PDA

View Full Version : They fought the law and . . . they won



Osborne Russell
02-04-2013, 12:52 PM
http://talkwithbette.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/battleofathenstn1946crowds.jpg?w=1143


By 3:00 P.M. most were back at the Essankay and most were armed. At about this time, Tom Gillespie, an elderly black farmer from Union Road, stepped inside the eleventh-precinct polling place in the Athens Water Works on Jackson Street. Windy Wise, a Cantrell guard, told Gillespie, “N*****, you can’t vote here.” When Tom protested, Wise struck him with brass knuckles. Gillespie dropped his ballot and ran for the door. Wise pulled a pistol and shot him in the back as he reached the sidewalk.

The first shot of the day brought crowds streaming up Jackson from the courthouse. Sheriff Mansfield’s cruiser turned off College Street and screeched to a halt in front of the Water Works, and deputies loaded the bleeding Gillespie into the car. Mansfield ordered the precinct closed, posted four deputies outside to guard the Water Works, and then took Gillespie to jail. A dozen veterans from the Essankay started up Jackson toward the Water Works. They were unarmed.

During the confusion following the shooting, the two GI poll watchers, Ed Vestal and Charles Scott, had been seized and held hostage inside the Water Works by Wise and another Cantrell deputy, Karl Neil. When the veterans reached the Water Works, the crowd began taunting the armed guards. As Wise and Neil stood at a window watching the angry throng outside, Vestal and Scott plunged through the plate-glass windows and ran bleeding for the protection of the crowd.

Wise stepped through the broken glass, waving his pistol; several veterans rushed forward but were quickly pulled back to safety. One of them shouted, “Let’s go get our guns!” and they left for the Essankay.


http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens



There once was an oppressive political machine . . . August 1, 1946. It was overthrown by armed citizens. They got
the bulk of their arms by breaking into a National Guard Armory. But that might easily have been different if more
people had had more guns.

Dynamite seems to have been tactically decisive; that also might easily have been different.

I think the more important point is that the right of rebellion is alive and well. I think this instance is exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind.

Opposition to the oppressive political machine developed in the form of war veterans not disposed to be F ed with. They put together a political party with a slate of candidates to replace the machine, legally and democratically.

On election day, the machine brought in a big time Goon Squad, hundreds of armed deputies, to patrol the town, and especially to secure the polling places. In view of this, the opposition was not obliged and in any case not disposed to pretend that the machine was not disenfranchising them, or that they were obligated to to suffer it one instant longer, in the hope of help from outside.

The shooting of the black man was the catalyst. The deputy obviously thought he could get away with it, and under normal circumstances he would likely have been right, but circumstances aren't always normal. In these circumstances, the violence against the black man was interpreted, atypically but correctly, as the assertion of tyranny.

The whites ran off to get their guns. A bunch of them broke into the National Guard armory and passed out the arms and ammo.

The polls closed and the Goon Squad took the ballot boxes to the jail, whereas state law required that they be counted immediately, in public.

The jail was surrounded by citizens demanding the ballot boxes be released. At some point gunfire began and several thousand rounds were exchanged. A bit later molotov cocktails and dynamite were thrown at the jail. When the doorway of the jail was blown open, the Goon Squad surrendered. The ballots were counted, the opposition candidates were elected, and the machine was deposed.

Regardless of the source or character of the armaments employed by the rebels, the key element is philosophical, i.e. the right of rebellion. Perfectly natural.

David W Pratt
02-04-2013, 01:16 PM
A story that ought to have much wider currency
Thanks

Peerie Maa
02-04-2013, 01:38 PM
That says more about a corrupt society at several levels than it does about the 2nd.

Non-violent resistance implies the very opposite of weakness. Defiance combined with non-retaliatory acceptance of repression from one's opponents is active, not passive. It requires strength, and there is nothing automatic or intuitive about the resoluteness required for using non-violent methods in political struggle and the quest for Truth. - Gandhi
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. - King

Osborne Russell
02-04-2013, 01:55 PM
A story that ought to have much wider currency
Thanks

You're welcome, and I agree. What it needs is an author of the caliber of Harper Lee ("To Kill A Mockingbird") to give it that southern-Greek Tragedy gravitas.

A few observations:

1. Some kind of movie was made -- which is all over You Tube -- where a goon tries to close the polls early, a white poll watcher objects, and a goon shoots him. Two major factual inaccuracies. I quit watching after that.

2. The right of rebellion is related to the right to keep and bear arms, but how, is the question. I don't see how it says anything in particular about gun control, per se. I just don't want to see the right of rebellion get lost in all the shouting.

The idea of the private citizen resisting the government is said to be absurd, or obsolete at best. Ineffective, Quixotic. In this case, the would-be black voter was the only one to actually get shot (also arrested, it appears . . . no doubt for "disturbing the peace").

However, the Goon Squad was pinned down in the jail for hours by guns in the hands of private citizens. Perhaps someone with infantry expertise can put a name on that. As I see it, the idea is to gain control of a critical position rather than to kill the enemy. Much more efficient. IOW the dynamite won the battle but the guns set the stage.

Apparently the state mobilized the National Guard but didn't send them. A political judgment by the Executive, probably to wait to see who came out on top and what they did after. If the disorder stops by itself, sending in the Guard only makes things worse. Which makes the armed citizenry critical, as I see it. Provided they are "well regulated" -- by themselves.

The overall stability of the state can take a well regulated rebellion by armed citizens in stride. It happened, once anyway.

Durnik
02-04-2013, 02:27 PM
You know - in those days, cops were the fellows who lived next door.. & counted their neighbors as the reason to be. Now, cops are SWAT teams, taught to "shoot first, ask later - the 'perp' is unimportant - the machine must live".

That scenario, today, would likely result in some dead.. & the machine winning. If we want to change our world (& seems 2/3rds to 3/4rs of us do!), guns are no longer - if they ever were - the way.

& SWAT teams should not exist, either.

peace
bobby

Keith Wilson
02-04-2013, 02:48 PM
Interesting story, which I'd heard before. However, one has to realize that for every use of arms in the southern US by citizens against a racially oppressive regime, there were probably more than a hundred where (white) citizens used their arms in defense of oppression. Here are the lynching statistics from 1882 to 1964 (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html), total 4,742.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more the case of the southern racial caste system emphatically is NOT an example of armed citizens resisting oppression; precisely the opposite, in fact. The South seceded to preserve slavery, and abolition was forced on them by defeat in war. Some semblance of racial equality was imposed on the white majority by outside military force after the Civil War, and was reversed by an armed white citizenry after the end of reconstruction. Racial segregation was imposed by force, sometimes official, sometimes by armed civilians. It was finally ended by the federal government against the wishes of the white majority in the southern states, sometimes by federal troops.

Osborne Russell
02-04-2013, 06:59 PM
That says more about a corrupt society at several levels than it does about the 2nd.

Is the right to bear arms unrelated to the right of rebellion? Perhaps we should first decide, is there a right to rebellion?


Defiance combined with non-retaliatory acceptance of repression from one's opponents is active, not passive. It requires strength, and there is nothing automatic or intuitive about the resoluteness required for using non-violent methods in political struggle and the quest for Truth. - Gandhi

Very true. It requires extraordinary bravery. But people are not obliged to depend on extraordinary bravery for defense of their rights.

It started when the police stole the ballots. That is literally stealing the popular sovereignty. The whole shebang was over in twenty-four hours. A few busted windows, a few destroyed police cars, the jailhouse door a couple thousand rounds of National Guard ammunition. Of course, if the deputies had come out of the jail, guns blazing, they would have been chopped into stew meat, and might have shot a few citizens. That's what kept them in the jail. That's what kept a lid on things. Armed citizens.

Osborne Russell
02-04-2013, 07:01 PM
In fact, the more I think about it, the more the case of the southern racial caste system emphatically is NOT an example of armed citizens resisting oppression; precisely the opposite, in fact.

That would be a strange argument, which I do not make.

I don't see how south or north, then or now, makes any difference.

Osborne Russell
02-04-2013, 07:11 PM
That scenario, today, would likely result in some dead.. & the machine winning.

These are the times that try men's souls.

George Jung
02-04-2013, 07:23 PM
Open Rebellion? I believe Jefferson recommended one, about every twenty years.

We're remarkably overdue.

CWSmith
02-04-2013, 08:15 PM
Before celebrating armed rebellion, you should consider the list of failures that led up to this, the failure of the electorate to change the local police, to abolish racist values, to elect politicians that understand society belongs to the voters, .... If you worry about the government taking your rights, vote smarter.

The Bigfella
02-04-2013, 08:55 PM
Seems to me that the eternal quest for cheap labor in the USA has never worked out that well in the long run. First the slaves, then the Hispanics.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-05-2013, 01:54 AM
Is the right to bear arms unrelated to the right of rebellion?

What right? Since we have wandered into Never-Never Land let's think about the "right to rebellion". Would the Framers after going thru' several years of difficult negotiations to form a new and more powerful government be likely to add a codicil making it OK to trash it at a later date? There is no evidence that doctrine ever existed until Wayne Lapierre and the gun manufacturers promoted it among their misguided followers.
The American Revolution is different than most others in one respect. Americans didn't turn on each other after the revolt was accomplished. But don't expect that to be the case the next time if there ever is a next time.

Plumbtex
02-05-2013, 02:17 AM
What right? Since we have wandered into Never-Never Land let's think about the "right to rebellion". Would the Framers after going thru' several years of difficult negotiations to form a new and more powerful government be likely to add a codicil making it OK to trash it at a later date? There is no evidence that doctrine ever existed
.
From the Founding Fathers:
"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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Meli
02-05-2013, 03:28 AM
hmm confusing for a furriner.
thats the declaration of independence.

who signed it?
Were the same signatories on the second amendment and constitution.?
who were the founding fathers? Names

Peerie Maa
02-05-2013, 03:35 AM
From the Founding Fathers:
"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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

That says naff all about shooting the elected government. Use the ballot box, then it is the will of all of the people not just of some aggrieved loonies with a private arsenal. Are you arguing for an American armed terrorist uprising? Do you think that your Founding Farthers were that crazy?

John Smith
02-05-2013, 07:02 AM
The thing I find interesting is the guns gotten from breaking into the National guard. This is why our founders let the Militia members keep the guns; putting them in a central place would have made that place a target for this very purpose.

The second thing I take out of this is the reason it all happened in the first place. Race.

Seems some people need to oppress other people. That causes a lot of violence, and a lot of gun deaths over the years.

I'm old enough to remember the Arkansas 9 and James Meredith. Those not old enough would be doing themselves a favor to look them up. As a general thing, I'd suggest not using Wiki: there is a reason the schools around here don't accept it as a reliable source of data.

Those too young to remember those days, likely remember some of the nasty things gays have been put through.

Some of the more ancient may remember what left-handed people used to go through. I have very dim memories of a family member who was left handed and my grandmother telling him it was a sin. A lot of left-handed people were put through hell before it was just accepted.

A common thread in all this that is generally overlooked is religion. A great deal of the racist attitudes of whites was supported/justified by their religious beliefs, just as being left-handed was "sinful". The anti-gay movements all seem to be based in religious beliefs.

All of these are things that fuel violence. Guns are tools with which to committ the violence. The tools of violence have become better and more efficient, just like tools for most other things.

We need less violence. That starts with people being simply tolerant of other people regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Durnik
02-05-2013, 11:14 AM
That says naff all about shooting the elected government. Use the ballot box, then it is the will of all of the people not just of some aggrieved loonies with a private arsenal. Are you arguing for an American armed terrorist uprising? Do you think that your Founding Farthers were that crazy?

Covered in 4 sentences.. tho # 2 nails it.

This explains, however, the on going attempts by the Republican party to negate the ballot box.

enjoy
bobby

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 11:26 AM
hmm confusing for a furriner.
thats the declaration of independence.

who signed it?
Were the same signatories on the second amendment and constitution.?
who were the founding fathers? Names

The Constitution that we now have took effect in 1789 after two years of debate. Thirteen years after the DOI. Some of the people were the same.

In my view, all of them were the founders. Also, the opponents such as Patrick Henry, and to a lesser extent Thomas Jefferson, because their opposition was part of the shaping. Many compromises were made.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 11:41 AM
That says naff all about shooting the elected government. Use the ballot box, then it is the will of all of the people not just of some aggrieved loonies with a private arsenal. Are you arguing for an American armed terrorist uprising? Do you think that your Founding Farthers were that crazy?

It's a moral right, not a legal one. If the ballot box is stolen, what then? Then "the elected government" is not the elected government. They are usurpers. The right of rebellion concerns what to do about them. What is the prescribed waiting period for them to renounce their usurpation? Zero. How much time does a thief get to return your property?

From the Constitution of New Hampshire:




[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

(emphasis added)

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 11:45 AM
Before celebrating armed rebellion, you should consider the list of failures that led up to this, the failure of the electorate to change the local police, to abolish racist values, to elect politicians that understand society belongs to the voters, .... If you worry about the government taking your rights, vote smarter.

Absolutely. The people allowed these dudes to take over. But the right of self-government is unalienable. You continue to have it even when you're stupid, lazy and vicious. Ladies and gentlement, I give you the United States of America.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 11:49 AM
What right? Since we have wandered into Never-Never Land let's think about the "right to rebellion".

The independence of America from England and therefore the legitimacy of the United States rests on the right of rebellion. You can buy the land with liquor and beads, or just take it; that's the easy part.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 11:54 AM
The second thing I take out of this is the reason it all happened in the first place. Race.

Don't know what you mean by that. It is notable that the local regimes did all these things and more to black people without a murmur of disapproval, let alone a rebellion. But that doesn't make race the reason for the rebellion.

Peerie Maa
02-05-2013, 12:25 PM
It's a moral right, not a legal one. If the ballot box is stolen, what then? Then "the elected government" is not the elected government. They are usurpers. The right of rebellion concerns what to do about them. What is the prescribed waiting period for them to renounce their usurpation? Zero. How much time does a thief get to return your property?

From the Constitution of New Hampshire:


[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

(emphasis added)

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Nothing in there about killing people. Use the law to protect the law. As to your post #7. Surround the building and create a siege. Starve the idiots out. No need for guns if you use your brains and negotiate.

Durnik
02-05-2013, 12:41 PM
^ if anything, I got that the 'rebellion' was against people who would use 'race' to subjugate.

Oops, reply was to Osborne - Nick 'scooped' me - tho I agree with his 'scoop'! The 'hostages' of ballots could be easily replaced by a new vote.

peace
bobby

ljb5
02-05-2013, 01:05 PM
...the key element is philosophical, i.e. the right of rebellion. Perfectly natural.

I really don't think there is any "right of rebellion."

Article VI of the Constitution says that it is the "Supreme Law of the Land." It does not say the Constitution is optional or can be ignored or overthrown at will.

I really don't see how you can claim that the Second Amendment is invioable, while simultaneously claiming that you can violate Article Six.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 01:31 PM
Nothing in there about killing people. Use the law to protect the law. As to your post #7. Surround the building and create a siege. Starve the idiots out. No need for guns if you use your brains and negotiate.

Killing people is necessarily implied. The concept has no meaning otherwise. Law is a claim of right to use physical force.

As for negotiating, it happens because of balance of forces, i.e. force on both sides, i.e. guns. I agree the actual shooting was pointless, except as a matter of demonstrating force. And in that connection, it may have been critical. The state government thought it best not to intervene. Difficult to believe that arms in the possession of citizens, willing to use them, wasn't a major factor in that decision.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 01:32 PM
I really don't think there is any "right of rebellion."

If not, the colonies are still English, and we owe some stiff back taxes.

Peerie Maa
02-05-2013, 01:46 PM
If not, the colonies are still English, and we owe some stiff back taxes.

I'll set up a new PayPal account for you right away.

ljb5
02-05-2013, 01:56 PM
If not, the colonies are still English, and we owe some stiff back taxes.

I'm not sure the 'right of colonization' is valid either.

The thing about history is that quite a lot of it really can't be justified by any philosophical absolute.

We declared independence from a nation that had no real right to declare us dependent. We bought, stole or won land from people who had no right to sell, grant or own it. We came over as immigrants, then started passing laws against immigration. We put a stake in the ground and said, "That means it's mine!" We put a fence around it and said, "That means it's not yours!"

If you go back far enough, all of our history is based on theft, graft, conscription, coercion and conquest. Even the parts we bought fair and square were stolen.

I'm not saying that we should give it all back to the Indians (or that they should give it all back to the wildflowers). The ship has sailed on that one.

But we can't go around pretending that it's all tied up in a nice, self-consistent and philosophically justifiable package.

Osborne Russell
02-05-2013, 04:26 PM
I'll set up a new PayPal account for you right away.

Me and my big mouth! Still, what's right is right. How many seats in Parliament do we get? I can't wait to start voting on all your stuff. All our stuff, I mean. First off, you people are driving on the wrong side.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-05-2013, 05:40 PM
From the Founding Fathers:
"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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Wrong document dude. That was from the Declaration of Independence. At that time there was no guarantee there ever would be independent colonies. When it appeared the revolt would be successful the colony/states created the Articles of Confederation government. When the war had been won it became appearent the Confederation government was never going to work so a move was made to see if there was enough sentimment for a completely new form of government. In 1787-88 it was hashed out but the Constitutinal government was not ratified till 1792.
We live under the law of the 1792 constitution not under the law of the Confederation nor of the poetry of the Declaration of Independence. The decalaration has a lot of revolutionry sentiments but you can't go into court and use them to prove there is an ongoing right to revolution.
Your turn.

Phillip Allen
02-05-2013, 07:06 PM
I'm not sure the 'right of colonization' is valid either.

The thing about history is that quite a lot of it really can't be justified by any philosophical absolute.

We declared independence from a nation that had no real right to declare us dependent. We bought, stole or won land from people who had no right to sell, grant or own it. We came over as immigrants, then started passing laws against immigration. We put a stake in the ground and said, "That means it's mine!" We put a fence around it and said, "That means it's not yours!"

If you go back far enough, all of our history is based on theft, graft, conscription, coercion and conquest. Even the parts we bought fair and square were stolen.

I'm not saying that we should give it all back to the Indians (or that they should give it all back to the wildflowers). The ship has sailed on that one.

But we can't go around pretending that it's all tied up in a nice, self-consistent and philosophically justifiable package.

not to be hemed in, of course :):):)

Osborne Russell
02-06-2013, 03:38 PM
The decalaration has a lot of revolutionry sentiments but you can't go into court and use them to prove there is an ongoing right to revolution.
Your turn.

I don't see how it could show up in court. Maybe in a war crimes trial, someone claiming it as a defense. But even then it would only be a personal defense.

I urge you to consider your position carefully. If there is no right to rebellion, then the United States does not and cannot exist of right. Might makes the only right there is. That's the Red position.

Peerie Maa
02-06-2013, 04:00 PM
I urge you to consider your position carefully. If there is no right to rebellion, then the United States does not and cannot exist of right. Might makes the only right there is. That's the Red position.
History is written by the winners. If the rebellion fails its jail time or worse, if it succeeds the slate is wiped clean.
What you are doing is using an international war as a precedent for justifying a civil war.
Your "rebellion" was also in a war like time, it is supposed to be "democracy" time for you now - unless that you believe that you are still an unstable Third World nation.

Osborne Russell
02-08-2013, 12:39 PM
History is written by the winners. If the rebellion fails its jail time or worse, if it succeeds the slate is wiped clean.
What you are doing is using an international war as a precedent for justifying a civil war.
Your "rebellion" was also in a war like time, it is supposed to be "democracy" time for you now - unless that you believe that you are still an unstable Third World nation.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

ccmanuals
02-08-2013, 01:38 PM
In the end wasn't this the deciding factor?


Opposition to the oppressive political machine developed in the form of war veterans not disposed to be F ed with. They put together a political party with a slate of candidates to replace the machine, legally and democratically.

Gerarddm
02-08-2013, 01:40 PM
Clearly the framers of the New Hampshire constitution never heard of Ghandi. ;-)

Resistance to tyranny does not always involve guns.

Peerie Maa
02-08-2013, 01:41 PM
I really don't understand what you're saying here.
I was addressing your stated right to rebellion in relation to the US right to exist and its very existence. I was considering it on three levels.
When an international war is fought and won, there is usually an agreement to conclude hostilities that defines the status of the combatants. That defines the US right to exist, there is a corollary that the winners write their history, propagating the meme that in your case you do have every right to exist.
I was pointing out that there is no justification for fighting a civil war to be found in the fighting of an international war between two nations. Even though you were a colony administered by a colonial power, you were still considered to be a separate nation, not as with the French method another department of the mother country.
Thirdly, 200 years ago war was a first world activity, so armed uprising was not so unusual. 200 years on, we would expect such issues to be resolved using the law and the ballot box, so to argue that the US needs to be able to start armed insurrection is to argue that the US is the same as a third world nation with failed democracy, corrupt police and a totalitarian government.

Osborne Russell
02-08-2013, 05:17 PM
you were still considered to be a separate nation . . .

Not by the English, and not by the colonists, until they voted on independence.


Thirdly, 200 years ago war was a first world activity, so armed uprising was not so unusual.

Armed uprising = rebellion and it has never been unusual.


200 years on, we would expect such issues to be resolved using the law and the ballot box . . .

Bosnia, Serbia, Egypt, Libya, Viet Nam, Afghanistan . . . Israel.


so to argue that the US needs to be able to start armed insurrection is to argue that the US is the same as a third world nation with failed democracy, corrupt police and a totalitarian government.

The US doesn't have a right to rebellion, the people do. All people. The conditions you mention and others may indeed be grounds for rebellion.

There's no getting around it. The United State claims to exist by moral right.


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . .

Do you say there is no such thing, or that we didn't possess it?

Peerie Maa
02-08-2013, 05:42 PM
Osborne,
Are you channelling Sam? By chopping my statements up you are changing the context into something that I did not say.

George Jung
02-08-2013, 07:09 PM
Gosh.... do you suppose OR is SamF's sock puppet... or vice-versa? (sometimes ya can't tell who has their hands in whose socks, can ya?)

Osborne Russell
02-09-2013, 11:50 AM
What brought that on? That's a cheap shot, gentlemen.

The right of the United States to exist must come from somewhere. It appears to be your position, Peerie, that it resulted from a treaty between England and the USA. That implies it was England's to grant or withhold. Is that your position?

George Jung
02-09-2013, 12:38 PM
Sorry, OR - no insult intended! Sometimes I just like to have a lil' fun.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-09-2013, 02:08 PM
The independence of America from England and therefore the legitimacy of the United States rests on the right of rebellion.

OK.
But however a nation is formed it cannot survive with the ever present possibility of rebellion. That would make the government weak and liable to fall at any time either from desent or from takover by a more powerful intruder.
The above is exactly what George Washington was ruminating about when he started the ball rolling toward consideration of a new more potent form of government.The Confederation government couldn't pay it's bills and that was common knowledge in Europe. The Confederation government was not souvereign and had no ability to stop a member state from breaking away or from refusing to contribute in time of war.
It's ridiculous to think that a document meant to produce a new and more potent form of government would contain a trip-wire that would allow for it's own destruction.
Your home-brew theories about our constitution would paint the Framers as a bunch of irrational bone-heads.
The more I go head to head with you the more I think you are engaged in a big put-on. Nobody in the most powerful nation on earth could possibly have such an obtuse view of it's history.

Osborne Russell
02-09-2013, 03:26 PM
Sorry, OR - no insult intended! Sometimes I just like to have a lil' fun.

OK Daddy-O, but you should put in a winky thing if you're going to call someone Sam F's sock puppet. ;)

Osborne Russell
02-09-2013, 03:36 PM
Your home-brew theories about our constitution would paint the Framers as a bunch of irrational bone-heads.
The more I go head to head with you the more I think you are engaged in a big put-on. Nobody in the most powerful nation on earth could possibly have such an obtuse view of it's history.

Man, keep your shirt on. The right of rebellion doesn't mean you can go on the warpath every time you get a stiffie.


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

(emphasis added)

IOW there are pre-requisites. But a right with pre-requisites is still a right. There is a right of rebellion, is what I want to make sure doesn't get glossed over. It's implied in the right of self-government.

I would say this right exists apart from the right to bear arms. I.e. if the dudes steal the ballots we have the right to get them back with a shovel or whatever's lying around. But it would be a very difficult case to make, historically and as a matter of simple logic, that the right to bear arms is not in support the right of rebellion. See the English Bill of Rights -- they didn't put in the right to bear arms so they could shoot turkeys and Indians.

BTW weren't you the one who recommended the book on the ratification debates? I lost my note of it. There are several on Amazon. Which one were you talking about?

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-09-2013, 08:05 PM
Thanks for taking interest. There are lot of pages but just reading the prolog is exceedingly informative.
"Ratification, the People Deate the Constitution, 1787-1788" by Pauline Maier,

CWSmith
02-09-2013, 08:20 PM
Absolutely. The people allowed these dudes to take over. But the right of self-government is unalienable. You continue to have it even when you're stupid, lazy and vicious. Ladies and gentlement, I give you the United States of America.

Let's be honest - democracy is a demanding concept. You can lose is easily. The irony is that there is a group of gun advocates out there who think they will be called upon to shoot their way back to a democratic government when the reality is they will lose it more easily by neglect and electing people who practice divisive politics and advancement through fear.

ljb5
02-09-2013, 08:23 PM
The right of rebellion doesn't mean you can go on the warpath every time you get a stiffie.

So it's a right subject to limitations?

Who defines those limitations?

alvin greenwood
02-09-2013, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure the 'right of colonization' is valid either.

The thing about history is that quite a lot of it really can't be justified by any philosophical absolute.

We declared independence from a nation that had no real right to declare us dependent. We bought, stole or won land from people who had no right to sell, grant or own it. We came over as immigrants, then started passing laws against immigration. We put a stake in the ground and said, "That means it's mine!" We put a fence around it and said, "That means it's not yours!"

If you go back far enough, all of our history is based on theft, graft, conscription, coercion and conquest. Even the parts we bought fair and square were stolen.

I'm not saying that we should give it all back to the Indians (or that they should give it all back to the wildflowers). The ship has sailed on that one.

But we can't go around pretending that it's all tied up in a nice, self-consistent and philosophically justifiable package..

Indians?.

lets see they had slaves, kept captives and tortured them, refused to set up health care for the whole of america, burned forests to farm, stole guns or bought them with skins of harmless critters, refused to free their woman in fact even traded them or let their friends sleep with them, played midnight heads in a basket game, were mean to immigrants, gambled and smoked tax free, got drunk on firewater. then sold their land then complained about it.

Osborne Russell
02-11-2013, 01:58 PM
Let's be honest - democracy is a demanding concept. You can lose is easily. The irony is that there is a group of gun advocates out there who think they will be called upon to shoot their way back to a democratic government when the reality is they will lose it more easily by neglect and electing people who practice divisive politics and advancement through fear.

Yep. They're dopes. But that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights.

Osborne Russell
02-11-2013, 02:01 PM
So it's a right subject to limitations?

Who defines those limitations?

The governed, as in, it's to secure these rights that governments are created, drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed.

ljb5
02-11-2013, 02:38 PM
The governed, as in, it's to secure these rights that governments are created, drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question.

You said that people have a right to rebel, but they cannot exercise that right whenever they feel like it.

So it's a right, but restricted. You have right, you just can't exercise it whenever you want?

I think you've backed yourself into a corner.

Osborne Russell
02-11-2013, 02:41 PM
All rights are like that.