Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.
The South started the war.
Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:
Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books
First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.
Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.
Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”
Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?
Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”
List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.
The South started the war.
South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.
You seem anxious. I wonder wy?Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?
This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans
In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.
It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …
From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …
Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers
No answer ehh ?
We have a history of recognizing native nations, secondary in relationship to the federal government. Any person who suggests such is secession clearly reveals no understanding of the situation. It is not much different than the organization of the western states entering the Union with the state and government getting recognized shares of land, while providing for land claims for settlers.
Were the Shoshone or the Arapaho or Cherokee? You should think these things through.You seem anxious. I wonder wy?Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?
This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans
In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.
It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …
From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …
Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers
No answer ehh ?
We have a history of recognizing native nations, secondary in relationship to the federal government. Any person who suggests such is secession clearly reveals no understanding of the situation. It is not much different than the organization of the western states entering the Union with the state and government getting recognized shares of land, while providing for land claims for settlers.
Are the Hawaiian natives Americans ?
Let Ginsberg hold up her blatherings in the face of a 50 caliber....
Posting irresponsible nonsense like that really highlights your personal shortcomings.
List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.
The South started the war.
South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.
This is not based on how you feel, and your feeling was and is illogical.List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.
The South started the war.
South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.
It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.
This is not based on how you feel, and your feeling was and is illogical.List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.
The South started the war.
South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.
It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.
Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?
Irrefutably, you are an obscene child.Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:
Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books
First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.
Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.
Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”
Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?
Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”
Let Ginsberg hold up her blatherings in the face of a 50 caliber....
Posting irresponsible nonsense like that really highlights your personal shortcomings.
Actually, it embodies the essence of what the revolution was about.]
....the point being that when people hit a limit....paper means little.
]
This is not based on how you feel, and your feeling was and is illogical.List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.
The South started the war.
South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.
It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.
What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?
Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?
