It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whitewave
I'd be very interested to hear your take on the spirit of resistance and how you feel it relates to any possible forms of civil revolution in America. Thanks for your time (and your patience).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Our representatives would be hard-pressed to explain to us why they do not trust the people.
Here are the facts for you to consider. (most of this we all know so I will not insult you with deep explanations)
1.The Thirteen colonies collectively declared their independence from the Crown in July 1776 (Virginia actually declared her independence in earlier that year)
...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.
Thus becoming de facto sovereign nations. They were still outside of the law and in open rebellion but they were the de facto powers in their respective territories.
2. The Thirteen Colonies were granted individual independence from Britain in 1783
Article 1 His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Thus the Colonies became independent sovereign nations de jure.
3. The United States of America was born in 1781 with the Articles of Confederation via the consent of the independent states. (Independent States were born July 4, 1776, not the United States)
This was a government de jure. The States remained sovereign nation-state de jure under the Articles.
It must be noted that the Articles contained the words "perpetual union", a notion completely ignored in 1787 and absent from the Constitution of 1789
4. February of 1787 a convention was called to amend the Articles. Instead the convention set about crafting a new government. Many criticized the convention for not adhering to their charter and for operating outside of the law. In fact, the convention established by itself new rules by which the states might abolish the government of the Confederation and establish a new government.
5. This is exactly what happened in 1789. The convention, led by the likes of Madison and his "Virginia Plan" constructed a new government and devised a plan by which the new government might be born if only nine states accepted it. The Confederation died officially on July 2 1789 with twelve of the thirteen states joining the new Union (Rhode Island remained a free and independent nation for a year after the death of the Confederation).
Many people "hitch their horse" to this event and proclaim that indeed this is the point that the United States government departed from being of law and embarked upon a course of de facto existence. If in fact this change were forced upon the states, or conducted in dishonest means their point would be valid.
The convention of 1787 was indeed outside of the law and contrary to the provisions of the Articles of Confederation. However, the states did consent. As independent nations they had entered into a contract to form the Confederation. That government no longer served its purpose and the contract was not satisfactory to all parties. An important principle was established. No matter that the United States existed, even under law, the States retained the power to abolish it. Abolish it they did in 1788, to be reborn under the Constitution with the same name, but altogether a different creature and a new government.
The Union formed by thirteen sovereign states in 1789 was no less a contract than the Articles of Confederation had been. In contract law the provisions that bind each party are the understandings each party had when they entered into the contract. It is always amazing to me that rational people accept this notion is civil courts over issues relating to real estate and other matters but are unwilling to accept it when it comes to the Constitution. Imagine if the contract that you signed for your mortgage was described as a living document. Sure it says you are supposed to pay your mortgage by the 15th of each month but that was signed 20 years ago, times change and perceptions change as well. Just ponder that for a moment. It is hard to imagine that a judge would rule that your contract with the mortgage company meant anything other than the exact same thing it meant the day you signed it. Contracts may be revised with consent, but they do not live. The Constitution is not a living document. (I do digress)
So we have established that the states were independent prior to the establishment of the Union and that they had previously abolished a form of government that no longer served the goals of the contract of consent. There were illegalities surrounding the dissolution of the Confederation but a higher principle was at work, which is the right of the governed to choose their form of government and the right of the States to exercise their legitimate sovereignty.
The government of the Union was therefore de facto but also de jure (by relying on Common Law principles) based upon the natural rights of man and the sovereign rights of the states for its existence.
Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by buds84
How ever you forget the the slaves of then would never have been allowed to be free as they became, because of the very documents our founders drafted.
So, mind your history because a handful of very brave black men and woman gained freedom for their people, here in America when the rest of the world, other than Brazil at the time, were against free blacks.
Look it up, check my facts with your own sources. Do the homework, and you will know