Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[Debra K]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

No they weren't because they were not trying to conserve anything butvtgey were like you trying to take liberties with others freedoms .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Please review the definitions of conservative and progressive.

For a very long time in our history, those who labeled themselves as "conservative" placed themselves under the umbrella of the "Democratic" party.

Southern conservatives wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, which was in large part the foundation of their wealth and economic growth. They purported not to agree with this statement in our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They argued that black people were an inferior race intended by the Creator to be enslaved by white people--a belief that coincided happily with their economic interests.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This fantasy about "legal secession " is cowardly. You want out, then pick up a gun and take your chances. If you win, you'll be a hero. Lose and you're scum.

You either have the courage of your convictions or you don't.

THAT is how history is written.

So.....we're like the Soviet Union, kept by force, lethal force at that.

After you murder your children for running away from home, please please please use that defense.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.

All courts are fallible. Some arguments are not.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The Supreme Court decided nothing. It simply rubber stamped Lincoln's invasion because that's what the members were hired to do.

Again, bripat ... childish.

This is purely an academic discussion. Even if you plug your ears and scream "I can't hear you!", all of your childish arguments in favor of succession won't do the rebels any good at this point in time. A civil war was fought and the rebels lost. All the best arguments or post-hoc justifications for succession were already made by Alexander Stephens and his ilk. Bripat, you're no Alexander Stephens.* If anyone interested in the subject desires to learn more and cherishes eloquent and persuasive argument, they should peruse Stephens' two volumes on the subject.

* I borrowed that phraseology from a famous line in a debate ... and for 100 points ... name that debate ...

You are.....

So high on yourself.

 

[Debra K]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Revisionist history blogs: Written BY pussies for OTHER pussies.

Nations are not born in courtrooms.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

 

[Debra K]

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.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.

If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.

You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.

Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.

We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.

Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.

 

[Debra K]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

Why did the southern states want to secede from the Union? Could it be the anti-slave sentiment in the northern states? Why don't you do some research about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which infuriated many northern citizens because they didn't want to enforce slavery. The opposition of northern people ("progressives") to the Act was cited by southern states as a cause for secession.

 

[there4eyeM]

The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.

A "perpetual union" that lasted 13 years.

Wrong, as usual; you're still in it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The Supreme Court "ruling" on this matters is a canard.

It is much more fundamental.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.

If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.

You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.

Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.

We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.

Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.

The 'right to secede' argument is an interesting intellectual exercise. But within the frame of a 'legal argument', its already been settled. The USSC already ruled on this issue and found that no such power existed. As the USSC is the body tasked with adjudicating issues that arise under the constitution, their ruling is legally authoritative.

We can argue if they were right or wrong. But the fact remains that is authoritative. And as such has already resolved the legal issues involved. Legally, no such right to secede exists.

Brit can ignore the USSC ruling. But his dismissal has no relevance to the authority of their ruling or resolution of the issue. Its settled caselaw.

 

[Skylar]

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”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The Supreme Court "ruling" on this matters is a canard.

It is much more fundamental.

So you say. Yet the Supreme Court ruling on the topic was still authoritative and remains so. As the standard here is the legal arguments, the Supreme Court's ruling settles all legal issues in our system of laws. Unilateral secession is not a power that a State possesses.

By joining the union the territory of each state came under concurrent jurisdiction. That of the State and the United States governments respectively. As each are sovereigns over the land, you'd need the agreement of both to relinquish territory.

The US federal government couldn't say, give a piece of the State of Alaska to another country without the consent of Alaska. Likewise, Alaska couldn't do this either without the consent of the US federal government. Unilateral territorial actions are impossible. Territorial decisions fall under the same category as the jurisdiction:

Concurrent.

And it may go even farther than that. The bar to leave the US may be as high as to join it. And may require the consent of the other states. At the very least it requires the agreement of the State and Federal government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The Supreme Court "ruling" on this matters is a canard.

It is much more fundamental.

So you say. Yet the Supreme Court ruling on the topic was still authoritative and remains so. As the standard here is the legal arguments, the Supreme Court's ruling settles all legal issues in our system of laws. Unilateral secession is not a power that a State possesses.

By joining the union the territory of each state came under concurrent jurisdiction. That of the State and the United States governments respectively. As each are sovereigns over the land, you'd need the agreement of both to relinquish territory.

The US federal government couldn't say, give a piece of the State of Alaska to another country without the consent of Alaska. Likewise, Alaska couldn't do this either without the consent of the US federal government. Unilateral territorial actions are impossible. Territorial decisions fall under the same category as the jurisdiction:

Concurrent.

And it may go even farther than that. The bar to leave the US may be as high as to join it. And may require the consent of the other states. At the very least it requires the agreement of the State and Federal government.

Yes, so I say.....

That claim has never been tested, so it sets no standard....

It is simply fundamental to the idea that when the union was formed, you were in. End of discussion.

Now, I have asked if anyone would care if North Dakota decided it wanted to be part of Canada. And what would the process be for them to leave ?

 

[Skylar]

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

Why did the southern states want to secede from the Union? Could it be the anti-slave sentiment in the northern states? Why don't you do some research about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which infuriated many northern citizens because they didn't want to enforce slavery. The opposition of northern people ("progressives") to the Act was cited by southern states as a cause for secession.

Opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act was, ironically, based largely on State's rights. Free states were required to participate in the practice of slavery which they found abhorrent. They had to grant vast powers to southern states to act within their territory. The groups searching for slaves from the south had vast powers akin to modern day bounty hunters. And with a simple affidavit froma white man in the South, collect any 'runaway slave' and take them back to the south. With many instances of 'runaway slaves' being free slaves or straight up kidnappings.

The Southern States wanted to use the Federal Government to force the Northern States to participate in slavery, help them find runaway slaves, and return them. The Northern States for their part felt that the Federal Government shouldn't be able to force them to do so.

It was when the Northern States began to defy these federal laws on the basis of State's Rights in defiance of the will of the Southern States, that the issue began to come to a head.

 

[Skylar]

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”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The Supreme Court "ruling" on this matters is a canard.

It is much more fundamental.

So you say. Yet the Supreme Court ruling on the topic was still authoritative and remains so. As the standard here is the legal arguments, the Supreme Court's ruling settles all legal issues in our system of laws. Unilateral secession is not a power that a State possesses.

By joining the union the territory of each state came under concurrent jurisdiction. That of the State and the United States governments respectively. As each are sovereigns over the land, you'd need the agreement of both to relinquish territory.

The US federal government couldn't say, give a piece of the State of Alaska to another country without the consent of Alaska. Likewise, Alaska couldn't do this either without the consent of the US federal government. Unilateral territorial actions are impossible. Territorial decisions fall under the same category as the jurisdiction:

Concurrent.

And it may go even farther than that. The bar to leave the US may be as high as to join it. And may require the consent of the other states. At the very least it requires the agreement of the State and Federal government.

Yes, so I say.....

That claim has never been tested, so it sets no standard....

The authority of the Supreme Court has been tested many times. It stands. And the issue of the right to secession has been adjudicated. It doesn't exist. We can argue the point as an intellectual exercise. But as a matter of law, its long settled. And as the standard of this thread is a 'legal argument', the standards of our legal system prevail.

It is simply fundamental to the idea that when the union was formed, you were in. End of discussion.

So you say. Yet our law doesn't recognize your claim as valid. Nor recognizes the power that you claim the States possess. Typing the words 'end of discussion' doesn't change these simple facts. Nor has any relevance to caselaw on the matter.

By joining the union the states ceased to be individual sovereigns, becoming instead concurrent ones. They had jurisdiction over the state as did the federal government. With concurrent territorial jurisdiction any territorial decisions would have to have been made by both sovereigns. Not just one. With the sole exception to this rule being territorial disputes between states. In which case the federal government would act as arbiter.

Now, I have asked if anyone would care if North Dakota decided it wanted to be part of Canada. And what would the process be for them to leave ?

I could see it happening two ways. First, if North Dakota and the US federal government agreed on the matter, its likely it could leave. As you'd have the judgment of both sovereigns over the territory in agreement. If other States objected, the issue would likely have to be adjudicated. I'd say there's a reasonable argument to me made that threshold of leaving the US would be as high as joining it. And that the other States get a say.

The States could convene an constitutional convention and via the amendment process vote North Dakota out of the union. The Amendment process is the ultimate trump card in our system of law. It can do, well.....pretty much anything. And if nothing else, could grant the power to secede.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

Why did the southern states want to secede from the Union? Could it be the anti-slave sentiment in the northern states? Why don't you do some research about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which infuriated many northern citizens because they didn't want to enforce slavery. The opposition of northern people ("progressives") to the Act was cited by southern states as a cause for secession.

The fugitive slave act was forced on Northerners by Northerners, or did you not know that one of the driving issues of the time was Northern states' clout in Congress ramrodding legislation through at the expense of the minority?

Your so blind to Northern bigotry that you have no clue how strong sentiments were to keep runaway slaves out of the North. This is why I had to educate your ignorant ass about the pre war Jim Crow laws in several Northern states.

You'll always sound like a braying ass as long as you maintain the illusion that the North were the "good guys" in all of this.

 

[Kondor3]

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

The Brits could have said the same thing about us in 1776, yes?

A 'legal right' to secede exists if the victor in such a struggle says it exists, yes?

After all, it's how we broke away from England.

We rebelled from England. We didn't lie about our intentions like the democrats of the south did

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Neither openness nor secrecy nor deceit have any bearing whatsoever upon the Legality of the thing.

Like the anjinsan said rebellions are legal if you win.... the democrats of the south lost

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Might makes right? I don't remember being taught that in my catechesis.

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This fantasy about "legal secession " is cowardly. You want out, then pick up a gun and take your chances. If you win, you'll be a hero. Lose and you're scum.

You either have the courage of your convictions or you don't.

THAT is how history is written.

So.....we're like the Soviet Union, kept by force, lethal force at that.

After you murder your children for running away from home, please please please use that defense.

^^^ One of the best fallacy of false analogy we have seen in some time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

I am glad that you admit you don't know about Jim Crow laws. They don't appear until 25 years after the end of slavery, and here you are yammering about runaway slaves.

Why do you have trouble with the term conservative correctly being applied to Dems and Whigs that owned slaves and or supported slavery in South?