war powers government
- The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.
- Greetings,I must respectfully object to and disagree with the below comment and referenceto any compelled performance as a "principle"! My specific reasons being these casequotes from the US history:"When a change of government takes place, from a monarchical to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not chuse to become members of the new had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail, is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow-men without his consent."Cruden v. Neale, cited as 2 NC 338 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT [2 N.C.] WILMINGTON MAY TERM, 1796And this one:"The only reason, I believe, that a free man is bound by human law is, that he binds himself."Chisom v Georgia, 2 US (Dall) 419, 455 USSCt. 1794NOTE* BOTH CASES SITED are pre-civil war!If anyone thinks he can "compel performance" upon any other man absent acontractual nexus, let him bring forth his proofs... any such which would bein direct violation of the Anti-Peonage laws.Since there is evidence to substantiate the claim that we are all now "servants/slavesor the United States" via application for government benenfits, what is the problem?As slaves we cannot be held responsible for our actions. Any harm, damage or injurywe cause is the direct responsiblity of our Master. Let him take the blame!
JimBlessed be the Lord my rock, that teacheth my hands to war,
and my fingers to fight. Psalms 144:1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:35:12 -0500 <jm367@...> writes:The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.