Mark Lewis: The Consent of the Governed?

“Gentlemen may cry, ‘Peace, peace,’ but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and SLAVERY? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” (Patrick Henry Second Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775. emphasis mine

“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…” (American Declaration of Independence, 1776).

The “consent of the governed…” Here’s a great question: What happens if a significant amount of people are no longer available? “consent” The “government” They live under what? What are their options? What options are available to them if they have failed multiple times in free elections?

There are several counties in eastern Oregon that are currently in this very position—weary of being governed by a liberal, unresponsive Portland/Western Oregon coalition (one can hardly blame them). These eastern counties have seen large numbers vote to leave Oregon and join a more conservative Idaho. Let them go! Consent of the governed. Unfortunately, it’s not so simple.

At least 11 counties in eastern Oregon have expressed this desire. Reps. Judy Boyle (Idaho state) and Barbara Erhardt (Idaho state), sponsored a resolution inviting Oregon’s legislature to join the Idaho Legislature in discussing the possibility that these counties could become part of Idaho. Boyle stated. “For quite a few years now, eastern Oregon has been quite unhappy with their state—Portland seems to run everything there—and they have been asking for quite some time if they could move the border and become part of Idaho.” That’s it. Consent of the governed? Well, regardless, such a move in Oregon doesn’t appear to be imminent. It would require both states to accept it and Congress to approve. Don’t hold your breath.

“But this gets back to my earlier question: what happens if—how many?—people no longer “consent” What about their government? The American colonists—George Washington, et al—no longer wanted to be governed by England. They seceded. After Mexico had abolished slavery a few decades earlier, the Texans rebelled and formed their own country in 1836. They then seceded form their legal government. And then came the big one. Eleven Southern (slaved) states decided they no longer wanted to be governed Washington, D.C. They seceded too. Are there two good things and one bad thing?

Each of these “secessions” It led to war. The American colonists overthrew the British and established America. The Texans conquered Mexico, and they became an independent country. They joined the American Union in 1845. However, the war was lost by the southern states.

So, hmm. So, hmm. “consent of the governed” If you win the subsequent war for secession, it only means that you can govern yourself. Please, I’m not defending the southern states here—or any secessionist movement—I’m just stating the historical facts. A significant number—apparently the majority of the people of the 11 southern states—no longer wished to be part of the United States. They no longer “consented” To that government. They wanted to create their own government and they were able to do so.

They lost the war.

“Yes, but it wasn’t moral secession!” They had slavery!” So did ALL of the American colonies (at first). Texas. And Texas. This, along with the fact that the winners get the history written and interpreted the way they want.

The Patrick Henry quote, which I introduced this article with, indicates his opposition to “peace” being “purchased at the price of chains and slavery.” The “slavery” He was not referring to one person owning another. But a government that forced its citizens to submit to a system they didn’t freely agree to. Henry said that for the Americans to continue to be subject to British rule without their consent was slavery. Well, isn’t that actually what slavery is? Forcing obedience? No freedom to choose your way? Isn’t this why we condemn the CCP and tyrannies? To America’s founders, this was “slavery” Of a different but equal sort.

Oregon and Idaho, rejoice! The eastern Oregonians don’t want to be governed from Portland anymore, they are not willing to submit to that government and would like to seize Idaho. What does it mean? “consent of the governed” mean?

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better.  This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.  Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it.  Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.  More than that, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority…who may oppose their movement…”  A minority like the Loyalists in the American Revolution, the author went on to say.  

Interesting quote. It’s interesting.

Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848.

Don’t miss out on some good American reading from the good ol’ days.  My western novels Whitewater  River Bend, They are also available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Eliva.com.   Another western Allie’s Dilemma, available only for Kindle   You can also read other posts on my blog. thailandlewis.blogspot.com.