Was seccession illegal?

[bripat9643]

That's an interesting legal principle. According to you, if a contract doesn't cover a particular issue, then one of the parties is free to make any conditions it wants and impose them on the other. So a bank could force you to hand over your firstborn male child if there was no language in it saying it couldn't.

Just the opposite. I'm saying if there is no clause allowing you to use your first male child as payment, you can't use children to pay off your mortgage.

Does that mean I can't have a gas grill in my house because there's no clause that says I can?

 

[radical right]

Does that mean I can't have a gas grill in my house because there's no clause that says I can?

If the banks contract lists appliances, and a gas grill isn't on the list, you can't have one. If it doesn't enumerate appliances, then you're free to chose anything you want. When contracts give specific requirements or exclusions you have to follow them. Else you're free to do what you want.

 

[bripat9643]

Does that mean I can't have a gas grill in my house because there's no clause that says I can?

If the banks contract lists appliances, and a gas grill isn't on the list, you can't have one. If it doesn't enumerate appliances, then you're free to chose anything you want. When contracts give specific requirements or exclusions you have to follow them. Else you're free to do what you want.

In other words, if it isn't discussed then you're free to do what you want. You just conceded that secession is legal.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

Only if the English language had been replaced.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.

Who said anything about apply? You said the Senate decides. Now you're adding other conditions..

You are a retard but thanks for proving it once again.

In other words, you know what you posted was is stupid and wrong.

Actual you keep confirming just how amazingly stupid you are. The Senate can not on its own just annex territory, the territory must ask to join the Union just as a State must ask to leave the Union. Dumb ass.

There's no text in the Constitution that says a state must ask permission to leave, but there is text that says it must ask permission to join, so your theory is absurd on its face.

Ratification binds the state to the laws of the Constitution. By ratifying the Constitution, a state agrees that the Constitution and the federal government that stems from it is the supreme law of the land.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

 

[koshergrl]

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

he's not a troll. Though he CAN troll when circumstances call for it.

 

[OKTexas]

Now you're moving to the absurd. Nite.

Art of war - The five types of spies, including village spies, those that give information on the enemy.

Now you know the difference between a simple villager and a spy.

 

[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?

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

 

[Pepperjuice]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[OKTexas]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

 

[koshergrl]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

 

[OKTexas]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

I completely agree, a State loses all sovereignty when it loses the ability to enter into or withdraw from treaties. The Constitution is essentially a treaty between sovereign States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

I completely agree, a State loses all sovereignty when it loses the ability to enter into or withdraw from treaties. The Constitution is essentially a treaty between sovereign States.

No it isn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

.

Nonsense. If that were true, the founders would have stayed under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course secession was illegal; the South should have respected the decision of the Electoral College, like the left did in our recent election; it just proves, the left is "nicer" than the right.

 

[OKTexas]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

I completely agree, a State loses all sovereignty when it loses the ability to enter into or withdraw from treaties. The Constitution is essentially a treaty between sovereign States.

No it isn't.

So Article 5 doesn't give the States the power to alter or abolish the Constitution at will?

 

[Pepperjuice]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

I am for states rights. I dont say that the fed should have all the power. They shouldnt have most of the power, but in those things ( Foreign Relations, infrastructure, defence and commerce) that the constitution does give the fed power they must trump the states. Any social programs are the states buiseness. This does not retract from the importance of the union.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?

houghts?

My thought is that whether it was legal or not is a moot point now as it was in the 1860s and afterwards. The Union was not of a mind to let the succession stand, and it had the will and wherewithal to act on that mindset and prevail.

 

[Pepperjuice]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

The division of powers is clear in the constitution. How our founders decided upon said is clear in the federalist/anti federalist papers and the minutes of the constitutional convention. You will find that our founders were more interested in a single nation where federal policies were innacted by congress, executed by the executive and checked by the court. The states had total control of internal policies with the exception of interstate commerce, which was dominion granted the fed by the founders who were reps of the states. Its a balanced unity.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app