Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[Sallow]

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that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.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.

 

[JoeB131]

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

]

then they realized what a stupid idea that was and stomped down on those who tried it.

Good job, everyone.

Just a pity we didn't execute the leaders of the Confederacy like a Nuremburg Trial...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea advanced in the OP, i.e., that there was some sort of broad consensus in 1860 agreeing to the constitutionality of secession,

is simply another rightwing myth along with all of their other concoctions that serve opiates to soothe the rightwing mind.

We can start with the 'dissenting' opinion of the President himself at that time,

Abraham Lincoln. His argument against the constitutionality of secession can be found, for example, in his first inaugural address. From it:

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.

It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

...in other words, he is saying that since the Constitution contains no provision for any break up of the Union, the Union can't be broken up constitutionally.

He goes on to say:

If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

In other words, even if the Union is just a contract among the individual states, as a contract it can't be voided without agreement among all the parties in the contract.

Anything less is a breach of contract. Seems quite obvious to me.

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Both claims are obviously false. Any party to a contract can break it at any time. Of course, most contracts have penalty clauses, but there are no such clauses in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from passing laws in conflict with federal law. No state could secede without violating the Supremacy clause.

Furthermore, residents of any individual state are for the most part also citizens of the United States, and that citizenship comes with certain rights, privileges, and protections of the federal government.

No state has the right to deny US citizens those rights, etc. Secession would do so.

 

[Sallow]

The idea advanced in the OP, i.e., that there was some sort of broad consensus in 1860 agreeing to the constitutionality of secession,

is simply another rightwing myth along with all of their other concoctions that serve opiates to soothe the rightwing mind.

We can start with the 'dissenting' opinion of the President himself at that time,

Abraham Lincoln. His argument against the constitutionality of secession can be found, for example, in his first inaugural address. From it:

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.

It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

...in other words, he is saying that since the Constitution contains no provision for any break up of the Union, the Union can't be broken up constitutionally.

He goes on to say:

If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

In other words, even if the Union is just a contract among the individual states, as a contract it can't be voided without agreement among all the parties in the contract.

Anything less is a breach of contract. Seems quite obvious to me.

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Both claims are obviously false. Any party to a contract can break it at any time. Of course, most contracts have penalty clauses, but there are no such clauses in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from passing laws in conflict with federal law. No state could secede without violating the Supremacy clause.

Furthermore, residents of any individual state are for the most part also citizens of the United States, and that citizenship comes with certain rights, privileges, and protections of the federal government.

No state has the right to deny US citizens those rights, etc. Secession would do so.

The Constitution strictly prohibits states from doing what they did during the Civil War.

This has been pointed out to the OP, before.

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.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lincoln also made this brilliant point (especially brilliant since I've made it many times before I knew Lincoln said essentially the same thing lol)

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.

A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.

Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

In other words, if the minority can overrule the majority simply by secession, where is the end?

If a state can summarily and abruptly leave the Union when it's unhappy, asserting the right of secession,

couldn't a county leave a state, asserting the same right?

Couldn't a township leave a county then on the same grounds?

Couldn't then an individual secede from the township and become a sovereign state of One, accountable only to his own individual set of laws, whatever they might be?

Where in that sequence do any of the various levels of government retain the right to say No,

secession is not an option?

Once secession is legitimized as a legal exercise, who gets to draw the line against it somewhere before Chaos and Anarchy are reached?

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

 

[squeeze berry]

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 states that seceded invaded the states that stayed in the union?

They fired the first shots. Guess it backfired.

why did Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas secede?

 

[squeeze berry]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

the constitution made no provisions for gun grabbing either

 

[squeeze berry]

Lincoln also made this brilliant point (especially brilliant since I've made it many times before I knew Lincoln said essentially the same thing lol)

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.

A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.

Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

In other words, if the minority can overrule the majority simply by secession, where is the end?

If a state can summarily and abruptly leave the Union when it's unhappy, asserting the right of secession,

couldn't a county leave a state, asserting the same right?

Couldn't a township leave a county then on the same grounds?

Couldn't then an individual secede from the township and become a sovereign state of One, accountable only to his own individual set of laws, whatever they might be?

Where in that sequence do any of the various levels of government retain the right to say No,

secession is not an option?

Once secession is legitimized as a legal exercise, who gets to draw the line against it somewhere before Chaos and Anarchy are reached?

big brother

 

[squeeze berry]

Both claims are obviously false. Any party to a contract can break it at any time. Of course, most contracts have penalty clauses, but there are no such clauses in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from passing laws in conflict with federal law. No state could secede without violating the Supremacy clause.

Furthermore, residents of any individual state are for the most part also citizens of the United States, and that citizenship comes with certain rights, privileges, and protections of the federal government.

No state has the right to deny US citizens those rights, etc. Secession would do so.

The Constitution strictly prohibits states from doing what they did during the Civil War.

This has been pointed out to the OP, before.

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.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

show us the secession clause

btw, once a state secedes, they are not under the influence of congress

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

the constitution made no provisions for gun grabbing either

And?

 

[squeeze berry]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

the constitution made no provisions for gun grabbing either

And?

just playing by your rules

 

[editec]

Yes, I believe that there were many Northerners (some of them editors of newspapers) who believed in the idea that states could secede.

Of course that may or may not mean they are correct.

During the creation of the union the terms most frequently used to describe that union was everlasting and forever.

No mention of the path to state secession is noted in Constitution which leads me to think that the idea of any state leaving the Union was not even considered

 

[J.E.D]

The only chance we had after Lincoln pretty much made himself dictator was when the south seceded,we lost the battle and are an occupied nation....one day I hope we will kick the occupying army out and declare our independence once again and final.

Then why don't you stand up and fight the occupying army like a man instead of whining about it on the interwebz, you fucking pussified man-child?

Why are all libturds fucking jackasses like you?

Fuck you, pussy. You don't like the union? Get the fuck out of here then. Go someplace else where you won't be so offended that slave owners got their asses kicked. Or do something about it if you have the balls. Start your trailer park revolution. I'll be kicking back in the comfort of my home watching your dumb ass on the news getting a mudhole stomped in you by the National Guard. You unAmerican piece of shit.

 

[National Socialist]

The only chance we had after Lincoln pretty much made himself dictator was when the south seceded,we lost the battle and are an occupied nation....one day I hope we will kick the occupying army out and declare our independence once again and final.

Then why don't you stand up and fight the occupying army like a man instead of whining about it on the interwebz, you fucking pussified man-child?

This coming from an idiot who can't manage a response without insulting anyone or everyone...The day is coming son it's coming...now run along suckle on mommy's tit.

The only chance we had after Lincoln pretty much made himself dictator was when the south seceded,we lost the battle and are an occupied nation....one day I hope we will kick the occupying army out and declare our independence once again and final.

Then why don't you stand up and fight the occupying army like a man instead of whining about it on the interwebz, you fucking pussified man-child?

Why are all libturds fucking jackasses like you?

Because he is an overgrown child.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. All you pathetic shit for brains rightwingnut turds that want to secede, go to Somalia. No laws, lots of guns, and they would welcome whatever money you brought with you, and spend it happily after disposing of you skanky asses.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

How many times have you assholes said this, and never meant a word of it? You are mean minded low life scum, seeking to harm our nation because you did not get your way. Traitors, the whole lot of you.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

the constitution made no provisions for gun grabbing either

Sure they did.

Congress gets to make laws and stuff.

I know it's "icky" for folks like you..but that's the way it is..

 

[Sallow]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from passing laws in conflict with federal law. No state could secede without violating the Supremacy clause.

Furthermore, residents of any individual state are for the most part also citizens of the United States, and that citizenship comes with certain rights, privileges, and protections of the federal government.

No state has the right to deny US citizens those rights, etc. Secession would do so.

The Constitution strictly prohibits states from doing what they did during the Civil War.

This has been pointed out to the OP, before.

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.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

show us the secession clause

btw, once a state secedes, they are not under the influence of congress

Ah..it the ol' Christine O'Donnell exact words thing..eh?

Well it was juvenile then and it is still juvenile.

Read the clauses I posted.

It's pretty much in plain English.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

So everything that isn't specifically allowed by the Constitution is prohibited? That is one of the dumbest arguments on this subject ever posted. However, it is the essence of the boot-licking liberal mentality.

No one believed the Constitution prohibited secession before 1861.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I believe that there were many Northerners (some of them editors of newspapers) who believed in the idea that states could secede.

Of course that may or may not mean they are correct.

During the creation of the union the terms most frequently used to describe that union was everlasting and forever.

The same was said of the articles of confederation. That argument has already been disposed of.

No mention of the path to state secession is noted in Constitution which leads me to think that the idea of any state leaving the Union was not even considered

There's also no mention of Social Security or healthcare, so according to your logic those are also prohibited.