Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This was never claimed, stated nor implied.The South preferred an illegal attempt at separation rather than a legal, Constitutional process in its desire to annul the Perpetual Union. They chose war over reason. That is simple rebellion. Add to that the slavery issue, and everything about their treason loses any possible virtue.
What is the legal process for secession? (this is the first I have heard this claim, btw)
There is no constitutional method of succession, but to me the obvious method would be a reverse of the process of admitting States, i.e. congress votes on it.
So, there4eyeM's claim that there is a legal Constitutional process that the South should have followed,
is incorrect?
That's fine....but then don't start a war by firing on a U.S. Federal Installation. That was stupid and they paid the price.The requirement to join the Union requires a vote of congress and the acceptance of the majority of States currently in the Union, you want to leave? Requires the same vote.It wasn't voluntary it took an act of Congress.
Was it imposed on them, or did the citizens of the State request it first?
As stated, the people of the epoch understood English. They understood the terms used in the original documents. If you voluntarily join a group that states it is forever, you cannot unilaterally change the rules. How is it that people are so dense they don't see that?
This was never claimed, stated nor implied.The South preferred an illegal attempt at separation rather than a legal, Constitutional process in its desire to annul the Perpetual Union. They chose war over reason. That is simple rebellion. Add to that the slavery issue, and everything about their treason loses any possible virtue.
What is the legal process for secession? (this is the first I have heard this claim, btw)
There is no constitutional method of succession, but to me the obvious method would be a reverse of the process of admitting States, i.e. congress votes on it.
So, there4eyeM's claim that there is a legal Constitutional process that the South should have followed,
is incorrect?
That's fine....but then don't start a war by firing on a U.S. Federal Installation. That was stupid and they paid the price.The requirement to join the Union requires a vote of congress and the acceptance of the majority of States currently in the Union, you want to leave? Requires the same vote.It wasn't voluntary it took an act of Congress.
Was it imposed on them, or did the citizens of the State request it first?
I wish Lee had followed fellow Virginian George H. Thomas's example and joined the Union army instead. Still, I admire and respect Lee. He always strove to follow the rules of war. If the honorable but blockheaded Jefferson Davis had followed Lee's advice more often, the Confederacy might have won. As early as 1862, Lee was privately urging Davis to begin a program of gradual emancipation, but Davis did not act on this advice until it was too late.
No we wouldn't...and it hasn't happened, so you are just fantasizing about civil war like CRC trumpanzees like to do....for some reason.That's fine....but then don't start a war by firing on a U.S. Federal Installation. That was stupid and they paid the price.The requirement to join the Union requires a vote of congress and the acceptance of the majority of States currently in the Union, you want to leave? Requires the same vote.It wasn't voluntary it took an act of Congress.
Was it imposed on them, or did the citizens of the State request it first?
If Puerto Rico voted to leave the Union, and some REpublican President refused to remove military bases from the island, you lefties would be rioting in the streets.
But it's good to note that he did NOTHING until the moronic South fired on a Federal Installation.I wish Lee had followed fellow Virginian George H. Thomas's example and joined the Union army instead. Still, I admire and respect Lee. He always strove to follow the rules of war. If the honorable but blockheaded Jefferson Davis had followed Lee's advice more often, the Confederacy might have won. As early as 1862, Lee was privately urging Davis to begin a program of gradual emancipation, but Davis did not act on this advice until it was too late.
Emancipation would mean the Confederacy had no reason for existing. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union
You mean democratsBut it's good to note that he did NOTHING until the moronic South fired on a Federal Installation.I wish Lee had followed fellow Virginian George H. Thomas's example and joined the Union army instead. Still, I admire and respect Lee. He always strove to follow the rules of war. If the honorable but blockheaded Jefferson Davis had followed Lee's advice more often, the Confederacy might have won. As early as 1862, Lee was privately urging Davis to begin a program of gradual emancipation, but Davis did not act on this advice until it was too late.
Emancipation would mean the Confederacy had no reason for existing. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union
No we wouldn't...and it hasn't happened, so you are just fantasizing about civil war like CRC trumpanzees like to do....for some reason.That's fine....but then don't start a war by firing on a U.S. Federal Installation. That was stupid and they paid the price.The requirement to join the Union requires a vote of congress and the acceptance of the majority of States currently in the Union, you want to leave? Requires the same vote.It wasn't voluntary it took an act of Congress.
Was it imposed on them, or did the citizens of the State request it first?
If Puerto Rico voted to leave the Union, and some REpublican President refused to remove military bases from the island, you lefties would be rioting in the streets.
Apparently, I relied too much on the comma. What was intended was to describe a process that was legal and addressed the Constitution.This was never claimed, stated nor implied.The South preferred an illegal attempt at separation rather than a legal, Constitutional process in its desire to annul the Perpetual Union. They chose war over reason. That is simple rebellion. Add to that the slavery issue, and everything about their treason loses any possible virtue.
What is the legal process for secession? (this is the first I have heard this claim, btw)
There is no constitutional method of succession, but to me the obvious method would be a reverse of the process of admitting States, i.e. congress votes on it.
So, there4eyeM's claim that there is a legal Constitutional process that the South should have followed,
is incorrect?
YOur words, from above, " rather than a legal, Constitutional process ".
Apparently, I relied too much on the comma. What was intended was to describe a process that was legal and addressed the Constitution.This was never claimed, stated nor implied.What is the legal process for secession? (this is the first I have heard this claim, btw)
There is no constitutional method of succession, but to me the obvious method would be a reverse of the process of admitting States, i.e. congress votes on it.
So, there4eyeM's claim that there is a legal Constitutional process that the South should have followed,
is incorrect?
YOur words, from above, " rather than a legal, Constitutional process ".
There was and is no legal process for session. There is a process to legally change the rules and leave. Someone else will have to make this more clear if the present suffices not.Quite clearly, the legal process would be to make an amendment to the Constitution. It is not a new idea.The South preferred an illegal attempt at separation rather than a legal, Constitutional process in its desire to annul the Perpetual Union. They chose war over reason. That is simple rebellion. Add to that the slavery issue, and everything about their treason loses any possible virtue.
What is the legal process for secession? (this is the first I have heard this claim, btw)
There was and is no legal process for session. There is a process to legally change the rules and leave. Someone else will have to make this more clear if the present suffices not.Quite clearly, the legal process would be to make an amendment to the Constitution. It is not a new idea.The South preferred an illegal attempt at separation rather than a legal, Constitutional process in its desire to annul the Perpetual Union. They chose war over reason. That is simple rebellion. Add to that the slavery issue, and everything about their treason loses any possible virtue.
What is the legal process for secession? (this is the first I have heard this claim, btw)
The war was Americans vs damn Yankees ...that's what they tell me in Tennessee......they're right
Nope. It was about slavery... The one thing we've learned about you Red State Inbreds, you'll believe anything and gladly throw away your lives for rich people. Natural Selection in action.
We all expected assholes like you to chime in.Too bad for his legacy that he chose to fight for slavery. Robert E. Lee, forever the brilliant general turned traitor and slaver puppet...
Too bad he wasn't shot in the face immediately upon resigning. Perhaps a great many lives could have been saved.