Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[M14 Shooter]

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.

When a government acts outside its given authority we call it tyranny. regardless of the reason behind the act.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

"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"

 

[Bombur]

When a government acts outside its given authority we call it tyranny. regardless of the reason behind the act.

The authority in question was given to them by God and it was given to all people. So not tyranny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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"

Aside form the fact that this response doesn't address the question put to it...
You're arguing that the slaves should have risen up against the southern states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When a government acts outside its given authority we call it tyranny. regardless of the reason behind the act.

The authority in question was given to them by God and it was given to all people. So not tyranny.

I'm sorry... i thought you understood that there's a separation of church and state.

 

[Bombur]

I'm sorry... i thought you understood that there's a separation of church and state.

Wow.... just wow.

I was obviously referencing the DOI. Not sure if your comment was serious but if so good luck.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Let's consult some historians on this question.
Dwight Pitcaithley Southern Secession Video C-SPAN.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry... i thought you understood that there's a separation of church and state.

Wow.... just wow.
I was obviously referencing the DOI. Not sure if your comment was serious but if so good luck.

You were, though the DOI does not give the federal governemt any power to do anything.
You suggest that the federal government act with force against the states, absent any legal or constitutional power to do so.
That's tyranny, regardless of any moral justification it may have.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The federal government, was the traitorous side.

As the territories over time all became states, did the federal government send troops in to force them to do so ? Should they have if any wanted to stay a territory ?

Then why should they (the feds) have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Americans who wanted out ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Let's consult some historians on this question.
Dwight Pitcaithley Southern Secession Video C-SPAN.org

Appeal to authority.
Create, present and defend your own argument - I am.

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

 

[there4eyeM]

"...absent any language to the contrary, that association remains voluntary - the right exists and is retained.
Can you cite any such language?"
The language is very much there and very much to the contrary and very much ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative of those who would defend the attempt to destroy the nation.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

And the formalized legal Union was Perpetual; i.e., no secession.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Let's consult some historians on this question.
Dwight Pitcaithley Southern Secession Video C-SPAN.org

Appeal to authority.
Make up, present and defend your own argument - I am.

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

First, you haven't made your own argument. You've merely repeated the same argument used by many people over and over again. Second, your presentation of that argument is no more persuasive now. I believe you need a little more than vague interpretations of the Constitution to dismember the nation.

 

[Bombur]

I'm sorry... i thought you understood that there's a separation of church and state.

Wow.... just wow.
I was obviously referencing the DOI. Not sure if your comment was serious but if so good luck.

You were, though the DOI does not give the federal governemt any power to do anything.
You suggest that the federal government act with force against the states, absent any legal or constitutional power to do so.
That's tyranny, regardless of any moral justification it may have.

The DOI doesn't give power, it recognizes that the power already rests in the people. That power can then be given to the government.

You are fundamentally confused about the order or importance that is the foundation for our nation. We have rights whether our laws recognize those rights or not. We have the power, the right, and the duty to destroy any government that fails to secure those rights. In the case of slavery the nation as a whole always had the right to take up arms to end that practice, especially once it became obvious legal solutions would fail.

You are trying to hide the guilt of the South behind the legality of succession and war when the Union never needed such legal permission to abolish such governments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Let's consult some historians on this question.
Dwight Pitcaithley Southern Secession Video C-SPAN.org

Appeal to authority.
Make up, present and defend your own argument - I am.
All of the states -- sovereign states -- voluntarily chose to associate with other states to form a union; as the states retain their sovereignty, absent any language to the contrary, that association remains voluntary - the right exists and is retained.
Can you cite any such language?

First, you haven't made your own argument.

1: I proved that the states are sovereign
2: Their association with the other states was entered voluntarily, with sovereignty retained save for those exceptions specified in the constitution
3; Absent any restriction to that effect, the states, having retained their sovereignty, and thus their right to do so, chose to disassociate themselves from the other states

Please feel free to substantively show the errors in this argument.

 

[Liminal]

Here's how I look at secession: What ever state you live in, that's my country too. You and the other temporary residents of that state don't have my permission to dismember my country, and you never will. You didn't build that, you merely stand on the shoulders of generations of Americans who did.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry... i thought you understood that there's a separation of church and state.

Wow.... just wow.
I was obviously referencing the DOI. Not sure if your comment was serious but if so good luck.

You were, though the DOI does not give the federal governemt any power to do anything.
You suggest that the federal government act with force against the states, absent any legal or constitutional power to do so.
That's tyranny, regardless of any moral justification it may have.

The DOI doesn't give power...

I said that. Thank you.

You are trying to hide the guilt of the South behind the legality of succession and war when the Union never needed such legal permission to abolish such governments.

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

 

[Liminal]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's have a closer look at what one the primary authors of the Constitution thought.
Discussion Thomas Jefferson s Union Video C-SPAN.org

Yawn.

 

[Bombur]

YOU are not paying attention.
I asked you what the federal government could legally and constitionally do -- in a non-secessionist reality - to end slavery in the southern states, had the political process failed to do so.
Well?

I answered this already very clearly. War. To destroy that government that fails so fully in their duty and purpose to secure the rights of people.

That is obviously not ideal and is such a harsh option it would have likely never happened but there is no question that they would have been justified in doing so.

The South and the institution of slavery is indefensible. Some people try and hide behind the legality of what happened when the basis of war is not rooted in the imperfect government that was established to secure the rights of people but in the God given rights that were being violated.