Was seccession illegal?

[danielpalos]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

No. The Union wanted the resources of the south, and they laid on them until they finally revolted.

The South, "enjoyed it".

 

[yiostheoy]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

No. The Union wanted the resources of the south, and they laid on them until they finally revolted.

That's now how Grant explained it, my dear friend koshergrl and fellow scholar.

You should get Grant's memoirs and turn to the back and read his epilogue first.

I am sure you would enjoy it.

He explains about the "Fugitive Slave Law" by which the South was harassing the North.

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.

Feel free to quote article, section and clause that says a majority vote is required for a State to secede.

 

[yiostheoy]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

Good post.
Their thinking doesn't matter. I am question the legality. Nothing else.

TNHarley you need to read the whole US Constitution and especially the parts supra that I have cited.

Nobody can spoon feed this any better to you than that.

Q.E.D.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.

Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.

Please quote it. Thanks.

You already did thanks for playing.

That's called a GRAY area. It didn't have anything to do with a state seceding on its own. Re-read it and think about it.

That is up to the Court to interpret sorry you lose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.

Feel free to quote article, section and clause that says a majority vote is required for a State to secede.

The Constitution has already been cited look in the thread.

 

[yiostheoy]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

Why does that not make sense? The constitution doesn't give the federal government power of secession. Therefor, leaving it up to the states.
Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. But back then..

LIke I said, get a copy of Grant's memoirs and read it.

Grant's opinion is no more authoritative than mine.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Saturday is the 152nd anniversary of lincolns assassination FYI

Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" executive order went too far, yes.

This is one of several things that pissed JW Booth off.

So in his insane rage Booth became a murder and lost his life in the process.

And poor Dr. Mudd went to the Federal prison at Dry Tortugas for patching up Booth's broken leg.

 

[12icer]

The act of secession was implicitly argued and allowed in the Articles of Confederation, but the right of secession was left out of the final draft of the Constitution to protect the binding of the States as a single country.

 

[yiostheoy]

I just don't agree.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.

Grant won the war for Lincoln, and the Confederal generals surrendered across the board when Lee surrendered to Grant.

Between Grant and Sherman and Sheridan it was obvious that the Union Armies could easily mop up the Confederacy. For the sake of decency the Confederates did not pursue a protracted guerilla war.

So Lincoln, Grant, the voters who re-elected Lincoln and who elected Grant twice, and Sherman all disagree with you TNHarley .

That should give you pause at least.

Q.E.D.

But it doesn't. AGAIN, I don't give a fuck what a totalitarian thinks or other peoples opinion. I am trying to discuss the LAW

Verbosity.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Online trolls really ARE horrible people, researchers find | Daily Mail Online

Speak for yourself TNHarley you are one of the worst trolls on the Internet and in USMB.

In a few more minutes I will put you back onto my iggy list due to your many flagrant violations of the fallacies list:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

Nor does it withhold a States right to withdraw without permission. You also might want to look up the definition of a Republican form of government.

Argument from ignorance.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

Marshall did a " double switch " with Marbury v. Madison. Constituon never gave the Supreme judicial review or the power to declare laws unconstitutional. But he used the powers of Congress to establish the courts to justify power to declare laws unconstitutional.

And wrong as usual the Constitution CLEARLY states that the Supreme Court is final say in all matters involving disputes with the federal Government.

 

[yiostheoy]

LIke I said, get a copy of Grant's memoirs and read it.

So who is grant to make that statement? Reading his scribblings is like reading hitlers. You would actually need to read the Constitutional convention discourse, and The differences between the Articles of Confederation, and the Final draft of the Constitution. The wandering memoirs of a patent murderer, pirate and pillager are nothing but that.

Grant is the kind of person who would kill your azz if you tried to rebel.

There are plenty more too.

 

[OKTexas]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

The idea that a voluntary joining requires explicit wording to all voluntary individual leaving, is something that I am not aware of any other group requiring.


Every example I can think of, when you give up your right to leave voluntarily, the military for example, they explicitly state that you are not permitted to leave until the agreed upon time is done.

The articles of confederation stated they gave up the right to leave "in perpetuity."

The articles of confederation are moot, they were completely replaced by the Constitution.

 

[yiostheoy]

The act of secession was implicitly argued and allowed in the Articles of Confederation, but the right of secession was left out of the final draft of the Constitution to protect the binding of the States as a single country.

You must have slept through 8th Grade History when they covered the part where the Articles Of Confederation were superseded by ratification of the US Constitution.

You are missing the boat.

Is your mind not working anymore?

Or are you truly that dumb?

I know -- public schools -- you went to public schools n'est pas ?!

 

[yiostheoy]

Gotta git ready.

Bye 4 Now.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.

It requires a majority vote for some things. For thingd ut has no authority, like secession.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[OKTexas]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

You need to read more TNHarley .

Get a copy of US Grant's memoirs and in the epilogue he tells you that states have no right to secede and that the Union has the right to preserve itself.

So you're saiying Grant thought all the foundational principles contained in the Declaration Of Independence were just so much bullshit. That a free people have no right to govern themselves or to sever bonds that they find untenable.

The Declaration Of Independence was written by the Continental Congress to King George 3rd, not to you, to me, or to anybody else.

The Declaration Of Independence is NOT the U.S. Constitution.

Q.E.D.

I'm aware of that, but it did prescribe our founding principles that were supposed to be enshrined in the Constitution. Why do you think the writers of the Constitution limited the federal powers to those very specifically enumerated. Of course your venerable supreme court has abolished those enumerations as well.

 

[bripat9643]

The con explains how we add states . that's obviously a fed power on who's in and out.

So if you join a club, you have no right to leave it?

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

no it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does and the Supreme Court case settles it.

No it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.

So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app