Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[DigitalDrifter]

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.

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.

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.

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Secession is another word for "rebellion" and/or "insurrection" against the constituted form of government. The rebel states formed a confederation of states and their "succession" was not peaceful ... the rebel states took up arms and fired upon Fort Sumter.

Doesn't the Constitution of the United States grant the federal government the powers to suppress insurrections and, if necessary, suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion? Perhaps the southern states unwisely hoped the federal government wouldn't use those powers. And, doesn't the Constitution forbid the states from entering alliances or confederations? Just food for thought ...

The S.C. General Assembly met, drew up an ordinance of secession and unanimously passed it. After they declared themselves a new nation, they then demanded the foreign troops vacate Ft Sumter. The U.S. federal troops refused, so the new nation did what any other nation would do. They viewed the troops as invaders, and took action to remove them. The entire civil war could have been avoided had the union simply recognized the southern states as having the same rights as the U.S. itself did in declaring it's independence from Britain.

 

[there4eyeM]

The entire Civil War could have been avoided if the secessionists had sought a legal method of separation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

South Carolina was never a new nation because it had no power to make itself such an entity.

 

[jillian]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

he's just a brain-dead buffoon who should probably read this before he pretends to opine on what is "irrefutable legal proof"

Texas v. White US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[nuhuh]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

he's just a brain-dead buffoon who should probably read this before he pretends to opine on what is "irrefutable legal proof"

Texas v. White US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Jillian princess, are you trying to prove why women are only worth .75 to the dollar? Texas v White is the SC ruling that held states cannot secede, you should read it before you comment.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

he's just a brain-dead buffoon who should probably read this before he pretends to opine on what is "irrefutable legal proof"

Texas v. White US Law LII Legal Information Institute

You're late, that's been hashed and rehashed.

 

[nuhuh]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

he's just a brain-dead buffoon who should probably read this before he pretends to opine on what is "irrefutable legal proof"

Texas v. White US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Jillian princess, are you trying to prove why women are only worth .75 to the dollar? Texas v White is the SC ruling that held states cannot secede, you should read it before you comment.

You best go back and read, nuhuh.

 

[thanatos144]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[nuhuh]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

 

[Contumacious]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

Comrade Starkiev:

Explain , clearly and succinctly, you can use your native Russky , if you must,

HOW IS IT THAT MIKHAIL GORBACHEV ALLOWED THE REPUBLICS TO DECLARE THEIR INDEPENDENCE WITHOUT WIPING OUT 650,000 SOVIET CITIZENS?

I THOUGHT THE RUSSKIES WERE THE BARBARIC ONES?


.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

 

[nuhuh]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You are goofy. You and Comrade Contumacious are operating by your 'feelings' not the facts. You support the right of slave owners to hold humans as property. I am not concerned with your feelings at all.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You are goofy. You and Comrade Contumacious are operating by your 'feelings' not the facts. You support the right of slave owners to hold humans as property. I am not concerned with your feelings at all.

Nope, as I just said, slavery was wrong. That has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

But let me ask you, were the revolutionairies traitors ? Based on your logic, you must answer "yes".

 

[nuhuh]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

So what is more dangerous 50 small states following the rule of law or one large state not following the law? Seems to me 50 states fighting among themselves to iron out differences regarding commerce and resources is far more dangerous and patently foolish.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

Dude you couldn't kick the ass of a Room temperature IQ 4th grader.
The OP stated some facts. You don't like them.
So you issue an idle threat.
What's that make you into?

It means I judged the situation correctly. If they want to start trouble be ready for an ass kicking.

No....You didn't like the facts. So you decided to issue and idle threat.
You libs have convinced yourselves that you have the exclusive right to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater and get away with it.
You've had control of the narrative for one day too long. It just ended.
This is not a discussion. No need for you to reply. Done