Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[BrianH]

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.

WTF? Read the 10th Amendment again. Now tell me how it doesn't apply to this issue considering "secession" is not a power granted to the federal government (In the Constitution) and it's not a power prohibited to the states. The 10th Amendment doesn't say jack crap about traffic laws, education, etc... Which allows states to control and regulate these types of things via powers reserved by the 10th Amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

Yes and before 1860 denying the vote to women was considered Constitutional
And before 1860 owning another human being was considered Constitutional
And before 1860 a president serving 16 straight terms in office was considered Constitutional

Except that every one of THOSE things became Unconstitutional by the passage of Constitutional Amendments prohibiting them. Where's the one prohibiting secession?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article IV | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

I was wrong the Constitution does say how to admit other States. But this section clearly requires the federal Government to act even if State legislatures vote otherwise.

Also in this section....

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Congress not the President is task with what to do with Federal property. Lincoln could not negotiate with the Southern States on Federal property that had been CEDED to it LONG before the Civil War. Fort Sumter was by law and fact Federal property.

The Congress had not been seated which meant Lincoln could not negotiate the fate of Fort Sumter.

 

[numan]

Of course also back then the UNITED colonies rebelled not just a few whiners.

Hardly united. At no point were more than a third of the colonists taken in by the self-serving propaganda of the Insurrectionists.

If only they had been just whiners!! Unfortunately, they were a well organized cabal of terrorists who were determined to seize power for themselves from the legitimate government. These wicked scoundrels spread murder and social chaos thoughout what had been a peaceful, orderly society.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That agreement ends when they secede. Furthermore, there was no law against secession, so your argument is void.

lol, that's like saying if I declare I've seceded from my township, I no longer have to pay town taxes.

It's a ridiculous circular argument you're making.

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

You actually can. It's not at all uncommon for areas incorporated in one township to leave and form their own township when their population and tax base reaches a certain level. And as far as I know, no wars are fought over it.

 

[Agit8r]

Oh, wow. The Klonfederates are still kicking this crap around

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- James Madison; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right, it was "settled" with an iron fist, not with reason.

All you've said is that might makes right - the logic of the schoolyard bully and the dictator.

Despite your attempts at revisionist history, the South shot first. They started it, the North ended it.

Lincoln committed the first act of war. He refused to vacate the territory of South Carolina and he sent federal ships into the territorial waters of South Carolina. Who fired the first shot is immaterial. Germany claimed that Poland fired the first shot before it invaded. Only imbeciles are fooled by such maneuvers.

I'm sure when they fired on Fort Sumpter, those were "reasonable" cannon balls being fired.

I'm sure you're a moron.

You're a professional dumbass.

The United States has many military bases overseas in other countries at the moment. Every single one of them is considered US territory and property. If one of those countries - Japan, for example - decided that it hated the United States and demanded that we remove our personnel and equipment and vacate the bases in their country, and Obama said, "Fuck you, they're ours" and sent ships and planes to resupply them, and Japan subsequently fired on those bases, who would you say started that war?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Has bripat refuted the fact that Amendments can be added to the constitution yet?

We are a nation of laws bripat. If you want something changed, you do so following a legal process. You tinpot generals want to just fire your M-14's. Buy a clue tard

Have YOU refuted the fact that there is no Amendment outlawing secession yet?

We are a nation of laws, Dot Brain. If you want something changed, you do so following a legal process. You tinpot historians want to just applaud Lincoln for firing his cannons. Buy a clue, tard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Despite your attempts at revisionist history, the South shot first. They started it, the North ended it.

Lincoln committed the first act of war. He refused to vacate the territory of South Carolina and he sent federal ships into the territorial waters of South Carolina. Who fired the first shot is immaterial. Germany claimed that Poland fired the first shot before it invaded. Only imbeciles are fooled by such maneuvers.



I'm sure you're a moron.

You're a professional dumbass.

The United States has many military bases overseas in other countries at the moment. Every single one of them is considered US territory and property. If one of those countries - Japan, for example - decided that it hated the United States and demanded that we remove our personnel and equipment and vacate the bases in their country, and Obama said, "Fuck you, they're ours" and sent ships and planes to resupply them, and Japan subsequently fired on those bases, who would you say started that war?

The base was not in a foreign Country. South Carolina FREELY ceded the fort to the Federal Government years before the civil war. Further Congress not the President decide what to do about Federal property. Lincoln had no power to abandon the fort. And the only Federal property that the South got was seized by force. The only forts they got were either unmanned or so poorly manned they could not resist the force brought to bear to seize them.

Article IV is clear, if congress is not seated the President must use force to protect the States in the Union. Only Congress can declare a State not in the Union, not the State. Article IV states that the Government must act to ensure a republican form of Government and that all rights and privileges of citizens are protected.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

HUH?


for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in [143 U.S. 135, 160] which that word is used in the constitution of the United States."



Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer - 143 U.S. 135 (1892)

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

.

HUH?


for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in [143 U.S. 135, 160] which that word is used in the constitution of the United States."

.

Only until 1808. And that says a State may grant citizenship NOT revoke it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The United States has many military bases overseas in other countries at the moment. Every single one of them is considered US territory and property. If one of those countries - Japan, for example - decided that it hated the United States and demanded that we remove our personnel and equipment and vacate the bases in their country, and Obama said, "Fuck you, they're ours" and sent ships and planes to resupply them, and Japan subsequently fired on those bases, who would you say started that war?

I have been waiting for this derivative failure of analogy.

The southern states did not have the right to secede, did not have the right to form their own country, and did not have the right to attack federal property or troops.

What are you thinking?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The question (the many questions involved, in fact) has been settled for a long time now. Move on.

Amazingly enough, "We decided to believe this" does not equal "settled".

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't see him lamenting over Indians, Africans or basically anyone that had to submit to the heel of America.

But Confederates?

"Don't cry for me Argentina!"

According to you and your ilk the American military determined the justness of our treatment of those groups. "Might makes right," eh retard?

It kinda does, "retard".

You don't win wars by being weak.

So you're basically saying that Hitler and the Nazis were right while they were winning and kicking the crap out of everyone in Europe, and they only became wrong when they lost?

And YOU are calling someone ELSE a retard?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article 1 Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Article II section 9

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The Federal Government assumed all legal rights to grant citizenship and oif course to revoke it. AT no time since 1808 has a State had the right to grant citizenship for the USA. And they never had the authority to revoke US Citizenship.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then the confederate states shouldn't have started the civil war.

Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

You're just a boot-licking Lincoln worshiping moron.

No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

The first lesson to learn about history is that no event is completely encapsulated or happens in a vacuum. Thus, only a fool or a child thinks the War for Southern Independence "started" with the shots fired at Fort Sumter, as though there was nothing leading up to it and it all simply popped into existence out of nothing.

So certainly SOMEONE needs to learn some history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question (the many questions involved, in fact) has been settled for a long time now. Move on.

Amazingly enough, "We decided to believe this" does not equal "settled".

Amazingly, "we don't like this" by a very few whiners does not mean the issue "is not settled."

We are humoring the whiners, although it is settled. For a long, long time, whiners.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

You're just a boot-licking Lincoln worshiping moron.

No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

The first lesson to learn about history is that no event is completely encapsulated or happens in a vacuum. Thus, only a fool or a child thinks the War for Southern Independence "started" with the shots fired at Fort Sumter, as though there was nothing leading up to it and it all simply popped into existence out of nothing.

So certainly SOMEONE needs to learn some history.

Lincoln did nothing before Sumter, he was waiting for Congress to be seated. he only called forth the Militia once the South instigated armed rebellion at Fort Sumter. If the Northern States did not believe he was correct they could have refused to call up their militias.

 

[Contumacious]

The United States has many military bases overseas in other countries at the moment. Every single one of them is considered US territory and property. If one of those countries - Japan, for example - decided that it hated the United States and demanded that we remove our personnel and equipment and vacate the bases in their country, and Obama said, "Fuck you, they're ours" and sent ships and planes to resupply them, and Japan subsequently fired on those bases, who would you say started that war?

I have been waiting for this derivative failure of analogy.

The southern states did not have the right to secede, did not have the right to form their own country, and did not have the right to attack federal property or troops.

What are you thinking?

Comrade Starkiev, what are you going to do when your wife finally demands a divorce?

I take it that you will beat the crap out her.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

Occupying Fort Sumter was an act of war. Attempting to resupply it was another act of war. All you lying Lincoln cult members are trying desperately to ignore those facts. That shows you know the truth of the matter. You just don't give a fuck about the truth.

Jesus what the fuck did they teach you in history???? Sumter was always a union base.

What's that got to do with anything?