Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[JakeStarkey]

OK, Conty fails constitutionally and linguistically here. His Russian is very primitive. Next?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gallup told me this week that the South is the region most proud to be American. Not sure how to reconcile that with the fact that it also seems to be the region most apt to romanticize treason.

Show me treason....I bet you morons would call the founding fathers treasonous. What a bunch of scum.

He left out "freed the slaves"....I guess we'll hear next that there were no slaves; just employees who didn't know how to negotiate.

Who brought the slaves here? What flag did those ships fly under? go ahead answer me...

Southern Plantation owners when they were part of the Union.

BEEEEEEEPPP!!!! Wrong answer caused by lazy thought performed by a substandard brain. Thanks for playing. Move along.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution is silent on the issue, but the Federalist Papers, mostly written by Madison, "The Father of the Constitutuion" state very clearly that the whole purpose of the Constitutution is "UNION". At the time these papers were written there was a political movement for three seperate unions, New England, Mid Atlantic, and South. The framers were definately opposed to that.

That's meaningless blather. The fact that you desire to form a union isn't proof that you intend to never allow anyone to leave it.

Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President.

Jefferson with his ally James Madison, the author of the United States Constitution and co-leader of the Republican Party developed their party's strategy. Jefferson drafted resolutions boldly claiming the constitutional authority of the individual states to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts not only unconstitutional but null and void.

In his original draft of what became the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson began with the unexpected proposition that the states in the union were not obligated to give blind obeisance to the federal government. He followed that initial statement with the critical constitutional premise that the union was a compact among the individual states.

Under the compact, the federal government was assigned certain explicit powers; all other government authority necessarily remained with the states. Because the constitution was derived from the compact among the states, Jefferson concluded that each state retained the right to judge for itself whether an act of Congress was unconstitutional. When an act of Congress was unconstitutional, as Jefferson believed the Alien and Sedition Acts were, redress was left for the states.

South Carolina had been trying to suceed from the union since the early 1800's. Their biggest effort (other than the civil war) was during Jackson's presidency, whereby they passed a resolution which would have nullified certain federal tarriffs, (which was the only revenue source that the Feds had in those days). Jackson, not being a timid man, sent word that he had no problem occupying the state with federal troops if necessary. South Carolina backed off. Jackson's VP, Calhoun, resigned, and got elected as a senator so that he could lead this battle for SC.

At the end of his life, someone asked Jackson if he had any regrets over his presidency. he replied. "I regret that I did not hang Calhoun".

It's interesting to note that you admire a jack-booted thug who likes to hang people. Jackson also gave the Supreme Court the middle finger when it told him he wasn't allowed to evict the Cherokee Indians from their land. Nice guy.

By the way, South Carolina didn't "back off." Both parties arrived at a compromise. The tariff was substantially reduced. Furthermore, South Carolina isn't the only state that threatened to secede. Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts all threatened to secede when Jefferson was president, and no one ever claimed they were traitors or instigating a rebellion.

Like all Yankee carpet baggers, you read history with blinders on. You read only the stuff that confirms your prejudices and ignore everything else.

It is even more interesting how you make assumptions about poster that you do not know, based on your own perceptions, which are totally incorrect. I concider Jackson to be the president who most assuredly should have been empeached for his heavy handed unconstitutional tyrany.

As for Jefferson, he was a dangerous radical, who left office in disgrace after getting the Embargo Act passed. As soon as he was on his way out, it was repealed. Jefferson, himself, considered his presidency a faiilure, and did not even discuss it in his memoirs. He did not even list his presidency on his self designed tombstone.

But don't let that stop you for you fantasy assumptions. Between that, and your offensive avatar, it defines you!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That is not secession. You people get dumber every day.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The theory that it couldn't be stopped after General Beauregard fired on Ft Sumter is also pure horse squeeze. Nothing forced Lincoln to invade Virginia. He was eager to do it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

It says it where it says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. States relinquished their right to be sovereign nations when they became part of the sovereign nation called the United States.

...one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE...

do you ever say the pledge? Do you know what you are pledging?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If the issue was "settled" then we wouldn't be here arguing about it. It's amazing how every issue that's "settled" is one the libturds fight tooth and nail to convince the public that they're version isn't bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

A divorce has to granted by a Court.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

It says it where it says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. States relinquished their right to be sovereign nations when they became part of the sovereign nation called the United States.

...one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE...

do you ever say the pledge? Do you know what you are pledging?

Francis Julius Bellamy (May 18, 1855 – August 28, 1931) was an American socialist,[1][2] minister, and author, best known for authoring the American Pledge of Allegiance.

Do YOU know what you are pledging?!!?!?!?

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Didn't say that. They did as we do now. Elected people to speak for them and they did so.

Show us where he is wrong....


In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.

Revisionist history debunked by the fact that the confederate constitution expressly admits they seceded to protect slavery.

It actually only started with Slavery....

The Confederacy's Plan to Conquer Latin America | Mental Floss

The heart of darkness in the Confederacy leadership really knew no bounds. I firmly belive that not all southerners shared such designs

People - and idiots - let's not get off track here. The topic is not slavery, nor is it how "eeeeevil" your third-grade teacher told you the South was. It is whether or not states had and/or have the legal right to secede. Last time I checked, universal approval of one's use of one's rights, or one's motivation for exercising them, is not required for those rights to exist.

 

[bripat9643]

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

What's that got to do with anything?

Per the Constitution South Carolina ceded the fort to the federal Government years before the civil war.it was not part of South Carolina.

They sold it or gave it to the federal government. It remained South Carolina territory, just as Edwards Airforce is part of California.

 

[Toro]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Actually libertarians defended the right of states to determine their own destiny....they chose to be a confederacy of states....

Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual, not the state. Not ANY state. It doesn't matter if it is the federal state, a state or province, a county, a city, or whatever legal collective you wish to define.

Slavery is the oppression and subjugation of individuals, and is a violation of all and any meaningful definitions of individual rights. Slavery is what the Confederacy was protecting. The Confederacy wanted to maintain a legal system of collective power over individuals.

And here we have so-called "libertarians" defending it.

Libertarians don't defend this. If you want to call yourself a Constitutionalist, fine. But you aren't a libertarian.

 

[bripat9643]

I dont know why dont you read the confederate constitution where it says black people will always be slaves and inferior to their confederate white people. Paraphrasing of course.

It is sad your so ignorant of history that you idolized confederates who caused the deaths of more Americans then any war fought.

Perhaps you could give us the ACTUAL quote you consider so very important, rather than wasting our time citing your perception of it. And THEN perhaps you could tell us the relevance.

Every State that left the Union STATED in the letter announcing their leaving that the REASON they left was slavery. The Confederate States Constitution or what ever they called it stated that slavery was the law of the land.

That has nothing to do with the reason Lincoln invaded. He didn't give a shit about the slaves. All he cared about was enforcing the Morrill tariff.

 

[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.

When did the seceeding states start a war? I was under the impression that a specific state, after seceeding, asked federal troops to leave the state seeing as how the state was no longer a member of the Union. The federal troops refused to leave after numerous warnings and the seceeding state wasn't bluffing when it said it would retake the Fort.

States in the Union cannot compel Federal troops to leave Federal territory, which would be anywhere in the Union – then or now.

Except that South Carolina WASN'T a "state in the Union", because it had seceded. That was sort of the point. Had South Carolina still been a state, it would not have requested that those troops leave.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When did the seceeding states start a war? I was under the impression that a specific state, after seceeding, asked federal troops to leave the state seeing as how the state was no longer a member of the Union. The federal troops refused to leave after numerous warnings and the seceeding state wasn't bluffing when it said it would retake the Fort.

Yes, indeed

The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

.

The Declaration is a one shot deal.

It's never been used in any serious way in any legislation.

Well, you know, except for the essential basis of thought underlying the Constitution which all other laws must be in accordance with.

Not that that's ever been important to the likes of you.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me get this right.... In your warped brain because a base was in South Carolina it was not a union base??????? Are you this retarded? Right now we have NO bases around the world right?

Actually, in his COMPLETELY CORRECT mind, the ownership of the territory on which a fort stands DOES have an impact on who the fort belongs to. As has been pointed out, just because the United States has military bases in other countries does not mean it is appropriate or legally justifiable for us to refuse to remove our personnel from them in the nation in question demands it. This would be viewed as an act of war against that country, and rightly so.

The property belonged to the Federal Government it was BOUGHT by them years before the war.

Yeah, and I bought property in Florida a few years ago. Does that mean it's no longer part of Florida? The federal government owns the Post Office down the street from me. Is that part of Florida? Do the laws of Florida no longer pertain once you cross over onto the Post Office property?

This is an incredibly dumb argument.

 

[Toro]

I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.

These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.

Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.

Are you and Comrade Starkiev the same person?

I know NO Libertarian who have supported those claims.

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

Yeah, slavery was on it's way out. Right.

You might have a point if those same states didn't implement an immoral and anti-liberty system called Segregation for 100 years after the Civil War.

But revisionist history is important for national and ideological mythology, so keep at it.

Had the Confederacy separated, it almost certainly would have become a North American South Africa, a weak pariah state, shamed and shunned by everyone else, and significantly poorer today.

 

[bripat9643]

the ownership of the territory on which a fort stands DOES have an impact on who the fort belongs to.

Not if the state ceded the land etc to the federal government almost fifty years earlier.

You need to study history instead of listening Glenn or whomever.

Wrong, turd. It sold the land to the federal government. The word "cede" is totally inappropriate in this context.

 

[bripat9643]

Someone must have me on ignore, someone quote me. The land was PURCHASED by the Federal Government. Long before the war.

Apparently you have your fingers in your ears because this issue was disposed of long ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1. U.S. law, prior to 1862 mentioned nothing about the legality or illegality of secession. The Constitution didn't mention it all. There were no SCOTUS rulings on it. So, under the 10th Amendment, the states had the right to secede.

2. Other than some being tried for war crimes, I don't believe that any Confederate commanders were ever charged with any crimes involving insurrection, rebellion, etc...

3. The 1869 SCOTUS decision was a farce and obviously ruled on biasly; but none-the-less the law of the land.

4. Texas Constitution: Article 1-Section 1: FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Note that Sec. 1 DOES NOT say that it is subject to the President of the United States, or to the Federal Government of the United States. It talks about the perpetuity of the Union depending up the "preservation of the right of local self-government." Seeing as how the federal government hasn't kept up it's end of the bargain I'd say the Texas Constitution gives perfect grounds for secession; espicially considering that the United States agreed to the terms in the Texas Constitution upon annexation....

5. Is it likely? No. The United States would never let Texas go without a war. Texas has the 14th largest economy in the world and is home to a TON of natural gas and oil reserves, as well as natural gas and oil refineries. If Texas wants out, it's going to have to fight it's way out. It won't only be fighting a war with the U.S., but will also be fighting a war with drug cartels to keep them from taking over...I love my state but now is not the right time to secede.

Absence of law on the issue did not de facto authorize any state to ‘secede.’

And it was never the intent of the Framers of the Tenth Amendment to ‘authorize’ secession.

Indeed, the very purpose of the Constitution was to acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal government, the laws of Congress, and decisions of Federal courts. The notion that a state or states could ‘secede’ unilaterally was anathema to the Founding Generation and the intent of the people to live as citizens of one Nation, not a collection of states.

I guess this is what one believes about the Constitution when they've never read it, or given it any thought beyond how nice and soft that parchment is when one wipes one's ass on it.