Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[Bombur]

The ability of the Southern states to simply leave was never really put up for debate because they declared war before the legal option was explored.

The people of the US always had the moral right to declare war against any government that allowed slavery.

The Confederate states never declared war and neither did the federal government. Lincoln simply invaded Virginia.

lol

 

[M14 Shooter]

Based on.... what?

Perhaps you'd like to propose a constitutional amendment that creates a legal process for secession.

So... based on.... nothing. Thank you.

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

 

[Liminal]

Perhaps you'd like to propose a constitutional amendment that creates a legal process for secession.

So... based on.... nothing. Thank you.

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession. Perhaps you don't really want one, I can only guess why.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... based on.... nothing. Thank you.

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession.

That in no way means that the states did not retain the right to succession.

 

[Bombur]

The best part of the civil war debate IMO is that even if there was a clear legal way for the states to leave the Union, the north still could have declared their government in violation of the rights of the slaves as established in the Declaration of Independence. Once you establish that they are bound by their duty and their morality to destroy such a government and replace it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The best part of the civil war debate IMO is that even if there was a clear legal way for the states to leave the Union, the north still could have declared their government in violation of the rights of the slaves as established in the Declaration of Independence. Once you establish that they are bound by their duty and their morality to destroy such a government and replace it.

Union states had slaves as well.

 

[RKMBrown]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

Easy.. it's cause they think they own everyone and everything.

 

[Bombur]

The best part of the civil war debate IMO is that even if there was a clear legal way for the states to leave the Union, the north still could have declared their government in violation of the rights of the slaves as established in the Declaration of Independence. Once you establish that they are bound by their duty and their morality to destroy such a government and replace it.

Union states has slaves as well.

Which they had the political power to address once the South left. The ideal way of addressing such matters is always democracy first, guns second. The South shot first so that was never allowed to happen but it would have been ideal. All of this states right nonsense about states that utterly failed in their duty as states is bizarre.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The best part of the civil war debate IMO is that even if there was a clear legal way for the states to leave the Union, the north still could have declared their government in violation of the rights of the slaves as established in the Declaration of Independence. Once you establish that they are bound by their duty and their morality to destroy such a government and replace it.

Union states has slaves as well.

Which they had the political power to address once the South left. The ideal way of addressing such matters is always democracy first, guns second. The South shot first so that was never allowed to happen but it would have been ideal. All of this states right nonsense about states that utterly failed in their duty as states is bizarre.

Had the southern states not left the union, ho do you suppose it would have been dealt with "democratically"?

 

[Bombur]

The best part of the civil war debate IMO is that even if there was a clear legal way for the states to leave the Union, the north still could have declared their government in violation of the rights of the slaves as established in the Declaration of Independence. Once you establish that they are bound by their duty and their morality to destroy such a government and replace it.

Union states has slaves as well.

Which they had the political power to address once the South left. The ideal way of addressing such matters is always democracy first, guns second. The South shot first so that was never allowed to happen but it would have been ideal. All of this states right nonsense about states that utterly failed in their duty as states is bizarre.

Had the southern states not left the union, ho do you suppose it would have been dealt with "democratically"?

I can only speculate but ideally quickly and harshly. Slavery was a disgrace.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The best part of the civil war debate IMO is that even if there was a clear legal way for the states to leave the Union, the north still could have declared their government in violation of the rights of the slaves as established in the Declaration of Independence. Once you establish that they are bound by their duty and their morality to destroy such a government and replace it.

Union states has slaves as well.

Which they had the political power to address once the South left. The ideal way of addressing such matters is always democracy first, guns second. The South shot first so that was never allowed to happen but it would have been ideal. All of this states right nonsense about states that utterly failed in their duty as states is bizarre.

Had the southern states not left the union, ho do you suppose it would have been dealt with "democratically"?

I can only speculate but ideally quickly and harshly.

Specifically?

 

[Bombur]

I can only speculate but ideally quickly and harshly.

Specifically?

I am not sure you understand what you are asking. You are asking me to speculate how the government would have made slavery illegal in a world that never existed. There are a lot of ways a nation can democratically make slavery illegal. The Declaration also allows for people to use force to fight against a government that failed to do so.

Either way the slave states were so clearly in violation of their duty while also at the same time completely deluded with the idea they weren't that war was inevitable and that is why they started it.

 

[Liminal]

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession.

That in no way means that the states did not retain the right to succession.

You can't retain something you never had. You either have a formalized legal process or you have illegal rebellion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can only speculate but ideally quickly and harshly.

Specifically?

I am not sure you understand what you are asking. You are asking me to speculate how the government would have made slavery illegal in a world that never existed.

Yup.
You seem to think the democratic process would have or at least could have done so; sure you have some idea how it would have happened.
Similarly, you must have some idea what would have happened had the democratic process failed.
Presume the slave states would have used the democratic process to resist these changes - how does the federal government brig about the change you describe?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession.

That in no way means that the states did not retain the right to succession.

You can't retain something you never had.

All of the states voluntarily chose to associate with other states to form a union; absent any language to the contrary, that association remains voluntary - the right exists and is retained.
Can you cite any such language?

You either have a formalized legal process or you have illegal rebellion

False dichotomy.

 

[Bombur]

Yup.
You seem to think the democratic process would have or at least could have done so; sure you have some idea how it would have happened.
Similarly, you must have some idea what would have happened had the democratic process failed.
Presume the slave states would have used the democratic process to resist these changes - how does the federal government brig about the change you describe?

If all peaceful and democratic means of accomplishing it failed they would have been duty bound to use war.

That is why all of this posturing over the legality of what the north or south did is so funny to me. The government itself failed to defend the God given rights of the slaves and to a degree that made the complaints made against King George seem petty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yup.
You seem to think the democratic process would have or at least could have done so; sure you have some idea how it would have happened.
Similarly, you must have some idea what would have happened had the democratic process failed.
Presume the slave states would have used the democratic process to resist these changes - how does the federal government brig about the change you describe?

If all peaceful and democratic means of accomplishing it failed they would have been duty bound to use war.

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

 

[Contumacious]

So... based on.... nothing. Thank you.

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession. Perhaps you don't really want one, I can only guess why.

Ain't that some shit?

There is a legal process for statehood but not one for secession.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The secessionists must find a "legal process" just like Afghan , Iraqi and ISIS insurgents have.

.

.

 

[Bombur]

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

The slave states were in violation of the rights of mankind. They didn't need legal justification. Whether you think they had legal justification or not is immaterial.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Considerably more than you have now.

Please -- feel free to share.

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment legalizing a formal process for secession solve your problem?

As -my- argument is demonstrably sound, -I- don't have a problem here.

No, you still haven't even begun to deal with the fundamental problem with your argument. There is no legal process for secession. Perhaps you don't really want one, I can only guess why.

Ain't that some shit?
There is a legal process for statehood but not one for secession.

Why do you think this is important and/or compelling?