Happy Confederate Memorial Day!

[I amso IR]

"God, save the Queen"! (with reference to post #67).

 

[bendog]

The question comes down to a matter of logic. It's matter of indisputable fact that, in exchange for the BoR's protections against the majority, the Southern colonies ratified the constitution as a whole ... including the original amendments ... so as to create a national government that had power to enact laws that would preempt state laws, so long as the national laws didn't run afoul of the BoR. So, given that state of fact, whereby could the Southern states later destroy the national government they'd helped create, unless it was shown the national government overstepped the BoR's limitations to it's power?

I believe all southerners who fought in "the war of northern aggression" did so because they thought it was necessary to preserve the way of life of their families, but that doesn't necessarily make it legally, or morally, "right."

That said, the Obama's can stay the hell outta my state and my holiday (-:

 

[Decus]

The right to secede was clear to the founders and the politicians prior to 1861. President Thomas Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation. . . to a continuance in the union. . . I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson

Amendments prohibiting States from seceding were introduced AFTER a number of States had already declared they were seceding from the Union. Many scholars argue that the understood right of States to secede from the Union was the only reason many States ratified the Constitution.

.

 

[Redfish]

What does that have to do with secession?

Everything.

Can you get specific? You are just BLOWING my mind right now
I need more.

The states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to obey the Constitution and federal law. By ratifying the Constitution, by accepting statehood, they bound themselves to be subordinate to the federal government.

England had similar language that bound the colonies to the king. The founders ignored that and declared the USA an independent nation.

When part of a nation secedes it doesn't matter what the documents say. By declaring independence they are declaring that they are not bound by those documents.

Whether secession is "legal" or not is a nice discussion topic, but its moot to the actual act of secession.

Well you can declare you're not bound by the laws of your state, and then shoot someone in cold blood,

see how your declaration works out for you.

Ok, lets take your foolishness to its logical conclusion: OK?

lets say that Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky decide to secede and form a new country. Ok so far?

Now, the US DOJ declares that illegal.

What court will hear the case and how would any ruling be enforced?

There would either be another civil war or the two factions would agree to separate peacefully.

Whether some clown in a black robe ruled it illegal would not matter.

Was the declaration of independence declared illegal by England? Duh, yes.

 

[bendog]

The right to secede was clear to the founders and the politicians prior to 1861. President Thomas Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation. . . to a continuance in the union. . . I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson

Amendments prohibiting States from seceding were introduced AFTER a number of States had already declared they were seceding from the Union. Many scholars argue that the understood right of States to secede from the Union was the only reason many States ratified the Constitution.

.

You might want to use the full quote.

 

[bendog]

Everything.

Can you get specific? You are just BLOWING my mind right now
I need more.

The states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to obey the Constitution and federal law. By ratifying the Constitution, by accepting statehood, they bound themselves to be subordinate to the federal government.

England had similar language that bound the colonies to the king. The founders ignored that and declared the USA an independent nation.

When part of a nation secedes it doesn't matter what the documents say. By declaring independence they are declaring that they are not bound by those documents.

Whether secession is "legal" or not is a nice discussion topic, but its moot to the actual act of secession.

Well you can declare you're not bound by the laws of your state, and then shoot someone in cold blood,

see how your declaration works out for you.

Ok, lets take your foolishness to its logical conclusion: OK?

lets say that Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky decide to secede and form a new country. Ok so far?

Now, the US DOJ declares that illegal.

What court will hear the case and how would any ruling be enforced?

There would either be another civil war or the two factions would agree to separate peacefully.

Whether some clown in a black robe ruled it illegal would not matter.

Was the declaration of independence declared illegal by England? Duh, yes.

Secession is illegal.

Texas v. White

The courts would be the federal judiciary including, but not limited to, federal courts in all subject states. Since any govenor's ability to call up the natl guard is constrained by federal law, there ain't gonna be no mo' secessin'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everything.

Can you get specific? You are just BLOWING my mind right now
I need more.

The states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to obey the Constitution and federal law. By ratifying the Constitution, by accepting statehood, they bound themselves to be subordinate to the federal government.

England had similar language that bound the colonies to the king. The founders ignored that and declared the USA an independent nation.

When part of a nation secedes it doesn't matter what the documents say. By declaring independence they are declaring that they are not bound by those documents.

Whether secession is "legal" or not is a nice discussion topic, but its moot to the actual act of secession.

Well you can declare you're not bound by the laws of your state, and then shoot someone in cold blood,

see how your declaration works out for you.

Ok, lets take your foolishness to its logical conclusion: OK?

lets say that Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky decide to secede and form a new country. Ok so far?

Now, the US DOJ declares that illegal.

What court will hear the case and how would any ruling be enforced?

There would either be another civil war or the two factions would agree to separate peacefully.

Whether some clown in a black robe ruled it illegal would not matter.

Was the declaration of independence declared illegal by England? Duh, yes.

The federal government has every right to enforce all federal law in every state and no state has any right to arbitrarily declare federal law unenforceable. No such power exists.

 

[Decus]

The right to secede was clear to the founders and the politicians prior to 1861. President Thomas Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation. . . to a continuance in the union. . . I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson

Amendments prohibiting States from seceding were introduced AFTER a number of States had already declared they were seceding from the Union. Many scholars argue that the understood right of States to secede from the Union was the only reason many States ratified the Constitution.

.

You might want to use the full quote.

Jefferson believed that States choosing to secede would be at risk from speculators and the insecurity often faced by smaller nations. Jefferson preferred that the States remain united but recognized their right to secede:

"1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all.If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in the union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

.

 

[TNHarley]

Can you get specific? You are just BLOWING my mind right now
I need more.

The states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to obey the Constitution and federal law. By ratifying the Constitution, by accepting statehood, they bound themselves to be subordinate to the federal government.

England had similar language that bound the colonies to the king. The founders ignored that and declared the USA an independent nation.

When part of a nation secedes it doesn't matter what the documents say. By declaring independence they are declaring that they are not bound by those documents.

Whether secession is "legal" or not is a nice discussion topic, but its moot to the actual act of secession.

Well you can declare you're not bound by the laws of your state, and then shoot someone in cold blood,

see how your declaration works out for you.

Ok, lets take your foolishness to its logical conclusion: OK?

lets say that Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky decide to secede and form a new country. Ok so far?

Now, the US DOJ declares that illegal.

What court will hear the case and how would any ruling be enforced?

There would either be another civil war or the two factions would agree to separate peacefully.

Whether some clown in a black robe ruled it illegal would not matter.

Was the declaration of independence declared illegal by England? Duh, yes.

The federal government has every right to enforce all federal law in every state and no state has any right to arbitrarily declare federal law unenforceable. No such power exists.

so the Washington corrupt class could make an unconstitutional law and the states have to abide? You are full of shit!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to obey the Constitution and federal law. By ratifying the Constitution, by accepting statehood, they bound themselves to be subordinate to the federal government.

England had similar language that bound the colonies to the king. The founders ignored that and declared the USA an independent nation.

When part of a nation secedes it doesn't matter what the documents say. By declaring independence they are declaring that they are not bound by those documents.

Whether secession is "legal" or not is a nice discussion topic, but its moot to the actual act of secession.

Well you can declare you're not bound by the laws of your state, and then shoot someone in cold blood,

see how your declaration works out for you.

Ok, lets take your foolishness to its logical conclusion: OK?

lets say that Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky decide to secede and form a new country. Ok so far?

Now, the US DOJ declares that illegal.

What court will hear the case and how would any ruling be enforced?

There would either be another civil war or the two factions would agree to separate peacefully.

Whether some clown in a black robe ruled it illegal would not matter.

Was the declaration of independence declared illegal by England? Duh, yes.

The federal government has every right to enforce all federal law in every state and no state has any right to arbitrarily declare federal law unenforceable. No such power exists.

so the Washington corrupt class could make an unconstitutional law and the states have to abide? You are full of shit!

All laws are constitutional until ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Timmy]

They should have proposed and amendment to be let out of the Union . That would have to be ratified by the states .

But instead they decide to shoot and kill US military men.

 

[HUGGY]

Ya... Nothing invokes happiness like remembering our country going to war with it's self over needing to kill a bunch of yokels that insist owning other human beings IS OK.

 

[bendog]

The right to secede was clear to the founders and the politicians prior to 1861. President Thomas Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation. . . to a continuance in the union. . . I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson

Amendments prohibiting States from seceding were introduced AFTER a number of States had already declared they were seceding from the Union. Many scholars argue that the understood right of States to secede from the Union was the only reason many States ratified the Constitution.

.

You might want to use the full quote.

Jefferson believed that States choosing to secede would be at risk from speculators and the insecurity often faced by smaller nations. Jefferson preferred that the States remain united but recognized their right to secede:

"1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all.If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in the union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

.

Jefferson was describing the economic system of the British Empire. The southern states seceded because the geography of the country inevitably meant there would be more free than slave states, and the industrial revolution made manufacturing more lucrative than farming with slave labor.

If you are characterizing our present economy as an empire, I wouldn't totally disagree. But there ain't gonna be no more seccessin'.

 

[I amso IR]

It takes a simple declaration of war. Should one or more States unite and declare war and then win said war, they will have successfully succeeded from the Union. Then the question arises what the new nation will control in terms of geography? Were enough States to succeed from the Union, win the war, it is likely the United States of America would also fall. Then the stars and stripes would be the bone of contention, not the stars and bars or whatever. The Constitution in no way opposes succession from it. Later court rulings have however. This leaves one remedy, war! And that is not going to happen any time soon as Americans in general do not want it. Then again, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Since the "war of northern aggression" did not go well, the last half anyhow for the Confederacy, there is little reason to think a war would go well the second time around. Look at the mess Russia and Germany got themselves into playing around with war. And I am not even going to go where the United States finds itself today. Every thing humankind touches, goes to crap. Just look around! "Make love not war", is as phony as a three dollar bill, also. Why would we want more of ourselves? Happy Confederate Memorial Day everyone. "It don't mean nothin" after all. Which begs a second question, if "it don't mean nothin" it must mean something. Ever wonder what that could be?

 

[bendog]

It takes a simple declaration of war. Should one or more States unite and declare war and then win said war, they will have successfully succeeded from the Union. Then the question arises what the new nation will control in terms of geography? Were enough States to succeed from the Union, win the war, it is likely the United States of America would also fall. Then the stars and stripes would be the bone of contention, not the stars and bars or whatever. The Constitution in no way opposes succession from it. Later court rulings have however. This leaves one remedy, war! And that is not going to happen any time soon as Americans in general do not want it. Then again, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Since the "war of northern aggression" did not go well, the last half anyhow for the Confederacy, there is little reason to think a war would go well the second time around. Look at the mess Russia and Germany got themselves into playing around with war. And I am not even going to go where the United States finds itself today. Every thing humankind touches, goes to crap. Just look around! "Make love not war", is as phony as a three dollar bill, also. Why would we want more of ourselves? Happy Confederate Memorial Day everyone. "It don't mean nothin" after all. Which begs a second question, if "it don't mean nothin" it must mean something. Ever wonder what that could be?

Heritage!

Private Summers' Journal: Confederate Memorial Day - Oxford

Or lost in a past that never existed.

 

[Timmy]

And people say blacks need to get over slavery . Those are the same people waving confederte flags and bitching about the civil war 150 years later .

 

[Decus]

The right to secede was clear to the founders and the politicians prior to 1861. President Thomas Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation. . . to a continuance in the union. . . I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson

Amendments prohibiting States from seceding were introduced AFTER a number of States had already declared they were seceding from the Union. Many scholars argue that the understood right of States to secede from the Union was the only reason many States ratified the Constitution.

.

You might want to use the full quote.

Jefferson believed that States choosing to secede would be at risk from speculators and the insecurity often faced by smaller nations. Jefferson preferred that the States remain united but recognized their right to secede:

"1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all.If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in the union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'."

.

Jefferson was describing the economic system of the British Empire. The southern states seceded because the geography of the country inevitably meant there would be more free than slave states, and the industrial revolution made manufacturing more lucrative than farming with slave labor.

If you are characterizing our present economy as an empire, I wouldn't totally disagree. But there ain't gonna be no more seccessin'.

Jefferson was expressing the fact a Union was stronger option and offered more benefits to its citizens. Jefferson knew how weak the Union was and how much weaker an individual State would be going it alone. The War of 1812 underscored just how weak the Union was.

Anyway the Civil War ended any possibility for States to secede from the Union. Up until that point however many politicians and the most prominent newspapers of the time expressed a belief in the right of States to secede from the Union.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why did Andrew Jackson, a staunch southerner, offer this toast at a White House dinner to Calhoun,"The Union; it must be preserved!"

Twist as you will, the 'more perfect Union' was a continuation of the Perpetual Union established in the Articles of Confederation. The South had the 'right' to try to abrogate its obligations. A nation has a 'right' to maintain its integrity. The South know, or should have, the consequences of rebellion. They were lucky the rest of the Union was not vindictive, and in fact courageously and honorably treated the defeated.

 

[bendog]

There were pro and nay opinions on secession. However, I think what Jefferson was saying was that if the Union became an empire benefitting a few at the expense of most, then secession would be justified because basic premise was citizens would control their fates through popular ballots would have been, somehow, destroyed. I think that is precisely what is fueling both Trump and Bernie.

The founders were fearful of both aristocracy and mob rule. Sometimes both, sometimes one or the other. But, there's no doubt the wanted to limit govt powers, and at the same time, limit popular voters ability to enhance those powers. But any pro-secession argument I've seen was premised on some notion of the federal government usurping some power.

Personally, I'd agree that the South would have had legal justification to secede if the North threatened to just free all the slaves. The right to property was protected, and legally the slaves were property. But the North didn't do that. The South seceded simply because of a change in economic realities in the world at large, and the growth of the United States with new states being added, but no right was taken from any person, and no power taken from any state. I don't see any logic to that, and I haven't read anything supporting it.

But, my point was more about confederate memorial day and confederate heritage month (FIVE more days!) While the people of the South who suffered did so because they believed their society and even safety was threatened by ... change, that cannot make keeping people in slavery moral. Those people who make something of heritage overlook that fact. And, the industrial revolution was not caused by some usurpation of power by the North. But if you were a white southerner, the thought of competing for wages with blacks would have been horrifying, and in fact the Klan suppressed that for 100 years after the civil war.

 

[Intolerant]

All of us southerners are hung. Whatchoo talking about Timmy.