Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

As a US citizen I have the right to the protections afforded by the federal military, federal law enforcement, and the federal courts. What seceding state is going to allow that to continue?

As a US citizen I am protected by all federal laws related to the workplace. Is the new country of NY going to honor all of that? Are they going to require for example all businesses in the new country to continue to make payroll tax contributions to my SS and Medicare at my place of employment?

Get it through your thick skull, if the state you reside in secedes, the United States will attempt to repatriate it by force or not and for its own reasons. Nobody gives a shit about you, your property, or the rights you dream you have, you narcissist loon. If you don't want to live in that state anymore then you can sell your property and move. Nobody's going to war for you, Helena of Troy.

So might is right? Because secession is a declaration of war

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Is that what I said?

No it isn't, is it?

Yes it is.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No. It isn't. Even a complete jackass could see that's not what I said. Perhaps you have a problem with seeing things nobody posted. Take your meds, loony.

 

[Redfish]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

 

[Redfish]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

You do know that is a stupid argument. Because there were slaves in the north does not excuse slavery nor does it change the fact that a war was started because Lincoln a known anti slavery candidate won the presidential race. this is always how democrats act. They don't get thier way they get underhanded and more people suffer

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I did not say that that excused slavery. merely pointing out to one of our resident idiots that slavery did not just exist in the south.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Slavery was all the Civil War was about. You take slavery out of the equation and there could not possibly have been a mass secession leading to a civil war.

 

[Bombur]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

I don't know about liberal teachers but feel free to educate yourself about why Southern leaders said they were leaving. Maybe that will help you understand reality a little better.

The war was about a lot of issues that can generally fall under States rights versus the Preservation of the Union. Slavery being one of those rights.

Each state that left and gave cause defended slavery and mentioned that Lincoln was an abolitionist. I think it is fair to argue that the south had other reasons for going to war but to deny that slavery wasn't the primary cause for the south just doesn't match up with reality. The other cause that is often mentioned relate to the fact that the south and north were largely specialized economies. The north being very dependent on textiles and the south being very dependent on cotton. The lower the price of cotton the better it was for the north. The north was trying to be competitive with English goods in an age where governments manipulated markets to favor their producers over others. This division was not nearly as easy to understand to the common people as discussions of slavery and abolitionism.

The north on the other hand is also fractured in thought. The idea that the north would start a war to end slavery is not supported. The idea that many would be ok with the north ending the war because it would help them bring about the end of slavery is. The idea that the union could have started a war to keep the union together is also questionable. The north was not nearly as interested in war as the South was until the south killed some union soldiers and support for military action exploded. So the motivation for the north for war was largely reactionary to the actions of the south.

Once there was war it became clear to the people in the north that the institution of slavery had to end or the nation would end up in the same place in the future. The institution of slavery was not only a blatant disregard for the rights of man but it was a threat to the continuation of the union. So the reasons for northerners to end slavery wasn't simply moral like it was with the abolitionists but it was also practical. There was also wide spread resentment about the spread of slavery west by those laborers that would have to compete with slave labor.

 

[Bombur]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

You do know that is a stupid argument. Because there were slaves in the north does not excuse slavery nor does it change the fact that a war was started because Lincoln a known anti slavery candidate won the presidential race. this is always how democrats act. They don't get thier way they get underhanded and more people suffer

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I did not say that that excused slavery. merely pointing out to one of our resident idiots that slavery did not just exist in the south.

Congratulations on arguing with the imaginary people in your head who are making claims to the contrary.

 

[Skylar]

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Yeah, that's why the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" mentions slaves or slavery 18 times. Because it had nothing to do with slaves or slavery.

 

[bendog]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Slavery was all the Civil War was about. You take slavery out of the equation and there could not possibly have been a mass secession leading to a civil war.

Bullshit. Take Lincoln out of the equation and there would have been no war. Somebody did manage to pump some lead into that melon but far too late.

 

[paperview]

...only about 2% of southernors were slave owners.

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

 

[irosie91]

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Yeah, that's why the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" mentions slaves or slavery 18 times. Because it had nothing to do with slaves or slavery.

saying "the civil war had nothing to do with slavery" ----developed in
the LSD/ marijuana marinated minds of kids in the 1960s because it seemed
the intellectual thing to say

 

[paperview]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Slavery was all the Civil War was about. You take slavery out of the equation and there could not possibly have been a mass secession leading to a civil war.

Bullshit. Take Lincoln out of the equation and there would have been no war. Somebody did manage to pump some lead into that melon but far too late.

Correction: Take any republican being elected, and there would have been war.

Just the idea of a Republican being elected to office was enough.

Four years earlier, Fremont wasn't that far from winning (he split the vote with the Know-Nothing Candidate)

The south was ready to pop then. All that was needed was electing a Republican.

Had Fremont been elected, the date of the Civil War would have been 1856.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Slavers in the deep South actually believed that they couldn't support the cotton industry without black slaves because they believed that white people couldn't work the fields in the southern heat.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

Oh...you're such a tough guy.

And when you fighting errupts, the American people will hold you accountable.

Or haven't your figured out just how the vaunted press works....yet.

The nonsense would get worse and if there were many body bags, you might find yourself as the ex-president real fast.

If Texas seceded:

Texas residents receive about 350 million a year in SS payments. Those would be stopped.

Texas residents receive about 3.3 billion a year in Medicare benefits. Those would be stopped.

Texas has almost 200,000 residents employed in either active duty or civilian military jobs. Those jobs would disappear,

not to mention the jobs that would disappear upon the termination of all defense contracts with Texas industry.

All legal trade with Texas would end. All businesses in Texas relying on exporting to the other states would lose that business. A blockade of the Gulf Coast would end Texas's foreign trade.

Need I go on?

If Texas seceded:

Texas would stop paying into the U.S. S.S. black hole. That money could be used to cover the costs of current obligations.

Texas would stop paying into the U.S Medicare black hole. Same as above.

Texas would then form it's own military which it would finance from the federal taxes its citizens would no longer be paying. They would be importing labor like crazy.

Texas has a good amount of refining capacity and chemical capacity. If the U.S. ended trade with them, the U.S. economy would tank.

Texas has the one of the largest populations in the country...about 8% of the country. I am sure the left would go to war with them.

What's worse is that you can bet that if Texas left, Louisiana, Alabama & Missisippi would go too. Whoops there just went a whole lot more refining capacity. The U.S. oil industry would collapse.

You don't think that states like Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, & Others would not support Texas. Half the country would wish them the best and think about it themselves.

You can go on all you want.....it's doubtful your foot could fit farther into your mouth.

I am not for secession. It would be a disaster.

But sillyness like this is what really kills good discussion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

Oh, it's dissolving alright.

 

[Bombur]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

 

[bendog]

...only about 2% of southernors were slave owners.

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

correct. And overall, slaves were about 1/3 of the South's population. They were illiterate by law, and direct economic threat to poor white subsistence farmers. The whites had no interest in ending slavery, whether or not they owned any slaves.
Untitled Document

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

The only thing I would add is when one's country is being invaded by a hostile force, it doesn't take much convincing.

 

[bendog]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

The only thing I would add is when one's country is being invaded by a hostile force, it doesn't take much convincing.

Except, secession preceded the North's invasion.