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.
Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.
The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.
The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.
It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.
He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.
As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:
Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
YO VERN,
WHY DIDN'T SOVIET PRIME MINISTER MIKHAIL GORBACHEV CONCOCT THE SAME PRETEXT BEFORE WIPING OUT 650, 000 SOVIET CITIZENS AND BOMBING THE BREAKWAY REPUBLICS INTO SUBMISSION?
WTF?
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.
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.
Smiling.....this secessionist nonsense may be the batshit dejour among fringe conservatives. But among the overwhelming majority of Americans, not so much.
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.
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.
Sillyness is thinking that the United States is going to standby and let a state do any of that. Texas will be bombed into submission at the git go, bomb the refineries, bomb dams, electrical generation, ports and just like Iraq they would fall into chaos and the next two generations would be taken up by rebuilding their society and running down those responsible.
The best pipedream of all is thinking that something like secession is even remotely possible, there are hundreds of ways to make people submit, taking away their water, electricity, television and little league is going to be the slap that wakes them up. Sure there will be many people pissed off but with no food, gas, or roads to move on the idea will die pretty quickly.
So there you, go minimal casualties but a dead infrastructure. Sure people will be pissed off but there isn't much they can do about it. Like the Iraqi's, the repairs to the infrastructure must come from within, no aid. If they do get angry enough to cross borders 600,000 dead will be like nothing.
JADE HELM THEIR TRAITOR BUTTS!!! (-:
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.
Sillyness is thinking that the United States is going to standby and let a state do any of that. Texas will be bombed into submission at the git go, bomb the refineries, bomb dams, electrical generation, ports and just like Iraq they would fall into chaos and the next two generations would be taken up by rebuilding their society and running down those responsible.
The best pipedream of all is thinking that something like secession is even remotely possible, there are hundreds of ways to make people submit, taking away their water, electricity, television and little league is going to be the slap that wakes them up. Sure there will be many people pissed off but with no food, gas, or roads to move on the idea will die pretty quickly.
So there you, go minimal casualties but a dead infrastructure. Sure people will be pissed off but there isn't much they can do about it. Unlike the Iraqi's, the repairs to the infrastructure must come from within, no aid. If they do get angry enough to cross borders 600,000 dead will be like nothing.
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.
No state was 'invaded'; an rebellion was suppressed.
...but no links that prove the Perpetual Union ended.
Correction: Take any republican being elected, and there would have been 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.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.
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.
"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.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.
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."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.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.
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.
Both sides did a lot to provoke the other side.
Blah blah blah. The battles were lost and won 140 years ago. The hurly burly is over. We don't care what Prof. Morse says. Plenty of smart folks in 1861 debated all the ins and outs. 750 thousand deaths as a result of the Civil war. It is sad and pointless to debate this at this late date.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”
Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia..
Really?
They had 'no idea'? what would happen when they decided to fire on American troops?
Wow- you are making them out to be even stupider than I thought they were.
A number of scenarios were possible. For all the knew, Lincoln was all bluster and empty threats and might just slink away and do nothing. Your believe that what happened was the only plausible outcome is the result of certainty aided by 20/20 hindsight.
Like I said- you portray them as even stupider than I thought.
They were 1000 times smarter than you. You're an obvious moron. Being queer must cause brain damage.
Having a tiny dick clearly is the reason for your extreme frustration.
No succession, no Ft Sumpter.
Blah blah blah. The battles were lost and won 140 years ago. The hurly burly is over. We don't care what Prof. Morse says. Plenty of smart folks in 1861 debated all the ins and outs. 750 thousand deaths as a result of the Civil war. It is sad and pointless to debate this at this late date.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”
Rather than refighting the civil war could we return to the OP?
Secession could occur if a state or states decided to leave the USA. Whether the USA considered it legal or illegal would not matter because the act of secession would an act of denoucing the constitution and all US laws. (similar to what is happening every day when people illegally enter this country).
The question is whether the military in the seceding states would side with the states or the federal government and whether the federal government would engage in an armed conflict to prevent secession.
I don't think any of us want that, but it is an interesting discussion.
A very wise statesman said this in 1850:
Peaceable Secession an Impossibility
By Daniel Webster
[Speech on the Aspect of the Slavery Question. U. S. Senate, 7 March, 1850.]
MR. PRESIDENT,....
I hear with distress and anguish the word “secession,” especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession!
Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg everybody’s pardon, as to expect to see any such thing?
Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe.
There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, sir! No, sir!
I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold character.
Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate!
A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of Congress?
...our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude.
What is to become of the army? What is to become of the navy? What is to become of the public lands? How is each of the thirty States to defend itself? I know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there will be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not mean, when I allude to this statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things.
I do not mean to say that it is true, but I have heard it suggested elsewhere, that the idea has been entertained, that, after the dissolution of this Union, a Southern Confederacy might be formed.
I am sorry, sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human imagination. But the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation, assigning the slave States to one side and the free States to the other.
Sir, I may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are impossibilities in the natural as well as in the physical world, and I hold the idea of a separation of these States, those that are free to form one government, and those that are slave-holding to form another, as such an impossibility. We could not separate the States by any such line, if we were to draw it. We could not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country. There are natural causes that would keep and tie us together, and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we could.
Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that ere long the strength of America will be in the Valley of the Mississippi. Well, now, sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free States at its source and on its branches, and slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? Pray, sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these things are worthy of their pondering and of their consideration.
Here, sir, are five millions of freemen in the free States north of the river Ohio. Can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and an alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the Mississippi? What would become of Missouri? Will she join the arrondissement of the slave States?
Shall the man from the Yellowstone and the Platte be connected, in the new republic, with the man who lives on the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida? Sir, I am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. I dislike it, I have an utter disgust for it. I would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up this great government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish Europe with an act of folly such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government or any people! No, sir! no, sir! There will be no secession!"
Daniel Webster 1782-1852 . Peaceable Secession an Impossibility. Stedman and Hutchinson eds. 1891. A Library of American Literature An Anthology in 11 Volumes
NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.
So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.
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. 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.
Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.
Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.
Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.
The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.
The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.
Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?
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. 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.
Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.
Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.
Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.
The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.
The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.
It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.
Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.
There isn't anything to debate. You are playing mind games to excuse southern secession. It was legal to own slaves in America, and you bloody well know it. Irrefutable legal arguments..? The war changed that definition. You are amazing. Take your self righteousness elsewhere.
