Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

It doesn't have to say that, any more than any law has to say that you can't arbitrarily choose to ignore it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a secession process. Either amend the Constitution to provide a means for a state to secede, or hold a constitutional convention and provide it there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

States cannot secede because states' residents are US citizens first and foremost.

 

[AntiParty]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

SOME Conservatives are regressing today. After the bail outs they abandoned ship in order to say, "It wasn't me".

In their search to find out where they went wrong, they went in the wrong direction. Notice how much 3rd world ideology lines up with Conservatives in America.

Conservative should not be brain based too.

Racism is extreme on political forums because the racists can hide behind a keyboard. A lot of them won't act this way in life. I live around a lot of them and they try to act sneaky about their racism. It's funny because they don't even know they are being racist. It's how far behind we are as a civil Nation.

 

[OKTexas]

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession.

NY tried to add a secession clause into their ratification of the Constitution. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY convention meeting to ratify that '"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever'.

For ever. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

And the NY convention ratified the Constitution. Without the secession clause. The Anti-Federalists argued for the right to secede. The Federalists opposed them. The Federalists won. The issue was already addressed specifically and directly when the constitution was ratified.

Unless you think you know better than James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison what it was supposed to mean.

If it wasn't written in the document itself and ratified it's just another mans opinion, isn't it.

Says you. The USSC and James Madison say otherwise.

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

I mean seriously.......you may want to imagine that your opinion on what the constitution means carries as much weight as James Madison and the USSC combined. But I'm gonna let you in on one of the worst kept secrets on this board:

It doesn't. No court quotes you on shit.

Right, because the courts have never ever made a bad decision. I'm done.

 

[Unkotare]

It's how far behind we are as a civil Nation.

How far behind what?

 

[there4eyeM]

Unfortunately, in human history ideas have often come to loggerheads. One side's view of existence becomes inimical to the other's. The Nazi concept of man and the state left little room for anything other than a struggle to the death.


But, this can even happen in cases of otherwise well intended ideals. In the situation between the states that led to the Civil War, there was honest debate about interpreting the contract that formed the Union. No one had a clear point that absolutely proved one's position. Yes, it was clear that the original organization into a nation declared the Union to be perpetual. Yes, the arrival of a new Constitution rendered vague the effect of the original agreement.

The argument became so imbued with the horror of slavery that emotion mounted to violent levels. It should have been, and indeed was to many at the time, obvious that such an 'institution' was in opposition to the spirit of America.


That both sides pursued what in the context became inflexible positions set the stage for the war. A state claimed to leave the Union based upon its own authority to do so and attempted to violently expel what the day before were its own soldiers from what had been its own fort, and that of the rest of their country. A significant part of that country did not accept that state's interpretation, and the confrontation led to trial by combat.


Such an uncivilized way to settle things should have been condemned long before to the 'scrapheap' of human history, though, lamentably, it continues to this day in the world (I.S.I.S., et al). Inextricably entwined in this uniquely American example was the inhuman concept that humans could own and mercilessly exploit humans. I do not think anyone, or at least anyone here, would say that this is being too hard on what slavery is. It had to end for America to become the America we would be able to love. That America would never have existed torn into two or more parts, and world history would very probably have been even sadder than it is.


So, did secession have a legal basis? Yes and no. That is not a very satisfactory answer and seems like a legalistic wiggle to palliate everyone. Yet, it seems the only fair way to express things. Did the South have the 'right' to ruin the nation and demean humanity with the disgraceful practice of slavery? Is there a reasonable answer to that question that is other than 'no'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery and Secession are intertwined and always will be.

The Lost Causers on the Board and not conservatives, just mental wanks.

 

[there4eyeM]

Has it been asked by what right people had slaves?

 

[rightwinger]

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

Strawman

I don't think that word means what you think it does

Let's see, strawman, something you make up and put in someone else's mouth and attack it as if they had said it.

Nope, means exactly what I think it does

I don't think it means what you think it does

The South seceded to preserve the right to maintain slavery. That is in no way a Strawman.....it is what is known as a historical fact

I don't think you do think it means what I think it does. But you are an idiot who don't know what it means, so what does that matter?

That is a Strawman argument!

Better stop it or I'll report you to the Internet Police

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

 

[bripat9643]

Has it been asked by what right people had slaves?

No one is endorsing slavery, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

 

[thanatos144]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

They rebelled and won..... the confederates rebelled and lost.

 

[bripat9643]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

They rebelled and won..... the confederates rebelled and lost.

So whether your ideals are right or not depends on whether you win?

 

[thanatos144]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land? What 'sovereign' can be overridden by a judiciary that isn't even their own? What 'sovereign' has to scramble for votes from 3/4 of the other states before they can make ONE act with the authority of a sovereign? What 'sovereign' has to accept the outcome of amendments they voted against?

None.

Sorry.....but states aren't sovereigns. They were sovereigns....for about a decade. And when they joined the union, they transitioned into a republic. One voice among many. With the threshold of exercising the kind of authority you describe a 3/4 majority. Not the individual state. That's not a sovereign. Or even close to it. Nor was it meant to be.

So you're saying the States didn't insist on the 10th Amendment to delineate the limited powers of the Federal Government from their own broader powers? I think you need to do a bit more reading.

The 10 amendment is not the right to secede it is the right of states to self govern by the Constitution those things not given to the fed. It is not a cart blanch do what ever you want amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

 

[thanatos144]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

SOME Conservatives are regressing today. After the bail outs they abandoned ship in order to say, "It wasn't me".

In their search to find out where they went wrong, they went in the wrong direction. Notice how much 3rd world ideology lines up with Conservatives in America.

Conservative should not be brain based too.

Racism is extreme on political forums because the racists can hide behind a keyboard. A lot of them won't act this way in life. I live around a lot of them and they try to act sneaky about their racism. It's funny because they don't even know they are being racist. It's how far behind we are as a civil Nation.

Conservatives are not regressive ... that we leave to your kind both progressives and the old democrat libertarians

 

[thanatos144]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

They rebelled and won..... the confederates rebelled and lost.

So whether your ideals are right or not depends on whether you win?

They lost mostly because their ideals were wrong. They started a war over slavery. ... they are not heroes just pathetic democrats

 

[bripat9643]

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

The Constitution isn't a contract, dumbass. The people of the Confederate states certainly never signed it.