Saturday, March 10, 2007

The War of 1776 was a War of Secession

Argument: The American Revolution was not a War of Secession


America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." The word "secession" was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word "separation" instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists. (Secessionist No. 18)

Clearly the joint declaration of 13 colonies from Britain was nothing more than the exact sort of separation that political theorist eventually came to call secession. Virginia's declaration of Independence (secession) occurred before the July 1776 joint declaration. The colonies had existed in some cases for 150 years with certain rights and privileges and maintained de facto status as the representative government of the sovereignty of the people. These were acts of separation carried out by political bodies relying on the sovereignty of the people. It was secession.

There were acts of civil disobedience before the political declaration, there were incidents of mob violence and there was the distinct possibility that the war might have developed into an insurgency of the sort we are familiar with in the 20th and 21st centuries, but this did not happen.

Likewise this war cannot be properly termed a revolution, for revolutions seek to replace one government with another. The thirteen colonies acted independently in a joint manner to declare their separation from Britain, and then acted jointly in their newly independent status to create, give birth, to a new entity. There was not revolution, no intention to replace the current government - there was only the intention to separate, to seceded from Britain.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Does This Surprise You?

WASHINGTON (AP) - A blistering Justice Department report accuses the FBI of underreporting its use of the Patriot Act to force businesses to turn over customer information in terrorism cases, according to officials familiar with its findings.

To thinking people this is not a surprise. I suppose those that are still firmly deluded into the belief that the government is incapable of doing any real harm will dismiss this as a necessary evil.

Britain passed a similar law in 1974, supposedly for only one year with the intent of only using it against Irish terrorist. The bill has been passed again every year since. Today in Britain ordinary citizens no longer have the right not to answer questions when interrogated by police as a result of this law originally intended for very limited application.

The Patriot Act is more dangerous that any terrorist group in the world and history will bear this out.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Blissful Ignorance

I have been rather disappointed the last two days by the goings of over at The Cocklebur forum. I see the same tired old arguments and accusations. I now remember full-well why I have never been very interested in online forums, they generally reflect a very select viewpoint and the laws of group dynamics indeed apply.

A couple of points that seem to come up occasionally is the notion that because CE is opposed to the principles (or should I say the results) of the 14th Amendment that the group is somehow racist.

This is of course a logical fallacy but there is no sense in pointing out logic to people that are inclined to jump to conclusions.

The issue with the 14th Amendment is that it takes something from the States and gives it to the Federal government, namely The People. Of course in reality both the State and Federal Governments belong to The People but anyone well grounded in political theory knows that.

We live in a nation of laws, presumably, and in order to justly live in a nation of laws one would expect the government to obey the rules set for it by its creators. One can rightly argue that the 14th Amendment came into being outside of those rules - but that is not the central point.

This amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the Federal/State compact. That is the problem that CE and many paleoconservatives have with this amendment.

Nobody that I know argues, or even believes, that people should be denied certain rights according to nothing more than skin color. In fact real paleoconservatives actually believe that line in the Declaration stating that all men are created equal. Arguing against the 14th Amendment is not an argument for racism - in fact every person is guaranteed certain inalienable rights, all equally, without this amendment.

Without citizens the States cannot properly check and balance the Federal government as was intended in the framing of the Constitution. Without this check and balance the Federal government is left to check itself via its own three branches (seems like a conflict of interest at times to me).

There is nothing racist about that point of view.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Our Little Girls

RICHMOND, Va. -- Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday he would sign legislation requiring all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer. (Link via Elena Maria Vidal)

First Texas, now Virginia. What on Earth does this say about our society that we have to vaccinate sixth-grade girls against sexually transmitted diseases? I certainly understand the reality of teenage hormones but there is something very different in a world where teenagers fool around with that "one special someone" and a world where they are having "hot monkey-sex" with everybody and anybody.

Perhaps if we thought a little more about the culture around us and the influences our children soak in from the first moment we surrender their development to the television and the Internet we might not need such a vaccine.