Many Americans forget the role that states played during the American Revolution and in the formative years of the United States. And many North Carolinians forget the valuable role that our state played in that war and in constitutional thought. This memory loss has contributed greatly to chipping away at the federalist foundation of the American form of government.

We have an opportunity to revisit a crucial chapter of that history Tuesday, when North Carolina commemorates the 235th anniversary of the Halifax Resolves. With the adoption of the Resolves, North Carolina became the first colony to declare independence from the crown, nearly three months before the Continental Congress announced the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. The General Assembly will mark the anniversary by holding session in the Capitol Building.

Definitions are important for a proper historical understanding of the founding era. Let’s consider the Declaration of Independence — the 29 grievances against King George III listed by the American colonies. The words “State” or “States” are mentioned throughout, and the “united States of America” complained about the monarch’s abuse of power. The capitalization of states is important. Americans meant something different when using the word state then than they do nowadays.

Today, states act more like functionaries of the national government, and state legislatures fear losing national money and therefore implement national programs that legislators might otherwise reject. When the Founders used “State” in 1776 and in 1789, a state possessed more sovereignty that it does now, and it was more on par with England and France than with its counterparts such as Yorkshire in England or Brittany in France.

Americans also use “Congress” differently now, too. In the late 1700s, the word was understood to mean a meeting of delegates from sovereign states who voted on matters. This understanding derived from The Congress of Westphalia (1648), in which delegates from various sovereigns voted on a peace treaty and its provisions and thereby ended the Thirty Years War and the Eighty Years War in Europe.

I hear federalism (or states’ rights) mentioned now on radio and television talk shows more than I’ve heard in some time. That’s good. But in an age when even conservatives have adopted a modern, political mind-set and believe all answers originate in Washington, D.C., history needs to be taught now — maybe more than ever. Because as the prolific, conservative political thinker Russell Kirk reminds readers in his The Conservative Constitution, all political terms have a history, and even good statesmen can commit egregious errors if they are ignorant of those histories.

The Declaration of Independence is an important document, to be sure. But Americans view it many times with an anachronistic lens that distorts the past and obscures the documents’ federalist underpinnings. Americans, many of them at least, are unaware that many states basically had declared their independence from Great Britain before the colonies did collectively. In North Carolina, The Fourth Provincial Congress empowered delegates to vote for independence with delegates from other states. Virginia, to name another example, acted similarly a couple months later.

It was a great concern for North Carolinians, and colonists elsewhere, to know that their state approved such an action, and many would never have approved the Declaration of Independence without the Halifax Resolves adoption.

The last paragraph of the Halifax Resolves reads: “Resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, reserving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof) to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out.”

The Declaration of Independence was not written in a top-down approach in which national leaders had an idea, expressed it, and state leaders followed suit. It was an approach that came from the bottom-up — from the colonies, from the states.

First, there was the Halifax Resolves. Then there was the Declaration of Independence.

Originally published in CarolinaJournal.com – reposted here with permission of the author.

Troy Kickler [send him email] has been Director of the North Carolina History Project since August 2005. He holds an M.S. in Social Studies Education from North Carolina A&T State University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Tennessee. His specialty areas are nineteenth-century U.S., Civil War and Reconstruction, African American, and religious history.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one to dissolve the political bonds which have connected him with his government, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to the separation.

I 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 to these ends, it is one’s right to alter or to abolish one’s allegiance, in the hopes of instituting a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown 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 the right of the individual, it is his duty, to oppose such government, and to do what’s necessary to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of citizens of these United states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of most recent past and present presidents and legislators of the United States of America is a history of repeated civil rights violations, constitutional travesties, usurpations of state’s rights, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute political control over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

The unconstitutional regulation by at least one federal agency, office, commission, bureau, or department of all goods and services traded domestically and internationally.

Establishment, in direct violation of the constitution, of a privately governed central bank whose sole purpose is to manipulate the monetary markets and which is not subject to public scrutiny and whose actions undermine the value of the American dollar to the detriment of the welfare of these United states.

Unconstitutional invasion, overthrow and occupation of sovereign foreign countries which pose no threat to the security of these United states based on political ideology to the detriment of the foreign nation and the welfare of the citizens of these United states.

Unconstitutional presence in allied foreign countries which pose no threat to the security of these United states and which levies unconscionable debt on the current and future citizens of these United states.

The implementation of an electoral system intended to marginalize third parties thereby limiting the choices presented to the electorate and giving an unfair advantage to the incumbents and leading to one party and/or one family or members of previous administrations also holding high-ranking offices in successive administrations, effectively creating an unconstitutional monarchy.

Unconstitutional manipulation of the tax laws to serve political agendas to the detriment of the welfare of these United states.

Unconstitutional alliances with special interests and big businesses to the detriment of the welfare of these United states.

Severe unconstitutional civil rights violations to include:

Restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Restrictions on our rights to bear arms.

Restrictions of use of private property.

Unconstitutional wire tapping on the citizens of these United states.

Torture.

Suspension of habeas corpus.

Furthermore, the consistently irresponsible behavior on the part of the elected congress in passing, without fully reading or understanding, legislation which violates the civil rights of these United states and levies unconscionable debt on the current and future citizens of these United states.

The impractical and logistically impossible size of the federal government makes it, by definition, an inefficient leviathan to the detriment of the welfare of these United states.

In every stage of these digressions citizens of these United states have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A president or legislator, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

I, therefore, a citizen of the United states of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority given to me by nature and the constitution of these United states, solemnly publish and declare, that I am, and of right ought to be free and independent from the federal government; that I am absolved from all allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between myself and the federal government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a free and independent citizen of these United states, I have full power to bear arms and defend myself against the federal government, conclude peace with the federal government, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent citizens may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the human spirit and the American spirit, I pledge to these United states my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.

Don Cooper [send him mail] is an economist living and working in Atlanta, Georgia.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Note: The following letter was found left behind at a local drinking establishment; the authors’ identity is unknown. It is passed along without comment.

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…” ~ Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies, 1776

Dear Federal Government,

Drop dead.

Excuse us. Some may consider such bluntness to be indecorous, but why beat around the bush? In any case, we’ve been around this bush (Bush?) too many times to count already. It’s time to let you know what we really think of you, what we say behind your back, what we whisper to each other when you leave the room.

We hate you. We want you to drop dead. Or, anyway, to go away and never come back. You are not welcome anymore. We have tolerated you – and we emphasize “tolerated” – for a long time, long after whatever romance there may have been was gone. We can pretend no more. You are disgraceful, boorish, nauseating, corrupt, shameful, arrogant, dishonest, self-serving, parasitic, disgusting, hypocritical, and rotten to the core. You have not even one redeeming quality. There is nothing you offer that we want any longer. We’re not even sure what it is we ever saw in you to begin with.

We suppose you can be forgiven if this letter comes as a shock. “Why,” you say, “what do you mean? I still command great respect and inspire widespread adulation. And I still care about you. Isn’t it obvious?”

It’s true that, in public, we often nod our heads and agree with you, even defer or appear to defer to you. But we assure you that this happens not out of respect; rather, it arises merely from the fact that you have a lot of guns and a bad temper. Inside, we are seething and resentful. Inside, we imagine your demise in the most vivid and gratifying of ways. We may fear your irrational and violent behavior, but we manifestly do not respect or agree with you. We don’t love you. We don’t even like you. (See the part about hate, above.)

At any rate, our revulsion toward you has finally come to outweigh any fear we have of you. We refuse to keep our real feelings in for even one more second. We want you gone from our lives. And we mean completely. Vamoose. Go. Die.

Please understand we aren’t here to argue. No special new subsidy, tax break, or privileged “loophole” is going to sway our opinion or make us change our minds about this. We’ve been there, done that, for too many decades to count now. Likewise, your threats are starting to make us yawn and even laugh. You see, we know all your tricks now. We can see through your lies because we’ve heard them all so many times before. We are fully aware of your true nature, and we see that that nature is radioactive evil, wrapped in a tattered blanket of ignorance, foolishness, and stupidity.

Look, we know it’s only a matter of time anyway. Your dimwittedness, greed, fraudulence, and moral bankruptcy are finally starting to catch up to you. Even your former employees admit as much. Do you remember Paul Craig Roberts, one of your past Treasury officials? Today he says of your latest economy-wrecking and warmongering efforts:

“The world has never seen such total mindlessness. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s marches into Russia were rational acts compared to the mindless idiocy of the United States government.”

Mindless idiocy: We could not have said it better ourselves. Wait, yes, we could have, because we would have also mentioned your meanness and malevolence.

Our state governments are starting to feel the same way about you that we do. Many are openly refusing to obey your so-called “REAL ID” attempt at creating a national “your papers, please” regime of Hitlerian proportions. Some are even starting to make noises about the Tenth Amendment, which reiterates that you aren’t allowed to just do anything you feel like doing. (We are not big fans of our state governments either, but at least they don’t start wars, counterfeit our money, and prop up tyrannies across the globe.)

You see? Look in the mirror for once. The emperor not only hasn’t got any clothes, he’s a quadruple amputee demanding that everyone admire his muscular physique. We don’t know whether to laugh at or feel pity for such a pathetic creature.

In conclusion and just so we’re clear: We’re done. Pack up and get out. Better yet, don’t pack – all that stuff belongs to us in the first place. Just get out. And when you finally, mercifully, do kick the bucket, please make sure it is in some place far away from us, where we won’t have to smell the stench of your hideous, rotting corpse.

Signed,

Every Normal Human Being in America and the Rest of the World

David Bardallis [send him mail] hails from the Glorious Sovereign Republic of Michigan (motto: “Never forget we have all the water!”) and blogs at Suds & Soliloquies.

Copyright © 2009 LewRockwell.com

A defining – but so far unasked – question regarding the Civil War is the political status of the states: specifically, was the “United States of America” indeed, as our popular Pledge of Allegiance claims, “one nation, indivisible?” Or was it, rather, a union of sovereign nations, bound only to each other by mere treaty, as with any other treaty – such as the current United Nations? (As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time).

This question seems to be the proverbial “elephant in the room” of American law and history, for its answer is key in defining a state’s right of secession: this question marks the difference between, for example, Boston seceding from Massachusetts, and Spain seceding from the United Nations. While in the first instance, few would question the legal right of state officials to use force in preventing local urban inhabitants from seceding with a state’s city, such an exercise against a sovereign nation in the latter example would be (hopefully) viewed as nothing short of ruthless imperialism equivalent to that of Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan.

As such, similar implications accrue to United States President Abraham Lincoln from this question, in appraising him as either an upholder of law or a dictator, regarding his particular instance in history of using military force. If on the one hand, the states were held – by law – irrevocably to the Union, then Lincoln would have simply been performing his sworn duty as necessary under extreme conditions, and his defenders might have firm ground in excusing his having “bent a few rules” to get the job done.

If, however, the states were indeed separate nations, then this would define Lincoln as both the ultimate traitor, and most ruthless imperialist of his time, via breaching his oaths to defend the existing order of a self-defined republic of separate nations in order to overturn it in favor of what fits the official definition of an “empire;” likewise, his defenders and supporters would likewise classify as both similarly ruthless power-seekers, and what Lenin termed “useful idiots.”

To resolve this dichotomy, we must examine the relevant facts:

Lincoln claimed in his famous First Inaugural Address that “no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.” He could only have been referring to “the Union” as set forth in the Constitution; for, prior to this, there can be no disputing the fact that the states were free and sovereign nations – as established in the Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Here the term “delegated” requires contextual definition, meaning literally “to make lesser law;” when powers are “delegated,” they are merely passed down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior principal authority, in order to provide that agent with representative “proxy” authority to carry out respective duties. In no way may does this delegated authority ever supersede or negate that of the delegating body – any more than a company employee who is delegated authority by his manager, can give orders to the firm’s owner, or override the dictates of such. Rather, such a representative can be overridden at any time at the behest of the superior – or discharged entirely.

As such, a “delegation” clause cannot be seen as a compromise or surrender of sovereignty in any way.

Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:

“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 do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do” (emphasis in original).

(Note that the term “state” used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term “nation” for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term “United States” literally meant “United Nations.”)

Lincoln and his defenders, then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution (or, as Lincoln added in his First Inaugural, “the union matured”). However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated, i.e.,

“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” (emphasis added).

In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.

Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Since the term “others” as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them).

Here the term “the people” must likewise be defined, with this term referring to the same “people” referenced initially in the Constitution’s preamble – and which, as has been well-established elsewhere, did not refer to all persons in the United States collectively; rather, the term “the people” refers solely to the citizens of the states individually and respectively, speaking through their elected officials – and even then, only those states ratifying the Constitution at the time.

This is further implied in the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 2, statement that:

“The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Clearly, separate reference to “citizens of each state,” as opposed to “citizens in the several states,” clarifies that citizenship was strictly state-specific and derived, and not union-related in any way whatsoever: in fact, the term “Citizen of the United States” was never known prior to the passage of the 14th amendment following the Civil War – being a pure post-Lincoln invention – , and would have no more meaning prior to that war, than “Citizen of the United Nations” in today’s context to imply similar supremacy.

As such, it is clear that the Ninth Amendment implicitly reserved the right of every state, to the same sovereignty, freedom and independence which existed previously, i.e., no less than that of any other nation in the world.

Finally, even when admitting all of the above, anti-secessionists almost unanimously claim their proverbial “trump-card” in the Constitution’s so-called “Supremacy clause” of U.S. Constitution Article VI, which states that:

“This Constitution… shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding.”

The level of absurdity in declaring any sort of logical victory, based on such an obviously flawed argument is astounding; for here the explicit language regarding this “Supreme Law” clearly, specifically and unmistakably states – in plain English, no less – that this “law” is binding on “the judges in every state – ” and only the judges.

In contrast, the remainder of the Article omits all other officials from any such bond, using very different language in describing its relation to them; to wit:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Any person literate in the English language – not to mention the language of law and logic – should be able to recognize that such explicitly omissive and separate treatment, translates to the fact that the Constitution does not claim any legal binding effect whatsoever, on anyone but state judges; rather, such language merely implies recognition of the Constitution by officials as a mere mutual good-faith agreement. It is simply absurd, after all, to claim that the phrase “state judges shall be bound by law, while all others shall be bound merely by a promise or agreement to support the law,” somehow translates to the notion that “all officials are bound by law – ” particularly when the final clause specifically precludes any religious test from implying the term “oath or affirmation” as binding via any common “higher law,” such as an oath specifically to God, Allah or the Buddha – even allowing religions for which oath or affirmation has no higher context.

As such, the implication here is that the Constitution is a mere treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states – a treaty which state officials simply agree to “support,” as opposed to being bound to obey such as a law, under penalty of such. Rather, this treaty is written as merely a bi-lateral agreement, with each side bound solely by its own conscience and good reputation – and as such, may be thus dispensed with entirely, if either side believes a breach of faith has been committed by the other.

To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.

With the Constitution thus expressing nothing contrary to individual states retaining their status as sovereign nations, Lincoln found it thus necessary to invent such, claiming in his First Inaugural Address that “Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.”

Here Lincoln commits a pure logical fallacy – if not an outright deception – via switching context and assuming, outright, that the Constitution defines a “national government.” This assumption is not only supported nowhere in the Constitution or prior documents, but in fact his statement “implied if not expressed” specifically contradicts Ninth and Tenth Amendment reservations that all un-expressed rights and powers – including those of state sovereignty, freedom and independence – were retained by the states; even expressed powers of the United States were likewise mere delegations of state authority – thus implying their status as separate sovereign nations.

In conclusion, I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand, against all believed likelihood of success; perhaps such persons believe Lincoln’s claim – which he makes in his First Inaugural Address once again – that “All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties [sic] and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them” (emphasis added).

In like manner, I cannot answer how any rational or thinking person can be so naive, as to actually believe that any laws or order can be made so perfect as to preclude any incidence whatsoever of government breaches or excesses – to the extent of such “never arising” – so that the supreme protection of national sovereignty was no longer considered necessary or even desirable to the people of any state in the Union. Rather, I can only prove that such supreme national sovereignty was established and recognized by law for each and every state – and that no law or document that surrendered or compromised it in any manner whatsoever, was ever passed or ratified by them.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Those few words, from the Declaration of Independence, are as close as one might find to be the sum total of the principle of liberty. 

Your rights are yours.  They are yours by your nature, and you are entitled to exercise them. Governments exist only to protect those rights.  And that is the only reason they exist.

Your rights come from your “Creator” – whether you determine that to be God, your god, your parents, some speckles of dust, or whatever that may be.  But your rights are not – in any way whatsoever – a gift from politicians.

That’s just the point that Chuck makes recently on his “tcoverride” blog.  Here’s an excerpt:

Rights, all rights, belong to me, they are neither granted nor given, they are mine, not yours, and the gummint has absolutely no right to think they can take away or even limit those rights.

Chuck’s absolutely right – about rights, that is.  He continues:

There is simply no right guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution guarantees that the government, be it the President, Congress, or even the “Justices for Life” in the supreme court can’t encroach upon, infringe upon, or otherwise limit my rights.

Again, right on the mark.  The Constitution doesn’t give Chuck any rights, it doesn’t give you any rights.  In fact, the Constitution doesn’t apply to people at all.

The Constitution applies to the government.  Its sole purpose was to spell out what the government can do.

The key principle of the Constitution is quite simple: positive grant. Unfortunately, this is not a phrase that many of us hear in daily banter these days. But, it’s not a complicated principle at all.

What it means is this – the US federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Period.  End of story.

The founders felt so strongly about this principle that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment:

“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.”

Just a casual review of the activities of the federal government would make clear that there’s very little that it does which is actually authorized by the Constitution.

For many, many years, we’ve allowed our politicians to interpret and bend the rules of the Constitution; ostensibly for good reasons. But, we have to face reality. When you allow politicians to do this over long periods, eventually you end up with leaders who feel that the law doesn’t apply at all.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

If we are to have a free society for the future, we must reign in this out-of-control federal government, and return to our Constitution.

Until then, kudos to Chuck, and everyone else still standing up for their rights…