Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[Contumacious]

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.?

When South Carolina seceded In December 1860, Major Robert Anderson, a pro-slavery, former slave-owner from Kentucky, remained loyal to the Union. He was the commanding officer of United States Army forces in Charleston, South Carolina, the last remaining important Union post in the Confederacy. Acting without orders, he moved his small garrison from Fort Moultrie, which was indefensible, to the more modern, more defensible, Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston Harbor. South Carolina leaders cried betrayal, while the North celebrated with enormous excitement at this show of defiance against secessionism. In February 1861 the Confederate States of America was formed and took charge. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, ordered the fort be captured. The artillery attack was commanded by Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard, who had been Anderson's student at West Point. The attack began April 12, 1861, and continued until Anderson, badly outnumbered and outgunned, surrendered the fort on April 14. The battle began the American Civil War. No one was killed in the battle on either side, but one Union soldier was killed and one mortally wounded during a 50-gun salute."

.

 

[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.

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.



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.

[/QUOTE]

Yup we are to believe 3 Confederate armies were just hanging around the border with Washington DC. As to diplomacy, Lincoln could do nothing until Congress was seated and that had not happened. Further if the intent were peaceful separation diplomacy would not have ended with one inquiry.

The Fort had no means to attack the city. It was a harbor fort with its guns facing the sea. It had no way to stop shipping to enforce any tariff and had no such orders given. In order to enforce a tariff one need the means to force a ship to stop, be searched and then payment rendered. Fort Sumter had no way to do that and the US Navy had no way to do it either.

 

[National Socialist]

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.

Guess we should have stayed a colony of Great Britain Eh? Fucking twit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty forgot the source, so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Civil_War)

 

[thanatos144]

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.?

When South Carolina seceded In December 1860, Major Robert Anderson, a pro-slavery, former slave-owner from Kentucky, remained loyal to the Union. He was the commanding officer of United States Army forces in Charleston, South Carolina, the last remaining important Union post in the Confederacy. Acting without orders, he moved his small garrison from Fort Moultrie, which was indefensible, to the more modern, more defensible, Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston Harbor. South Carolina leaders cried betrayal, while the North celebrated with enormous excitement at this show of defiance against secessionism. In February 1861 the Confederate States of America was formed and took charge. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, ordered the fort be captured. The artillery attack was commanded by Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard, who had been Anderson's student at West Point. The attack began April 12, 1861, and continued until Anderson, badly outnumbered and outgunned, surrendered the fort on April 14. The battle began the American Civil War. No one was killed in the battle on either side, but one Union soldier was killed and one mortally wounded during a 50-gun salute."

.

no one need die to start a war.

 

[The T]

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"?

Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?

Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.

 

[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.

Guess we should have stayed a colony of Great Britain Eh? Fucking twit.

Hey dumb fuck how far way is England to us?

 

[thanatos144]

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"?

Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?

Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.

it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.

 

[BrianH]

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?

1. They negotiated for years and then seceeded. Seceeding was the last straw; not the first.

2. Doesn't matter if the fort only protected the harbor. I suppose troops on either side of the Suez Canal wouldn't be any danger to people travling through the Suez canal...

3. Prior to the Fort Sumter engagement Lincoln had sent ships with troops and arms to resupply the fort. If you're asking someone to leave your property and they get on their phone and call 10 buddies and ask them to show up; what does that tell you?

4. If states seceeded from the union, then it should be assumed that "federal arsenals" and forts were no long federal aresenals and forts but were the property of the state that seceeded. If Great Britain tells us to get the hell out of thier country and to remove our embassy's then it's their right to do so.

 

[National Socialist]

Hey dumb fuck you do realize we were at one time a colony of England right? You do realize we seceded/declared our independence and fought a war to remain free right? Who gives a fuck how far or close something is...doesn't matter.

 

[BrianH]

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

Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?

Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.

it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.

No, you can infer the right to do it from the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constituion that specifically address powers that aren't granted to the federal government, but aren't prohibited to the states....

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.​

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

It was never constitutional.

Once a state is in the Union, it is a part of the United States and cannot secede without an act of congress.

Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

 

[The T]

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.

Guess we should have stayed a colony of Great Britain Eh? Fucking twit.

Hey dumb fuck how far way is England to us?

By jet or ship?

 

[thanatos144]

Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?

Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.

it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.

No, you can infer the right to do it from the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constituion that specifically address powers that aren't granted to the federal government, but aren't prohibited to the states....

It doesn't say shit about it in the 10th.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?

Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.

it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.

No, you can infer the right to do it from the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constituion that specifically address powers that aren't granted to the federal government, but aren't prohibited to the states....

The Constitution specifies that the federal Government must ensure a republican form of Government in the States. And for ALL citizens. Unless Congress agrees to let a State leave the Union that means the federal Government must act if a State unilaterally leaves. A State is also forbidden to remove citizenship of any resident of said State.

Without approval from the Congress the Constitution requires the federal Government to protect the rights of all citizens inside its borders. And ensure all citizens have a specified form of Government.

 

[thanatos144]

Guess we should have stayed a colony of Great Britain Eh? Fucking twit.

Hey dumb fuck how far way is England to us?

By jet or ship?

it probably would be different now.....Of course also back then the UNITED colonies rebelled not just a few whiners.

 

[regent]

The whole argument proves one thing, a war had to be fought to determine the right to secede, and an attempt now to secede would only mean another war. No legal hocus pocus nor even a Supreme Court decision would solve this problem; only win or lose a war.

 

[BrianH]

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?

Is it possible that it was a political manuevering to gain support for the war? As someone else on here stated, the people of the North were glad to see the Southern states secede. Why Fort Sumter? The Southern states had taken over NUMEROUS forts and arsenals before this. Why did LIncoln choose NOT to withdrawal troops from this one? Is is possible that he wanted to provoke the South into firing in order to gain public support for a war... The U.S. has managed to continue these types of things in order to gain public support for war. U.S.S. Maine, Tonkin Gulf Incident, etc...

 

[thanatos144]

Something sick about not caring your selfish behavior would cause the death of millions of Americans

 

[numan]

Guess we should have stayed a colony of Great Britain Eh?
.

Now there is a statement of wisdom such as I seldom see on this site !!

You are so correct !!

.