Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[Cecilie1200]

While at some point or another, I wish we could have seceded, I have come to the conclusion that it is an extreme reaction to a solvable problem.

The rights of secession and nullification are the only things that kept the federal government in check until 1860. After that, it grew uncontrollably.

I know. But then what? What happens after we secede? The nation known as "United States" will cease to exist. Then begins the arduous process of re-unification, not only that, we will be judged by the reasons we used for rendering the USA dissolute. The South used slavery, the north well, I think Lincoln did some bad things in the name of re-unifying our nation.

Given the current state of indecision this country is in now, how do you gather enough people to attempt secession? If we cannot vote in unison for a positive influence in our White House, what makes you think secession will serve the same purpose?

Actually, reunification depends entirely on whether or not the people of the two or more resulting nations WANT to reunify. You shouldn't assume that will be the case. Furthermore, judged by whom, exactly?

And I don't think Bripat is necessarily suggesting that anyone should secede right this moment. He's simply pointing out that it was always considered to be legal and Constitutional until it became inconvenient for Lincoln and his compatriots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Ft Sumter was federal property.

2. One Union soldier was killed, and since the South opened fire, that death was murder.

3. South Carolina had no legal authorization to use force against national troops on national property.

1. Ft Sumter was CSA territory,the CSA having declared its independence from the USA.
2.He died when a cannon exploded had nothing to do with the CSA attack.
3. They had every right to attack a fort that was going to attack the city.

1, 2, 3: false. You would flunk a history exam on this in any of the normal high school and higher institutions in this country with such nonsense.

 

[National Socialist]

Well ya got me! You showed overwhelming proof there son. Idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

They fired the first shots. Guess it backfired.

The federal government was occupying South Carolina territory, and it sent ships into South Carolina waters to resupply the Fort. Both those are acts of war. Who fired the first shot is irrelevant.

Quite true. If someone tries to mug me with a knife and I shoot him with a gun, I fired the first shots, but only a leftists could say that I started the fight.

That is brilliant.

 

[thanatos144]

Fort Sumter was a union base...... You can all make excuse but the fact is the confederates attacked union soldiers continuously and started a war they lost. Whether you can secede or not is immaterial since they started the war that lost them their stupid slavery nation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why can't states secede today?

Just because some states that seceded 150 years ago started a war with the U.S.?

I'm pretty sure if circumstances called for it a state could secede anytime now.

The federal government started the war, not the Confederate states.

Whatever.

Your premise is pathetic idiocy, as ‘secession’ is indeed un-Constitutional.

Really? Can you prove that by way of actual Constitutional quotes, as opposed to self-serving judicial "interpretations"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

sigh you retards and your pipe dreams.

And we get accused of being anti-American....

Yeah, you do . . . because you are.

 

[Contumacious]

1. Ft Sumter was federal property.

2. One Union soldier was killed, and since the South opened fire, that death was murder.

3. South Carolina had no legal authorization to use force against national troops on national property.

Comrade Starkiev, the KGB did a fantastic job indoctrinating you.

I take you use Google Translate to participate in this American forum.

.

 

[National Socialist]

He has yet to show me WHERE I was wrong there...maybe someone died that only he knows about LOL....

 

[bripat9643]

Fort Sumter was a union base...... You can all make excuse but the fact is the confederates attacked union soldiers continuously and started a war they lost. Whether you can secede or not is immaterial since they started the war that lost them their stupid slavery nation.

South Caroline attacked foreign troops occupying South Carolina territory. Lincoln started the war.

The issue is not "immaterial" because you can claim South Carolina started the war only if secession was illegal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well ya got me! You showed overwhelming proof there son. Idiot.

If as is claimed, the South wished for a peaceful dissolution of the Union, then they would have negotiated in good faith on the US Federal Territory in their States. Instead South Carolina launched an attack on an antiquated fort manned by 83 Union troops, the Fort had no way to even fire on the city, its emplacements faced the sea as it was a fort meant to defend the harbor.

Further immediately after attacking Fort Sumter Virginia organized and planned an attack on Washington DC. The North barely formed an Army to move against the Virginia army.

Lincoln took NO action what so ever to call forth the Militia UNTIL the South attacked the Federal Garrison at Fort Sumter. If as claimed he was the aggressor why did he wait to do so? Why did he do nothing while the States leaving seized Federal arsenals and poorly manned forts? Why, if it was his intention from the start to go to war, did he take absolutely no action to call forth an Army?

 

[bripat9643]

sigh you retards and your pipe dreams.

And we get accused of being anti-American....

Yeah, you do . . . because you are.

They are patriotic in the same sense that the KGB was patriotic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Ft Sumter was federal property.

2. One Union soldier was killed, and since the South opened fire, that death was murder.

3. South Carolina had no legal authorization to use force against national troops on national property.

I take you use Google Translate to participate in this American forum.

I understand that since you can't interact with the facts and narrative you like dabbling in strangeness. That's OK, we are here for you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The federal government started the war, not the Confederate states.

Whatever.

Your premise is pathetic idiocy, as ‘secession’ is indeed un-Constitutional.

Really? Can you prove that by way of actual Constitutional quotes, as opposed to self-serving judicial "interpretations"?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that to join one must get approval from Congress. Yet it is clearly understood that that is in fact the law. One can assume that if to join requires an act of Congress to leave would also.

 

[thanatos144]

Fort Sumter was a union base...... You can all make excuse but the fact is the confederates attacked union soldiers continuously and started a war they lost. Whether you can secede or not is immaterial since they started the war that lost them their stupid slavery nation.

South Caroline attacked foreign troops occupying South Carolina territory. Lincoln started the war.

The issue is not "immaterial" because you can claim South Carolina started the war only if secession was illegal.

You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief.. No invasion happened... Hell if you want the truth it would be South Carolina that invaded seeing as Fort Sumter a Union base was there before the slavers threw their tantrum about the slave economy not being allowed in the new territories. Facts are not on your side. Your confederate heroes were scumbag slavers who through their own hubris started a war they couldn't win.

 

[bripat9643]

Well ya got me! You showed overwhelming proof there son. Idiot.

If as is claimed, the South wished for a peaceful dissolution of the Union, then they would have negotiated in good faith on the US Federal Territory in their States.

They did, numskull. The Southern states offered to buy all the property the federal government owned in those states. Lincoln flatly refused. Lincoln is the one who refused to negotiate.

Instead South Carolina launched an attack on an antiquated fort manned by 83 Union troops, the Fort had no way to even fire on the city, its emplacements faced the sea as it was a fort meant to defend the harbor.

Yes, it was meant to enforce the tariffs Lincoln wanted to impose on the South. That's why it was a major threat to the port of Charleston and the entire South. There was nothing "harmless" or "antiquated" about it.

Further immediately after attacking Fort Sumter Virginia organized and planned an attack on Washington DC. The North barely formed an Army to move against the Virginia army.

Lincoln took NO action what so ever to call forth the Militia UNTIL the South attacked the Federal Garrison at Fort Sumter. If as claimed he was the aggressor why did he wait to do so? Why did he do nothing while the States leaving seized Federal arsenals and poorly manned forts? Why, if it was his intention from the start to go to war, did he take absolutely no action to call forth an Army?

The history books tell a different story. Union forces invaded Virginia.

First Battle of Bull Run - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just months after the start of the war at Fort Sumter, the Northern public clamored for a march against the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, which they expected to bring an early end to the rebellion. Yielding to political pressure, Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell led his unseasoned Union Army across Bull Run against the equally inexperienced Confederate Army of Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard camped near Manassas Junction. McDowell's ambitious plan for a surprise flank attack on the Confederate left was poorly executed by his officers and men; nevertheless, the Confederates, who had been planning to attack the Union left flank, found themselves at an initial disadvantage.

Lincoln took no action because until after Fort Sumter because he had no public support for an invasion of the Southern state. He instigated the attack on Fort Sumter. That's how all tyrants of got their countries involved in wars ever since.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fort Sumter was a union base...... You can all make excuse but the fact is the confederates attacked union soldiers continuously and started a war they lost. Whether you can secede or not is immaterial since they started the war that lost them their stupid slavery nation.

South Caroline attacked foreign troops occupying South Carolina territory. Lincoln started the war.

The issue is not "immaterial" because you can claim South Carolina started the war only if secession was illegal.

South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter to the Federal Government LONG before the civil war. Using your logic Most of Washington DC belonged to Virginia. If the true intent was a peaceful separation one must ask why all the Southern States called up their militias and called for volunteers while the North did nothing? One must ask if the intent was a peaceful separation why did South Carolina not work through diplomacy to remove 83 soldiers from an antiquated fort that had no means to threaten the State.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The federal government started the war, not the Confederate states.

Whatever.

Your premise is pathetic idiocy, as ‘secession’ is indeed un-Constitutional.

You certainly haven't presented any evidence to support that contention. The Texas v. White decision was the most obviously flawed, biased and rigged Supreme Court decision ever handed down. Lincoln put the majority of the members who made the decision on the court. It's hardly plausible that they would rule that states had a right to secede. Their logic was utterly pathetic and based on the obviously false claim that Texas had been a state of the union for the 8 years prior to the decision. A state has a two senators and a number of House members to represent it in Congress. Texas had no such representation since 1861. There is no way that Texas qualified as a state of the union. Any decision based on the premise that it was is obviously false.

Only the worst kind of groveling boot-licking toady would defend the Texas v. White decision.

Thanks for unmasking yourself.

If, like CC, one makes a Constitutionality argument without ever once referencing the Constitution itself, I consider that argument to have automatically been lost, and therefore to not require any rebuttal on my part.

 

[thanatos144]

Fact is secession is a damn stupid idea. Only idiots think it wouldn't start yet another civil war. The US government will never allow it to happen. They dont even have to start the war cause as history has shown all they have to do is not trade with them or allow them trade off shore and sooner or later some fucking moron will start a war. Secession is a ignorant romantic idea that will fail. Cause if it were to become successful the USA would be destroyed and the rest of the world will easily eat up the pieces left. There is a reason they say united we stand divided we fall.

 

[BrianH]

What would your government look like if there was no power to tax? Be specific.

Having the power to tax and abusing the power to tax are two different things.

The poster said, without equivocation or qualification, taxation is theft. That is idiocy. You either agree with him, or you agree with me that he's an idiot.

Take your pick.

I didn't respond to the poster that you responded to. I responded to a question you asked that didn't address or debate the idea of taxation being theft.