POLITICS - A little Rebellion now and then...

[Old Ironsights]

Oklahoma Rebellion
by Walter E. Williams

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more property described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: '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.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Key's resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."

Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.

State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Walt ... _rebellion

[Bridger158]

I would love for a similar measure to be introduced here in Alabama.

[AJMD429]

It isn't that hard to actually introduce a resolution like that; you have to check on gunowners.org or other ways and find who the most 'reasonable' politician is in your area, get something written up (it's ok just to copy the wording of the law you see some other state adopting), and get a few buddies to sign on to it, then take it to the legislator (in person is best). Get some folks to call or write in support of it, and get a few people to write into any supportive newspapers or bulletins in the area. Stroke the legislator a bit and keep the calls going out to 'encourage' him/her.

[MistWolf]

Seems to me, it's more a matter of at what level the People will be oppressed rather than who will guard our liberties

[mklwhite]

Sounds like a step in the right direction. As far as this posted reply:

"Seems to me, it's more a matter of at what level the People will be oppressed rather than who will guard our liberties"

I couldn't disagree more. You and your like minded citizens may gather enough support at a state level to be heard. Your fears assuaged and their cause abated. However at the federal level the best you could hope for is platitudes... that is unless you have big (money) backers for the Fed cares little about your woes and even less about your rights. You are property of the state (of course I mean the Federal state). Income producers and potential protectors (LEO or military). Until the Fed recognizes the Constitution of the United States of America and puts value in it as anything other than a piece of sacred history, then we are all in trouble. Might makes right and the money to make what is done into law. I hope and pray for leadership that will bring government back to the Constitution and common sense.

[Ysabel Kid]

If at first you don't secede, try try again!

[MistWolf]

Look at the states that are oppressing our rights, such as California, New York and Massachusetts just to name a few. These states are notorious for the constant vilification of firearms owners and the oppression of liberties. Do you want to give these states even more power to oppress?

The states that seceded from the Union did so over states rights because they felt it was wrong for the Feds to step in and stop the oppression and enslavement of an entire people that the states had declared as sub-human.

Is this what you want? Do you want to give the states the power to declare any part of our society as sub-human? Will it solve our problems to shift the balance of power back to the states? Not as long as the states are as abusive, or more so, of our liberties, than the federal government.

My real point is, tyranny is tyranny, whether at the federal or state level

[mklwhite]

Look at the states that are oppressing our rights, such as California, New York and Massachusetts just to name a few. These states are notorious for the constant vilification of firearms owners and the oppression of liberties. Do you want to give these states even more power to oppress?

The states that seceded from the Union did so over states rights because they felt it was wrong for the Feds to step in and stop the oppression and enslavement of an entire people that the states had declared as sub-human.

Is this what you want? Do you want to give the states the power to declare any part of our society as sub-human? Will it solve our problems to shift the balance of power back to the states? Not as long as the states are as abusive, or more so, of our liberties, than the federal government.

Honest, I'm going to hold back on this one and just say you need to start reading. Understand and know the history your trying to walk over with such statements. I know you probably heard what it is you said. Maybe even from a teacher or someone of learning or you respected, however the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States, if you will, was over state rights versus federal rights. The yankees didn't free slaves in the yankee states that had them. Not until after the fact. But I'll stop there because you've got some reading to do.

[Ysabel Kid]

Look at the states that are oppressing our rights, such as California, New York and Massachusetts just to name a few. These states are notorious for the constant vilification of firearms owners and the oppression of liberties. Do you want to give these states even more power to oppress?

The states that seceded from the Union did so over states rights because they felt it was wrong for the Feds to step in and stop the oppression and enslavement of an entire people that the states had declared as sub-human.

Is this what you want? Do you want to give the states the power to declare any part of our society as sub-human? Will it solve our problems to shift the balance of power back to the states? Not as long as the states are as abusive, or more so, of our liberties, than the federal government.

Honest, I'm going to hold back on this one and just say you need to start reading. Understand and know the history your trying to walk over with such statements. I know you probably heard what it is you said. Maybe even from a teacher or someone of learning or you respected, however the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States, if you will, was over state rights versus federal rights. The yankees didn't free slaves in the yankee states that had them. Not until after the fact. But I'll stop there because you've got some reading to do.

+1 We've hashed this one out here several times. Bottom line, the victors write the history, so the "Civil War" is taught as a war to free the slaves. It was not. It was the second war of Independence, and the right side lost (BTW, I was born and raised in the north. Helps being the son of a former history teacher!!!).

[Otto]

It is worth pointing out that the much-celebrated Emancipation Proclamation didn't liberate anybody. It was intended as a political statement, basically saying "As far as we're concerned the South is still under our authority." Read the text and you will see that it only applied in areas where the Union had no means of enforcing it.

[bee-weg]

The reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, was that neither the president or congress had the constitutional power to free slaves in the loyal states.

[mklwhite]

The reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion, was that neither the president or congress had the constitutional power to free slaves in the loyal states.

The "Great Emancipator" did it for strategic reasons. Hoping that the slaves in the South would rebel and cause all sorts of problems for the CSA. I'm not saying he was for slavery, but to understand his view on the subject of slavery and race relations all anyone has to do is start reading.

[Old Ironsights]

+1 We've hashed this one out here several times. Bottom line, the victors write the history, so the "Civil War" is taught as a war to free the slaves. It was not. It was the second war of Independence, and the right side lost (BTW, I was born and raised in the north. Helps being the son of a former history teacher!!!).

Besides, the whole conflict fails/failed the primary definition of a "Civil War" - that is, warfare between two competeing factions for control of a contiguous political boundry.

The South had no designs on the North, thus its objectives do not fit the criteria.

Likewise, the North already "had" "political control" of the South untill secession, lost it, then was trying to regain it by invading a noncontiguous political border.

It would more rightly be called a quashed rebellion (Northern Definition) or failed revolution (Southern Definition), but it was not a "civil war" in any real geopolitical sense.

[bee-weg]

At the risk of rousing 41Bear out of his hybernation ....

Before the Emancipation Proclamation in '63, both sides of the conflict understood the central role of Slavery to the war,... but what would happen to Slavery after the war if the North won?

Some people on both sides thought the re-united Union would go back to the staus quo, with slavery still existing in the slave states and protected by the constitution. Maybe the only concession the South would have to make would be to give up the efforts to expand Slavery into the territories and Free states.

With the EC, Lincoln made it clear that the war would be about eliminating slavery rather than containing it.

That sent a message to other countries that might have considered siding with the South for economic reasons. The moral reasons to avoid siding with the confederacy now overrode the economic reasons.

Regarding the original article: He makes some good points, but there is something deeply ironic about a black author claiming the CSA fought a war of "independence"

[Old Ironsights]

...Regarding the original article: He makes some good points, but there is something deeply ironic about a black author claiming the CSA fought a war of "independence"

Ironic, perhaps. But true nonetheless.

[MistWolf]

Yes, the South fought a war to be independent of the federal government. Why? So they could continue the practice of slavery. President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation with one priority in mind- to preserve the Union.

There was a grassroots movement among the people of the nation to get the state and federal government to free the slaves. As the pressure to do so increased, the South seceded to preserve their way of life of which slavery was an important part of.

I know the governments of the Northern States didn't care two licks if the slaves were freed or not. I also know that slavery was against the the law in some states while being legal in others and that before a state was admitted to the Union it was debated whether or not it should be slave or non-slave state to preserve political balance.

The Civil War (or whatever you choose to call it) was fought to determine who had the right to determine the future of slavery. The South called it "states rights" to justify their secession.

Slavery in our country was particularly foul because the United States was founded on the idea that all men were created equal. In other countries slaves were simply another class of people. To justify enslavement, the enslavers had to convince themselves that those they would enslave are less than human or simply animals. Many evil men throughout history have declared many different peoples subhuman to justify murdering them. We had the same attitude towards blacks in this country. That's the states right the south fought to maintain- the right to oppress, vilify, degrade and murder a people.

As firearms owners, we are vilified, degraded and suffer prejudice from people who would have us viewed as undesirables and even subhuman so that they can justify trampling our rights. This happens at all levels, local, state and federal. Do you think it will stop because we shift the focus of tyranny from the federal to the state level? Do you think California will stop their oppression because they take back their states rights?

States rights will not end the tyranny

[Old Time Hunter]

MistWolf, well said.

[mklwhite]

With the EC, Lincoln made it clear that the war would be about eliminating slavery rather than containing it.

That sent a message to other countries that might have considered siding with the South for economic reasons. The moral reasons to avoid siding with the confederacy now overrode the economic reasons.

Mr. Lincoln's own words would disagree with that statement and sentiment.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858

"We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

"The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. " -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address

...and finally...

"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Greeley

These are but a few quotes of his on the subject. Many more exist, however I feel that the point is made. The slave card was a way to drum up additional support, additional troops and they hoped cause slave revolts in the south.

Also keep in mind that there were plenty of blacks that fought for and support the South in the war.

General Ordinance No. 14 stated “no slave will be accepted unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring the rights of freedmen …” (Official Record, IV, 3, 1161). Shortly after, one witness recorded that the streets of Richmond were filled with 10,000 black troops who had been gathered at Camp Lee on the outskirts of Richmond. The black confederate solders were armed and placed in trenches near Richmond.

General Order Number 38, issued by Confederate General Braxton Bragg at Tullahoma, Tennessee, in January 1863, stated, "All employees of this army, black as well as white, shall receive the same rations, quarters, and medical treatment." The Confederate Army was providing equal treatment at a time when the U.S. Army was discriminating against black men in the matter of pay (Barrow, C. K., & Segars, J. H., & R.B. Rosenburg, R.B. (Eds.) (2001). Black Confederates.). Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white Confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army.

The 1st Louisiana Native Guards was a 1307 man regiment with some black officers. (Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, U.S. Government)

I'll stop there. There is a lot misconceptions out there. I hope you this will inspire some to do some research on the subject.

[bee-weg]

Mr. Lincoln's own words would disagree with that statement and sentiment.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858

If you read the whole speech, the intended meaning is obvious... Lincoln would like to see the races separated because a portion of one race feels it is perfectly okay to enslave the other race.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/ ... cument=736

My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. They are not our equal in color; but I suppose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some respects; they are equal in their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly the negro is not our equal in color——perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been given you, you can not be justified in taking away the little which has been given him. All I ask for the negro is that if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.

When our government was established, we had the institution of slavery among us. We were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through our struggle and secured our own independence. The framers of the Constitution found the institution of slavery amongst their other institutions at the time. They found that by an effort to eradicate it, they might lose much of what they had already gained. They were obliged to bow to the necessity. They gave power to Congress to abolish the slave trade at the end of twenty years. They also prohibited it in the Territories where it did not exist. They did what they could and yielded to necessity for the rest. I also yield to all which follows from that necessity. What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.

Most of the other quotes basically show Lincolns view that he did not have the legal authority to abolish slavery. His constitutional duty, first and foremost, was to preserve the Union. In Lincolns early political career and during the debates in the 1850's, Lincoln made it very clear that he wanted to stop the spread of Slavery into the territories and Free States. He knew there were constitutional limits to the federal governments power to abolish slavery in the Slave States. And if slavery was abolished, he was conflicted as to the best plan to deal with the freed slaves, for a while preferring the plan to resettle them in Africa - which also relates to the "separation of the races" comment above.

As far as black men fighting for the South, I would think far more blacks sided with the North. Inequitable pay for blacks in the Federal Army? What did the Confederate blacks get paid? Did any black Confederate unit ever see action? What is the relevance of a small number of black soldiers fighting for the confederacy?... is it meant to disprove that the central issue of the Civil War was slavery?

[mklwhite]

I'm going to walk away from this hijacked thread. If anyone would like to start a thread want to start one about the war I'll be happy to jump in. Of course there are websites concerned specifically with the topic and much information can be gathered there by some very knowledgeable folks. Otherwise the answers can be found to any of the questions that have been asked. It may take a little time, but start reading and you'll find them.

Now back to the original post that started this thread. I still think it is a good idea. Kind of surprised that Oklahoma is the state that is throwing down on this though. Hopefully it will lead the way.

[41bear]

At the risk of rousing 41Bear out of his hybernation ....
Before the Emancipation Proclamation in '63, both sides of the conflict understood the central role of Slavery to the war,... but what would happen to Slavery after the war if the North won?

Some people on both sides thought the re-united Union would go back to the staus quo, with slavery still existing in the slave states and protected by the constitution. Maybe the only concession the South would have to make would be to give up the efforts to expand Slavery into the territories and Free states.

With the EC, Lincoln made it clear that the war would be about eliminating slavery rather than containing it.

That sent a message to other countries that might have considered siding with the South for economic reasons. The moral reasons to avoid siding with the confederacy now overrode the economic reasons.

Regarding the original article: He makes some good points, but there is something deeply ironic about a black author claiming the CSA fought a war of "independence"

Did you knock?

At the risk of highway robbery of this thread, which I won't do, I will say that I'm for anything that takes away power from the Feds and gives it back to the states. In point of fact I feel the states, Esp. law enforcement, needs to grow some backbone and stand up to the Feds whenever there is encroachhment in the state. Such as Wako and RubyRidge. Although the state government may be over bearing also the people of said state have a much better chance of "throwing the Bums out" and changing things for the better.

In the case of the Feds As Lincoln said "We have the Treasury and the Sword" the South found out that you can't make ANY mistakes fighting that battle.

[El Chivo]

I always understood that the reason the states don't stand up to the Feds is they want that highway funding...

[41bear]

I'm going to walk away from this hijacked thread. If anyone would like to start a thread want to start one about the war I'll be happy to jump in. Of course there are websites concerned specifically with the topic and much information can be gathered there by some very knowledgeable folks. Otherwise the answers can be found to any of the questions that have been asked. It may take a little time, but start reading and you'll find them.

Now back to the original post that started this thread. I still think it is a good idea. Kind of surprised that Oklahoma is the state that is throwing down on this though. Hopefully it will lead the way.

I'm totally with you on this mklwhite, I'd be more than happy to "jump in" on another thread. But as to this one as I said above I'm all for states rights.