned, the states retained "powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," as the Unanimous Declaration notes. For example, but only a limited example, from July 4 through July 9, 1776, each of the thirteen nation/states had the right to declare war. After July 9, 1776, and then after June 21, 1789 (when the Constitution became effective on the states that ratified it), the states which were party to the contract assigned that right to another, a confederation of nation/states, or the Federal government if you prefer.

But after June 21, 1788, the Articles of Confederation were abolished. The other states that had not yet ratified the U.S. Constitution were no longer obligated under that document, and thus had the right to declare war, and exercise the other inherent powers to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled it.

Note that the closing of the Unanimous Declaration declares to the king that "that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." Each state, being independent, shared equally with each other state in those rights. The genius and glory of these united States, in an attempt to keep Massachusetts from waring perpetually with Rhode Island, is that they each state willingly gave away certain powers of nationhood to a larger, more deliberate body. That has keep this land free of blood for over 200 years.

Now comes the crux. What when the creature it has the power of creator? No receiver of a gift is greater than the bestower of the gift, or the federal government cannot be greater, since it received from the states, than are the States individually or corporately. What when the creature claims it rules over the creator? What when the creature, through a blood-lust, had required the creators to permit murder of the unborn within their borders? The States did not conceded any jurisdiction to the Federal government over the prosecution of crimes (except Treason, piracy and counterfeiting), so for the creature to tell the creator that it cannot prosecute the murder of the unborn, the creature has overstepped its bounds -- and the states should call it back to its original jurisdiction, or tear it down.

Back you your claim on football. If a state secedes, it becomes to "The United States" like Brazil. The United States does disappear, nor does the State evapourate. The state can still "play in the game" but it has to pay a tariff to trade and fund the costs of its own ambassadors, etc. The the question of whether to secede is often a matter of prudential consideration.

It is my opinion that the benefits of remaining joined under a tyrannical creature/beast has been eclipsed by the detriments of that union.

Jaime

30th November 2005, 11:17

It is the "right of the people to alter or abolish it"

You are quoting the so called Declaration of Independence. As fine a document that it may be it is NOT the legal document that established the Central government. The uS Constitution is the legal document that does so.

Here is Article 5:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

See any people in there or do you see States and States' Legislatures? The relation of the States and the Feds is not the same as the relation of the people to the State. Until the fraudulent 14th "amendment" there was no relation between the people and the Fed, except in very limited circumstances (SWhiteman mentioned 3 of them) and citizenship in these uS was through citizenship in a member State.

awaitHim, you really do not understand the principles of agency.

If you grant authority to your agent to do certain things, you are agreeing to be under the jurisdiction of the agent in those areas. But the agent is always subject to be fired. If the agency is created through a Partnership of more than 2 principals, a principal can leave the partnership without the partnership necessarily dissolving. Think doctor office LLPs. When a partner leaves there is an accounting of assets and liabilities and percent ownership. The accounts are settled and off the former partner goes. Which the South tried to do through delegates in Washington,DC but deceitful Lincoln used the time to plan the resupply of Ft. Sumnter and the start of the war.

awaitHim, you better read up on contracts and agency before you sign any power of attorney or any such legal documents. I think that the lawyers in here can give you a good lesson in those things.

Remember also,

Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10:
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.

Only individuals have rights. Government are agents of the individuals and only have delegated authorities. All derived authorities are subject to revocation.

Only God Himself has inherent authority, subject to Himself.

Camp Director

30th November 2005, 07:15

To a certain extent, this is true, but only in the sense as states act in unison or in the designated legal means to change or abolish Federal power. It is the "right of the people to alter or abolish it" - not an individual or group of people or even a state.

The states when they ratified the Constitution joined the "people" who formed it. Thus they cannot individually remove it or leave it unless they have the backing of the whole. They have no authority to do so because the authority resides in the whole not in the individual parts.

This argument makes the assumption that by ratifying the Constitution the people, through their representatives in the state ratifying committees, surrendered ALL of the state and individual powers and rights to the federal union in order to have SOME of them returned through the magnanimity of those in charge of the federal government. This denies the fact that several states, i.e. the representatives of the people of those states, reserved the right to secede from the union at any time or under any circumstances of their choosing. The argument was invalid when the Virginia plan which proposed this very idea, was rejected without even the courtesy of a vote at the Constitutional Convention and when it was used in debate by Hamilton and Webster in later periods of the country's history. It is still invalid today.

The argument that in joining the union, the states agreed to, in effect, dissolve their borders and meld into some sort of an indissoluble whole and that somehow this created a higher authority which abrogated the rights and powers of the political entities as defined by the inhabitants of those entities. is simply a gratuitous assertion. Please defend it, if you can.

I can leave, but if I do, I must leave everything. On a football team, I cannot take part of it with me because I am upset with the corrupt coach. If I take some players with me I can no longer play football. Thus I must leave everything and join another team (country).

On the contrary, in a team that is formed by the individual members, not owned by a third party (which would render the analogy moot), you can take as much of the property of the team that you brought into it or contributed to purchase with you. You and all of the team members that left with you, can either choose to liquidate that property, pool and use it to form another team or even form another league if the first league won't recognize your team.

Also, a proxy does not have any authority over the principal as you say. Yet it is obvious that the Constitution gives limited authority to the Federal gov't over the states, as per the Supremacy clause. In the military a lieutenant acts in lieu of the captain. If the federal gov't acts in lieu of the states and for all the states, then only all the states as a whole have authority over it .

I'm sorry if I seem dense but this argument makes no sense. The analogy is a very poor one. As a creature of the states the federal government is a servant of the several states. It must have the permission of the majority of the representatives of both the people and the states themselves (the Senate pre-1913) to exercise its power. Military analogies do not hold in questions of representative republican government. The federal government is only given supremacy in its delegated authority and then only by permission. You wrote "If the federal gov't acts in lieu of the states and for all the states, then only all [emphasis added] the states as a whole have authority over it." This, of course, is demonstrably false. Only in a handful of cases have 100% of the states, as a whole, authorized anything in Congress! Furthermore, this says nothing about the states right to secede from a union that it perceives to be a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its inhabitants. I can find no power either explicit or implicit in the Constitution that allow 49 of the states to gang up and force the remaining 1 state to do ANYTHING that it considers destructive to the lives liberties or property of its inhabitants without recourse to remedies like secession.

Camp Director

30th November 2005, 07:30

Jaime,

I disagree only slightly.

[INDENT]You are quoting the so called Declaration of Independence. As fine a document that it may be it is NOT the legal document that established the Central government. The uS Constitution is the legal document that does so.

Actually, the Declaration served as a form of a written constitution from 1776-1781. While not specifically empowering the Continental Congress, it did act as both a limiting document and a philosophical statement of the duties and powers that a national government should and should not possess. A central government was formed around the limits outlined in it and it did serve ably in this capacity. It has been cited in Supreme court cases as a document of legal precedent and force. It is a document that greatly clarifies the meaning of the Constitution.

Last year I taught a class on the inseperable union of the Declaration and the Constitution at Camp American. Maybe I need to write a paper.

Areopagus

30th November 2005, 09:15

[INDENT]
You are quoting the so called Declaration of Independence. As fine a document that it may be it is NOT the legal document that established the Central government. The uS Constitution is the legal document that does so.

The Institute on the Constitution places great importance on The Virginia Declaration of Rights for very good reasons: “ It was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights.” The Institute also places great importance on the Declaration of Independence for reasons so numerable that the document itself would have to be substantially quoted to avoid missing any. The most important of which are those maxims in Section 1 of the Virginia Declaration reiterated in the Declaration of Independence. Those principals are prerequisite to correct understanding of the Constitution. Those principals condemn slavery, and the mass murder of abortion. They may not be explicitly stated in the Constitution, but they aren’t as foreign as penumbras, emanations, Lemon tests, and the “constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency” that the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would forbid! Chuck Baldwin called it “The Most Important Legislation In The Last Fifty Years.”

Roy Moore included this in his discussion of the bill:

The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the "organic law" of our Country by United States Code Annotated. http://www.morallaw.org/Text/Q&A.htm

Roy Moore isn’t alone in that view:

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.[...] The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of The U.S. Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence."

The Preface to the United States Code - Annotated states that "this code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925...." The Preface also states that there is also contained therein a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution with Amendments http://www.nla.org/library/winter96/pg9.html

Jaime

30th November 2005, 10:00

I hope that we are not splitting hairs.

"It has been cited in Supreme court cases as a document of legal precedent and force."

So, why not the Articles used the same way?

The "Declaration" was replaced by the "Articles," the "Articles" were replaced by the Constitution. The "Declaration" may spell out principles, which is fine, but the Constitution is the agreement, the means, which charters the current compact.

With regards to the preamble. The preamble does not spell out an authority nor a means to properly implement the authority. As was stated the preamble is nothing but a restatement of the purpose (ends, goal) of a Constitution (or charter). To give the preamble any legal weight is to say that the ends (the purpose of the charter) is also the means. Not a good thing.

awaitHim

30th November 2005, 11:00

[QUOTE=SWhiteman]The relation between the States is not analagous the relationship between the players on a football team. The States ARE THEIR OWN FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES by nature.

Let me say from the outset, I feel priviledged to have many noteables who post on here respond to me, especially you, Mr. Whiteman. You have very excellent articles and I am here on this website because you all have made me think and seek answers. In all honesty, I agreed with your article on Secession to start this thread. It is only through further study and reading the Jonathan Mayhew article that I came to disagree. Yet I do sympathize with the Southern cause.

I understand well your point about the states being free and independent countries at the beginning. However, how can this be after they ratified the Constitution? The union under the Articles of Confederation stated that the union was one of friendship and thus it was like a club where one may join or leave. There is no problem with secession here.

But how is it the same under the Constitution? They are now members of a body, each independent in their unique culture perhaps and responsibilities - but indissolveably bonded to the whole. Maybe there were disputes and deceit involved in forming the Constitution, but they did sign it.

The football analogy may have been stretched. My point is one cannot secede from a football team and still legally play football. Legallly you need 11 men. So it is, one cannot secede from a bond with a nation as an individual , a group or even a state - which yielded its sovereignty to the bond - and legally declare oneself a country.

Our disagreement is over whether sovereignty was yielded or whether the states still retain the sovereignty as they had it under the Articles.

Regarding abortion, the problem we have is not with interposition but secession. Returning to the football analogy, if your coach is corrupt you may not play either, if he doesn't like you interposing yourself between his corruption and what is right. None the less you remain loyal to your team and keep the bond.

Regarding the creature and creation - yes, the federal gov't is the creation of the states, and "it is the right of the people (the creator) to alter or abolish it." Please read what I said about this on my posting above.

Jaime

1st December 2005, 09:33

So where exactly, in the text of the uS Constitution, is found where the States relinquished their authority to leave the compact?

SWhiteman

1st December 2005, 09:44

Because of this ongoing and great conversation, I am preparing an article to outline my understanding of the nature of the American system, to steal a title from Rushdoony. The premise is that, Chuck, I love you, but I disagree pretty strongly on the Declaration was a "form" of a constitution thing. Of course, educate me on it if you think I'm wrong.

Also, lastly before I mention my last point, this is the first exchange in which I have ever participated with diverse and divergent opinions concerning secession where the conversation has not devolved into base name calling or allegations of a desire to resume "Negro chattel slavery." Thanks to all.

About the Unanimous Declaration, "legally" it had the effect of severing the ties the Colonies (now emergent States) had with England. Prior to July 4, 1776, the colonies were equals to each other in that the each, severally, had a contract with the King. But if the King violated the contract with Massachusetts, legally, Virginia had no lawful claim against the king without taking up the offense of another.

The King had committed a violation of his contract with each state, severally, but not jointly since there was no joint relationship between the states. From July 4, 1776 to July 9, 1778, there were thirteen, independent and free states, as called for in the Declaration.

Remember the Treaty of Paris was a treaty with each of the States -- the King named each one individually. The word "united" in at least the Declaration was an adjective. Often times the phrase was "these united States," not "the United States." Even in the title of the Declaration, "united" is not capitalised. In 1778 and at the Signing of the Treaty of Paris, "the United States" was created by Article I of the Articles of Confederation.

In sum, I don't believe that the Declaration had the legal effect of incorporating the states, rather demonstrating their unanimity or mutual concord in their "separate and equal station" (para 1) with the intent for disaffiliation from the Crown. But certainly each was free to pursue their own path to do the "Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." (para 3)

SWhiteman

1st December 2005, 09:46

So where exactly, in the text of the uS Constitution, is found where the States relinquished their authority to leave the compact?
To expand upon Jamie's point, the Tenth Amendment says whatever powers were not delegated to the United States were reserved with the States or the People. If secession is not expressly denied in the Constitution, it is impliedly permissible.

awaitHim

1st December 2005, 11:21

To expand upon Jamie's point, the Tenth Amendment says whatever powers were not delegated to the United States were reserved with the States or the People. If secession is not expressly denied in the Constitution, it is impliedly permissible.

We are back to the question we discussed earlier in previous posts. I concur, Jamie and SWhiteman, no where is it spelled out that secession is denied for a state or states.

However, the Supremacy clause does establish Federal authority over the states. It is limited and the rest of the powers not enumerated to it are to the states.

Yet again, the limiting of the authority of the federal gov't over the states does not diminish the fact that it is the higher power until altered or abolished by the people or their proxies (representatives).

It is obvious that the Federal gov't has usurped its power, abused its power, etc. more than was granted to it. Nevertheless, its position as a higher power (authority)- to which the state is subject to - has not been taken away or diminished. Since the state is still subject to this "abusive" higher power, it cannot assert its authority over it legally and secede.

Rather it must be rescued by another higher authority, that is the "people" who gave higher authority to the Federal gov't, or by another nation or by
God himself.

Interposition as I understand it, is submission without "blind" obedience. This is godly. Secession can be rebellion, and thus would not be godly. I qualify that because if secession is like an escape to another country or authority then that is of God as well.

David would not touch King Saul because he was anointed of the Lord. I do not believe any of the ephors in Israel would have either. David said that God had appointed him and He would remove him. ..."The powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1)

Jaime

1st December 2005, 12:06

To repeat, the "supremacy clause" applies ONLY in those areas that were delegated to the Central government.

It is lawful for a State to secede and it is rebellion for the Central government to act against a seceding State. Once a State secedes, I suppose, the uS could declare war against it, since it is now outside the union, but it would be an offensive and, therefore, unbiblical war.

And please quit using Saul and David. We are not a theocratic monarchy. And may I remind you that God allowing Israel to be governed by a human king was a judgement on Israel!

SWhiteman

1st December 2005, 12:15

The Supremacy clause does establish Federal authority over the states. It is limited and the rest of the powers not enumerated to it are to the states
...
It is obvious that the Federal gov't has usurped its power, abused its power, etc. more than was granted to it. Nevertheless, its position as a higher power (authority)- to which the state is subject to - has not been taken away or diminished. Since the state is still subject to this "abusive" higher power, it cannot assert its authority over it legally and secede.
...
Interposition as I understand it, is submission without "blind" obedience. This is godly. Secession can be rebellion, and thus would not be godly. I qualify that because if secession is like an escape to another country or authority then that is of God as well.

David would not touch King Saul because he was anointed of the Lord. I do not believe any of the ephors in Israel would have either. David said that God had appointed him and He would remove him. ..."The powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1)
A few things, working backwards. David would not touch King Saul because Saul was David's king and David was a mere subject of Saul. As a person, David had no authority to take Saul's life. As person's, you and I have no authority to act against our King except to refuse to do that which he commands when it requires us to do that which God decree we may not do, or denies us to do that which God requires. In all other instances, we must comply with the orders of the King -- which is why John Knox, Calvin, etc. were no real threat to the Kings or Queens, because Knox or Calvin would never physically be able to extend a sword to the king. It is also why Knox and Calvin were so dangerous to the Kings and Queens, because they would not comply with laws that violated God's law, and Knox went further by saying that all such orders were tyrannical and unworthy of consideration. The Ephors in Irseal, however, had the authority to act against Saul, but did not exercise it. You are right, we know that they would not have acted because he know they did not act -- but they had the right and duty to remove Saul and put David, the God-annointed king, on the throne. Instead, they connived to keep a tyrant on the throne for 40 years (??) instead of doing their duty.

Contrast that with the English Parliament that did take the King's life, Charles I. Parliament had the authority and duty to remove the crown from Charles' head, and Charles' head from his body, for his abuses. That was not "rebellion," that was setting things right. Mayhew goes through this in his Discourse.

Robert E. Lee claimed that secession was "nothing short of rebellion," but with Lee I disagree on that. I know that the one who think's he's in charge considers it rebellion, like King George after July 4, 1776, but the King in all such instances is wrong.

Lastly, on the Supremacy Clause. Note Thomas Cooley, in The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States (1880). Cooley was originally a Jacksonian Democrat, but switched sides during the War and actually became a Republican. He was Justice in the Michigan Supreme Court from 1864-85 and supported Reconstruction. "The restrictions imposed upon government by the Constitution and its amendments are to be understood as restrictions only upon the government of the Union, except where the States are expressly mentioned." If Cooley is right on that, than the Supremacy Clause is binding on the Federal Government too. If the Constitution (not the Federal Government) is the highest authority, than an infraction of the constitution is to be adjudicated by the States if necessary.

Peacably, without bloodshed, a State can withdraw itself if it deems the contract to have been violated. In fact, if South Carolina had been permitted to peaceably go, no war would have ensued. But Lincoln's thirst for blood and his folly of Empire prevented their peaceable removal.

Consider, I'm a lawyer and have worked with Contracts and the law of Agency. The Principle in the Agency is always superior to the Agent. If the Principle (the States) give the Agent authority to do x, but no authority to do y, in fact expressly declare that the Agent only has authority to do x, and nothing else, if the Agent does "y" in the Name of the Principle, the Principle MUST interpose, and if necessary, sever the relationship, lest the Principle be held responsible for the implied authority demonstrated by the Agent.

Further, when an agency is written, the Constitution, the Parties to determine an infraction are the same parties that entered into the contract. No contract is eternally binding. If a breech occurs, the offended party can sue for damages, but usually the breech is a repudiation of the contract, and the contract becomes DEAD upon the breech of the offending party. (There are many exceptions to the rule, like a breech de minimus, and other exceptions, but the general rule is that a breech terminates the offended parties obligation to honour the terms of the contract as to teh offender. For example, A contracts to put on a tin roof on B's house for $10,000. $3,000 up front, $7,000 upon completition. Upon completion, A demands his $7,000. B notes that the roof is shingle, not tin. B cannot be forced to pay. In this instance, B would likely be able to sue for the recovery cost to remove the roof and replacement cost to put up tin (less certain costs).

So the "Union" was contracted by the States to do certain things. It has not done those things. It has further done things that as Agent is was given no authority to do. The Supremacy Clause in the Contract noted only that the Contract itself, and anything the Agent does in consonnace with the contract was supreme. Thus, all actions that are disharmonious with the terms of the Contract are not the "law of the land." A breech and a usurpation has occurred. It ought to be recognised.

Jaime

1st December 2005, 01:29

Scott, is it correct to say that 'the "Union" was contracted by the States to do certain things?'

Is it not more accurate to say that States contracted with each other to create the agency known as the Central government?

There was a Central government at the time but it was an agent created by the States. Also, under the Articles a State could not join in a league with others unless approved by ALL States under the Articles. The new proposed Constitution also dissallowed States joining in league with others without approval. So that the States, in ratifying the new proposed Constitution, effectively seceded from the Articles.

In other words, a completely new agency was created, a mortal (subject to death) legal artifact. And when people make a claim that the Union is forever, as was preexisting, they are making a dangerous assertion.

MAC

1st December 2005, 03:11

Ohhh, my brain! :) after realing all of this thread --it has been very interesting and educational!

SWhiteman stole my thunder. The bottom line as I see it: The 9th and 10th Amendments leave the door open for secession as a "right" left to the States or the people since it is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. Those two amendments are the "fine print" of the contract of the Constitution.

The States are the creator of the "union". They gave up certain rights, limited at that, to the created entity to govern over them but this does not mean they gave themselves as a whole to the created entity by any means! The only reason they created a 'central' or general government was for the purpose of dealing with specific issues the several sovereign States could not do as well for themselves individually but all the states combined could deal with those issues more affectively --war was just one of those areas.

For the Founding Fathers to write a lawful document that would put them right back into the situation they had declared their independence from and fought a war over makes no sense at all! (That goes for those treaties, also, that are contrary to the Constitution that Congress has made as far back as one wants to keep looking!) They absolutely would never have a document (contract) that enslaved them with no exit clause! It is absurd to think that a people [states] are not allowed to leave a government and form their own, particularly when the general government has violated its 'contract', which ''ours" has --worse than King George III ever dreamed! Much of this tyranny violates God's laws! Have we forgotten Acts 5:29?

We stand today where the Founding Fathers stood against King George III, where the South stood against the Federal government/Lincoln. King George was the rebel --not the Colonies, likewise, Lincoln was the rebel --not the South. Again, we need the understanding of the definition of 'rebellion' and who is a rebel in these cases and today.

Often people throw up that Jesus didn't talk about 'politics' but only to obey the government not to change it, even the dictator of the day. I don't see that as the case. It seems to me God has been very gracious to us. When the Israelites requested a king, finally, the people not listening to what evil would befall them under a king yet still demanded, God obliged them. What God said would happen did indeed come to pass. Moving through time and history God brought us to America and a document that presented a form of government for man that this world has never known --a constitutional representative republic whereby men rule themselves by a Constitution that was designed to protect the unalienable God given rights of man and whatever anyone wants to say, this government was designed after government God established in the OT. I believe the Constitution was to be the "Law of the Land" for civil government by God's people under His delegated authority. Patrick Henry had his problems with the Constitution and would not sign it. Maybe the 9th and 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights was God's "ally" for the People and maybe it is God's people that is to get wisdom from the Father as to how to use it for His glory. Obviously, we failed once but does that mean it is not meant to be? Was it a matter of not God's timing?

On a side note, may I recommend Pastor John Weaver's messages on Sermon Audio.com. He has excellent sermons, many on the War Between the States that are very enlightening, informational and educational with a spiritual application to them all. There is an extensive 16 part series and several other smaller series, also, single messages. He has spoken on the subject of secession --I apologise, cannot remember which specific sermons dealt with the subject. He has a "Christian & Civil Government" series and another "How God Destroys Nations" --absolutely relevant to us today! Check him out at www.sermonaudio.com/weaver

Camp Director

1st December 2005, 03:40

Hello all,

This is indeed an excellent discussion of the subject without the usual secession = chattel slavery arguments which are nothing more or less than straw men.

Scott,
Because of this ongoing and great conversation, I am preparing an article to outline my understanding of the nature of the American system, to steal a title from Rushdoony. The premise is that, Chuck, I love you, but I disagree pretty strongly on the Declaration was a "form" of a constitution thing. Of course, educate me on it if you think I'm wrong.

I didn't mean to say that this was a document that specifically constructed the United States like the Articles did and the Constitution does. It did however, serve as a part of, and arguably the primary document of, a body of law which performed from 1776-81 much like the English constitution does currently. You can directly compare the complaints of the colonies regarding the abuses of power and authority that they specifically outline in the Declaration to specific delegations and prohibitions of power to the federal government generally and to specific branches of that government in the Constitution. I haven't performed this comparison with the Articles yet, but intend to do so. I taught a class on this at Camp the first night and it probably needs to be converted to a paper on the subject. By the way Scott, I love you too and we are currently putting together the 2006 Camp American schedule and hope you might be able to teach again. The kids and adults loved your presentation.

It is interesting that the Articles have entered into this discussion because, unlike the Constitution, the Articles say specifically in Article XIII that the union formed by their ratification is "perpetual" and its rules must be "inviolably observed by the states" not once, but twice. One of the reasons that ratifying committees were used by the states to ratify the Constitution was that secession from the old union, in violation of article XIII, was required to enter the new union. Under the Articles, this kind of vote by the state legislatures could have been construed as an illegal or even treasonous act. As I stated before, several states, including Virginia, have escape clauses in their ratification documents allowing them to withdraw from the union at any time for any reason. Thus, they did not agree to enter the current union on an unconditional basis as has been asserted. This is the keystone of the argument in favor of the indissolubility of the current union and when it is removed the entire argument crumbles.

Scott's point on amendment 10 is well taken and goes hand in hand with amendment nine which says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This, I think can be proven, includes the right of the people through their elected representatives to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" when their liberties are threatened.

SWhiteman

1st December 2005, 03:59

Scott, is it correct to say that 'the "Union" was contracted by the States to do certain things?'
I know you are not picking nits (knits?), but I don't think so. "Something" more than a mere association was created, but something less than another institution was created. Madison went back and forth in Federalist 39 pointing out that in "this" instance, the new formation was national, but in "that" instance, the new formation was federal, and back and forth.

As I see it, the States did not create a mediatory board at which various states would sit to determine controversies, rather they created an actual body appointed by the President, not the states. There are "national" characteristics, and "federal" characteristics of our "union."

It is something more like a union than the Articles of Confederation formed but something much less than Lincoln created in 1865.

So I'll take your comment, agree with it, disagree with it, recognise that it is an important comment, but punt.

SWhiteman

1st December 2005, 04:01

By the way Scott, I love you too and we are currently putting together the 2006 Camp American schedule and hope you might be able to teach again. The kids and adults loved your presentation.
I loved doing it. Perhaps I could give a presentation version of the various articles I've written on the nature of the American system, starting with "What is a Republic Anyway?"

exmarine

1st December 2005, 04:02

To repeat, the "supremacy clause" applies ONLY in those areas that were delegated to the Central government.

Hypothetical Scenario: Suppose there is no Griswald v. CT and no Roe v. Wade. Suppose a State has legalized abortion on demand, which is a clear violation of the God-given unalienable right to life, and is therefore in direct contravention to God's moral laws as well as the founding principles of the United States.

Do you believe it would be "immoral" or "illegal" for the United States to take punitive measures against aforementioned state, and if necessary, to send federal troops into that state, should that state refuse to rescind its laws legalizing murder?

SWhiteman

2nd December 2005, 09:53

Hypothetical Scenario: Suppose there is no Griswald v. CT and no Roe v. Wade. Suppose a State has legalized abortion on demand, which is a clear violation of the God-given unalienable right to life, and is therefore in direct contravention to God's moral laws as well as the founding principles of the United States.

Do you believe it would be "immoral" or "illegal" for the United States to take punitive measures against aforementioned state, and if necessary, to send federal troops into that state, should that state refuse to rescind its laws legalizing murder?
You had to start the troublesome question, didn't you? I've been working to get people to agree on secession here, and now you ask the inverse question. I have my opinion, but my opinion usually angers both the Lincolnian and the Jeffersonian. Thanks for making me make enemies.:D

I believe your question goes to Article IV, s. 4 of the U.S. Constitution and the nature of the compact. The "Guarantee Clause" some interpret as a guarantee to the States the Central government will be "republican in form." Others claim that it is a guarantee to each member state that each other member state will be "republican in form." I believe they are both right.

All of Article IV deals with the relation between state to state. Section 4 names "the United States" and provides that it shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.

Now, back to What is a Republic Anyway (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=11) and America According to Lincoln (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=424). Why did the settlers come to America? For self-government, under God by a Christian people. Go buy The Basic Symbols of American Political Tradition by W. Kendall and G. Carey -- it will knock your socks off if you are unfamiliar with how the Mayflower Compact, Virginia Declaration of Rights and Declaration forged the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution.

What is the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Is it a mere compact to go to war for each member state and establish a free trade zone, i.e. is it a mere secular/civil compact? Or is it something more? Note that in the Articles of Confederation, Art. III, the States severally entered "into a firm league of friendship with each other." The U.S. Constitution continued that firm league in establishing a "more perfect union." Throughout The Federalist, the authors refer to the union as a "confederation." Ever thought what that means?

Federal comes from the Latin word, foedus, or "covenant." The Scots and other Calvinists used the term constantly in the 15-1600's especially in relation to the foedus made between the King and the People, how the King had broken the foedus and the People were therefore released of their obligations to them.

In Covenantal Government, or Confederated Government (con="with", federal="covenant"), there is a three part Oath: 1.) an absolute Oath from the People and the King to God to follow His Law in all things; 2.) an absolute Oath from the King to the People to rule as they, the People who constituted him, ordered him; 3.) a conditional Oath of the People to the King to follow him however so long as he rules pursuant to his Oath. Oaths are acts of worship whereby you call God for assistance in the performance of your duty and you invoke Divine cursing upon yourself for disobedience to that Oath. That is the nature of any civil government, not just America.

In America, we upped the ante, so to speak, by creating another foedus, or system of Oaths, confederation and obligations by putting certain things in the hands of the Federal government, with each state severally promising to remain "Republican in Form."

"Republicanism" is a form of government that recognises that Law resides outside of it. American Republicanism recognises that Law resides in God. The U.S. has guaranteed to each state that each other state will be Republican, i.e., each state will recognise that it will hold God's Law as the standard. If it does not do so, the members of the U.S. have violated their Oaths by their failure to live upto the Article IV, s. 4 guarantee, and called divine curses upon themselves.

As this relates to the States permitting abortion in the absense of Roe. Now comes the disagreements -- The States are not permitted, by nature of the fact that every civil government takes an Oath, either proscribed or implied, to do the Will of God in all things and to prosecute murder with the death penalty as God requires (Num 35). For the failure to prosecute murder, that state will be judged, as will each other state that connives or continues in a forbidden alliance with another nation that hates God and refuses to do His Law.

Now comes the greater disagreement? What to do in such an instance. Federalist 47, I believe, permits war against the aberrant state. The Reformers like Knox, Brutus and Rutherford invoked the example of the confederated tribes of Israel attacking the tribe of Benjamin the intended sodomy of townspeople of Gibeah commited within its borders. Remember, the "whole tribe" did not commit the crime of gang-raping the Levite's concubine to death, the men of the town of Gibeah did. But the State of Benjamin failed to prosecute the murder. The Levite called on the confederated States of Israel to intervene, and they did. (Judges 19-20). If a particular member of Benjamin did not connive at the crime commited by his countrymen, he was obligated to "come out from among her, lest you share in her sins and lest you receive her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).

I tend to prefer expulsion, sort of an inverse secession, for such crimes -- Massachusetts, keep marrying men to each other, but you are no longer entitled for us to war on your behalf, no longer are permitted free travel into other states, or free trade, etc. You are to us like Quebec -- separate and not part of the covenant.

I will admit, however, that against the example as shown in Judges, my opinion on expulsion might be wrong.

Jaime

2nd December 2005, 10:36

Scott, I had the same reaction :eek: to exmarine's question. But I was getting to leave the office when I took quick look at the thread. Good show exmarine! ;)

Do you believe it would be "immoral" or "illegal" for the United States to take punitive measures against aforementioned state, and if necessary, to send federal troops into that state, should that state refuse to rescind its laws legalizing murder?

In short, yes. It would be immoral and illegal. It is the same as saying that these uS should send troops, without a declaration of war, to, fill in the blank, because the government is murdering their citizens.

The Central government has no atuthority to do anything outside its explicitly delegated authorities. I, with fear and trepidation, am disagreeing with Scott. And there is no authority to expell a State from the Union, unless it is through the amending (Article 5) process. The moral of the story is ... be careful, very careful, who you let in.

I would propose the following: Pass an amendment explicitly expelling the specific State, included in the language of the amendment is a period of time, say 40 years, before being able to consider a reapplication for membership into the Union of the "offending" State. Of course, the amendment is subject to be amended. :D Can an amendment include language that prevent such an amendment to be amended? :confused:

Then if the uS Congress choses to declare war on the expelled Nation, I suppose that at that point they could. Why go through all this to accomplish the same as simply sending troops into the offending State? Because it clarifies the principles, seriousness and the gravity of sending troops to occupy another Nation/State.

Jaime

2nd December 2005, 10:42

.. shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.

To my limited knowledge I cannot recall reading anything that indicates that anyone knows what was really meant by the quote above.

To some it meant a bi-cameral legislature (not a uni-cameral) and monogamous marriages, ie Utah's admission into the union.

I do not think that even the "Founding Fathers" knew what it means. But I could be wrong.

awaitHim

2nd December 2005, 12:18

The Ephors in Irseal, however, had the authority to act against Saul, but did not exercise it.
I hesitate to return to David and Saul, but I think it gemain to our controversy.
1. No where does Samuel exhort the "ephors" of Israel to remove Saul. God never says Samuel should tell them to do this.
2. The Lord grieves that He had made Saul king and Samuel mourned for Saul (I Sam. 15:35), but there is no mention of deposing him. David said that "the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die..." (I Sam. 26:10).
3. Furthermore, David said "Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed?" (I Samuel 26:9)
4. Only the Lord was to choose who could be king. (Deut.17:15) If God chose him to be king then it was His responsibility to remove him. Who would dare try it?
5. Plus "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." (Acts 23:5)
6. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1) Mayhew, with all due respect, is not correct in his analysis of Romans 13.

Now with Charles I, the authority set up was different, nevertheless the principle of all authority being ordained of God still stands. Power had been given by God historically to the landowners, lords and earls and then Parliment in early England. They were the "people", acting as one, who along with the Commoners had the authority to overthrow the king even as we the people here also have legal authority through the Constitution. Even as the church (people), acting as one, has authority to remove its elders who err.

If the Constitution (not theFederal Government) is the highest authority, than an infraction of the constitution is to be adjudicated by the States if necessary.
Regarding Cooley's statement, yes, the states acting under the Constitution have the right to alter or abolish it. But it does not follow to me that this includes individual secession.

The Principle in the Agency is always superior to the Agent. If the Principle (the States) give the Agent authority to do x, but no authority to do y, in fact expressly declare that the Agent only has authority to do x, and nothing else, if the Agent does "y" in the Name of the Principle, the Principle MUST interpose, and if necessary, sever the relationship, lest the Principle be held responsible for the implied authority demonstrated by the Agent.
OK, We are getting somewhere. Authority though, the Principle, resides in the states as a unit, not individually. Just as in England it resided in Parliment not in the individual lords, earls and peerage. That does not mean that all the people of all 50 states must agree to secede. However it does mean that the representatives of the states are the Principle and the legal rules of the Constitution must be followed for whatever changes are made.

Yes, the governor being the higher authority should take a stand against abortion in his state or as with Terri Schiavo (interposition), but if the Federal marshalls come against him, how can he rightfully oppose them with weapons and secede his state, if he hasn't the backing of the people (whole), the Principle,to which his state belongs? Not just because he would not have the military power to do it, but how could he legally have the authority to do it? Would the governor not need the witnesses of Congress, his principle to do such?

Thanks again for your comments and insight into history, you have my respect.

exmarine

2nd December 2005, 12:36

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1) Mayhew, with all due respect, is not correct in his analysis of Romans 13.

Was wrong for Bonhoeffer to oppose and plot against Hitler? What about Rahab - was she wrong to commit treason against Jericho?

It seems there are some troubling passages that disagree with your position. The bible reports David's attitude toward Saul, but David was wrong many times. After Saul made sacrifices in Samuel's stead, God removed his annointing from Saul, to wit: 1Sam. 13-14 "But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him [to be] captain over his people, because thou hast not kept [that] which the LORD commanded thee. "

Jaime

2nd December 2005, 12:50

Regarding Cooley's statement, yes, the states acting under the Constitution have the right to alter or abolish it. But it does not follow to me that this includes individual secession.

Let me understand this: The States can abolish or alter the Constitution but they cannot do something that the Constitution is silent on, and therefore, has no authority over? :( :confused: :rolleyes:

SWhiteman

2nd December 2005, 03:24

The People of Virginia, in ratifying the Constitution, declared that Virginia's entry into the union was conditional -- conditional on the "Union's" fidelity to the compact, and that she, Virginia, through her People may resume the powers granted "whensoever the [Powers given to the Union] shall be perverted to [the People's] injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia, June 26, 1788. In my view, Virginia explicitly stated that which was implied in all other ratification documents by nature of the association.

await4him, We two apparently view the effect of the union considerably differently. You seem to believe that a metamorphosis occurred when the 9th state ratified the document, and each subsequent ratification morphed each subsequent ratifier into a cohesive or polymorphic union, like the homogenisation process with milk. I believe the relation is more like the cords of three. One cord is a cord. Two or more cords are a rope, but the rope was created. If there are fifty cords, and one withdraws, it is still a rope. For however so long as there is more than one cord, the rope exists, even if some are removed willingly or by force. Similarly with the Union. For howeversolong as two of the current member states obligate themselves to the compact, the Union exists. If one state withdraws, the Union remains, but that state is "weaker" in that it now stands alone.

As a theory of Government, you do have Lincoln's opinion to hold to. I, however, take the Covenantal approach, which I believe is the Biblical approach, claiming that the Covenants between the Greater to the Lesser is conditional on fidelity to the task, but the Lesser (Federal) to the Greater (States) is absolute to do only those things permissible. Upon major breech by the Lesser, the Greater can (and ought) remove itself.

awaitHim

3rd December 2005, 11:23

You all above have good responses to me. I admit that there is more to this than simple answers. I'd like to reply but this weekend is especially busy to me. Let me say, "If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." (I Cor. 8:2) There is always another aspect to learn.

I humbly thank you all for your wisdom and insight which as I said has enlightened me.

I'll just say one thing in response to exmarine. I believe Rahab switched allegiance to Israel and her God and therefore it was permitted for her to lie and deceive her former authority. Deception is a part of warfare.

God Bless you all.

exmarine

3rd December 2005, 01:08

I'll just say one thing in response to exmarine. I believe Rahab switched allegiance to Israel and her God and therefore it was permitted for her to lie and deceive her former authority. Deception is a part of warfare.

God Bless you all.

Okay. So, to be clear....As long as one switches allegiances, it is okay to oppose a ruler or king, or plot against tyrants?

God bless you as well.

SWhiteman

3rd December 2005, 01:08

I believe Rahab switched allegiance to Israel and her God and therefore it was permitted for her to lie and deceive her former authority. Deception is a part of warfare.
Then secession by the Southern states was fully permissible, since "the People" of South Carolina, etc., voted to remove themselves and switched their allegiance to their home state, and not D.C.

Consider Maryland's history, for example. Marylanders were for the union, but not at the expense of Maryland and Southern rights. Had Lincoln not deceived them with bad-faith negotiations with Virginia (prior to her secession. Marylanders had a phrase, "As goes Virginia, so goes Maryland," and were not prepared to leave, nor to stay in, the Union without Virginia) in April 1861, Maryland would have seceded when Virginia did. Instead, Lincoln invaded Maryland, arrested the Legislature, several newspaper publishers (including the grand son of Francis Scott Keyes, and imprisoned him, Francis Keyes Howard, in the same prison, Fort Meade, as the English imprisoned Keyes in 1812 wherein he wrote the Star Spangled Banner) and Maryland became the first state occupied by Union forces in the war. "Federal Hill," a local attraction, was named that because what was once a hill intended for artillery to point toward the Bay, Union forces turned the cannons around and pointed them at the city, threatening to raze the city if they didn't submit.

The passage of time does not make the illegal conquest in war right. It's a general principle of Godly government as articulated by Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex and of course by others. So, the present loyalty Marylanders give to the Federal government is not proper loyalty. Our ancestors were forced to submit, occupied, oppressed, and their children's loyalty is by fraud and deceit in the distortion of the historical record.

MAC

3rd December 2005, 01:34

If one state withdraws, the Union remains, but that state is "weaker" in that it now stands alone.

Yes, the single state standing alone is 'weaker' but that also makes the Union weaker in several ways, I think. One, of course, by the absence of the one state the Union is no longer as strong as it was. Also, the degree of weakness depends on which state seceded and how important it was to the Union in resources, population, land holdings, the strength of that single state in its own merits to stand alone, etc. Further, the fact one state secedes gives means, suggestion and possibility of other states making the same decision, therefore, weakening the Union even further. Should that be the case the seceding states could be stronger in their singleness or together than the Union then.

Lincoln was determined to have centralised government at any cost --and of course was successful though it did take many decades to come to reasonably 'full' fruition, that is, to the extent of Federal Government control we have today. He forced the war, even much of the North was against him. I really wonder if a state would chose to withdraw today and moved to carry that desire out, what the Federal Government would do. Would they actually bring force and a war today as Lincoln did. Would other states have a different outlook today and say 'let them go' and would stand up to the Federal Government against going against the leaving state or states. Hmmm.

SWhiteman

3rd December 2005, 03:26

I really wonder if a state would chose to withdraw today and moved to carry that desire out, what the Federal Government would do. Would they actually bring force and a war today as Lincoln did. Would other states have a different outlook today and say 'let them go' and would stand up to the Federal Government against going against the leaving state or states.
The way I figure it, that state would be levelled by the Federal government, unless it couldn't get the military back from Iraq, Iran, Jordan.

awaitHim

5th December 2005, 10:26

[QUOTE=exmarine]Okay. So, to be clear....As long as one switches allegiances, it is okay to oppose a ruler or king, or plot against tyrants?

I'm back for a bit. Last time I wrote my heart smote me because I began to realize that the "ephors" of Israel did have authority to remove kings who usurped the throne in Israel. Nonetheless, I want to first address this allegiance question.

If one changes allegiance it must be with an ordained authority, one cannot establish his own authority as I am sure you all know. As Mr. Whiteman wrote, Knox or Calvin could not assert and establish their own authority against a king. They were not in position to do so not being part of an authoritative governing body and even if they were -they would be in subjection to the body as a whole. They could not as individual ephors rise up and slay or secede from the king unless commissioned by their authoritative body to do so.

The controversy still remains: Did Virginia and Maryland become like Calvin and Knox in position when they signed the Constitution so that as individual ephors they cannot secede from the Federal "king" unless commissioned by their authoritative body - Congress, to do so?

Now Rahab switched authority but she did not assert her own. She joined Israel's authority. She escaped or was rescued from her authority. Jesus rescued us from Satan's authority.

I believe Bonhoeffer should have done likewise. I believe Bonhoeffer is eulogized more than he should be; his writings are very liberal. Hitler was ordained of God as a higher power (you guys won't like me saying that, but God in his sovereignty allowed him to usurp it just like he let Satan be the ruler of this world). Bonhoeffer should have submitted to it like Knox or Calvin, and died a true martyr - not as an individual in a conspiracy to take up the sword against Hitler. (Don't anyone think I mean we should submit to Satan meaning we obey him, absolutely not! Persecution comes to us from Satan, but we submit to it rather than take up the sword as Peter did when Satan, that is, Judas came against Jesus with higher power in the Garden.)

If he wanted to do that, he should have escaped or defected to the west, and under its authority worked to eliminate him. That is, switched authority.

I believe this is also the error of Rudolf Hess, who was Hitler's second in command. He parachuted out over Scotland, but rather than defect, to my understanding, he tried to get a meeting with the English to work out a truce. He was never released from jail, and commited suicide just before East Germany fell.

There is no substitute for total victory in war. One must totally throw himself into one authority power side or the other. If you still adhere to the rebellious one as Bonhoeffer and Hess did you will not prosper as Rahab did.

MAC

6th December 2005, 02:02

The way I figure it, that state would be levelled by the Federal government, unless it couldn't get the military back from Iraq, Iran, Jordan.

Well, Scott, you may be right. But, I wonder, in today's world of the uSA, people have somewhat of another outlook. As uncivilised as we have become in some areas, we do seem to have become more civilised/accepting in other areas. I wonder if other States would sit back ever so calmly as the Federal Government levelled a state that wished to withdraw and did so in complete calmness without animosity. [Then again, maybe if it was a Southern State those 'progressive' states would be glad for it to be levelled :( since they care 'so much' for us and the Bush factor.] But, still, I wonder if the people, no matter who or what State, would really calmly let the Federal Government actually go to war with another State for seceding.

Jaime

6th December 2005, 10:49

The States, voluntarily, joined in a compact. The compact only grants the agent explicit authorities. The authority to force a member State to remain in Union is not delegated to the agent.

If one changes allegiance it must be with an ordained authority, one cannot establish his own authority as I am sure you all know.

When a State secedes from the Union and call the citizens to arms (in defense of their land) a State's citizen that chooses to remain in Union, since there is no such thing a "Union" citizenship, to whose "ordained authority" does the individual swears allegiance? The non-existing entity call the Union? Or to anther State?

Contrary to what is being asserted the "authoritative body" is not [the Federal] Congress, it is the State's government. Please understand this, the Federal government is an agent of the States. The States are NOT administrative subdivisions of the Union!

The Federal government is an usurper and in rebellion because it is attempting to establish its own authority. And anyone making allegiance to it is also in rebellion.

And the only way an usurper can maintain its power is through coersion and violence. The usurper also maintains a sense of unity by creating imaginary monsters against which to keep its populace focused on and preoccupied.

The deceit of the Const