Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?

[Uncensored2008]

Why doesn't the 10th Amendment apply to secession?

Why did we go through a ratification process, if we are mere territories, ruled from afar by the central power?

 

[martybegan]

You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?

If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.

So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.

Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.

A federal system that allows unilateral seccession is not workable. Nothing would ever get done, as every time the minority of states lost some vote, they would threaten to seceede. Sooner or later it would have to happen, and the result will be either war or a bunch of weak penny ante countries ripe for conquest.

Also, the only reason the southern states didnt use it earlier is that they were getting thier way.

Seccession is the equivalent of a 5 year old running away from home when he doesnt get the cake slice he wanted.

 

[martybegan]

Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.

Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?

Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.

So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.

Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function? The civil war proves it cannot.

Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?

Edit: Im on the left? are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.

 

[rightwinger]

The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.

By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.

Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.

That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.

If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.

Agree

If joining the United States were to be something you could jump in and out as you wish, there needed to be provisions on the process to withdraw and how assets would be divided up. An example is Ft Sumter. Federal land in a state.
There also needed to be provisions on how joint debt would be paid

There obviously were no such provisions

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.

So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.

Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.

A federal system that allows unilateral seccession is not workable. Nothing would ever get done, as every time the minority of states lost some vote, they would threaten to seceede. Sooner or later it would have to happen, and the result will be either war or a bunch of weak penny ante countries ripe for conquest.

Also, the only reason the southern states didnt use it earlier is that they were getting thier way.

Seccession is the equivalent of a 5 year old running away from home when he doesnt get the cake slice he wanted.

You're simply repeating the same thing over and over without adding any more substance to it.

You say nothing would ever get done, yet it did with very few calls for secession. In fact, perhaps the only real threat prior to 1860 came from the northern New England states in 1814 at the Hartford Convention.

As for the south getting their way, in what alternate universe did that occur? I seem to recall a series of compromises, but rarely did either side get their way. Isn't that evidence of the system working? If the south had had their way there would've been no restrictions on the spread of slavery into new territories or states, and there would have been no tariffs.

Also your analogy is incorrect. Secession is the equivalent of the parent taking the entire cake away when the child throws a tantrum over not getting the cake slice he wanted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So basically once a side loses an election, according to you, they can just leave and set up thier own government?

According to George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al; we already had our own governments. That was the whole point of liberty, a people who governed themselves.

Are you an anarchist?

No, I'm constitutionalists. According to the United States Constitution, there are 50, independent, republican governments who have joined a federation. To you, there is one government with 50 territories to rule.

Prior to the civil war, the question of a state leaving the federal union was not an issue, the issue was who would be admitted?

Admission was tough, leaving was up to the states.

The only way for the union to be dissolved would have been with the consent of both sides of the argument.

You use the word "union," yet speak of an empire. A union can only be voluntary.

In any other case you would have anarchy after every election because the losers would threaten seccession unless they reicieved givebacks. The federal system would be ungovernable.

If you had read the constitution, you would understand that there are no federal elections. You have NEVER cast a "united states ballot," and they don't exist. All elections are held by the sovereign states. When you go cast your ballot for Obama, you will cast it in the state you live in, it has no meaning outside of your state.

So would California secede if an election in Texas doesn't go their way? That is utterly absurd. Elections are only state-wide, and it is the complete failure of our educational system that results in so many not grasping this.

Once states signed the consitution, they were in until let out.

Had such a provision been floated, no state would have ratified the document.

[quoteThe Civil war proved that, despite people's libertarian fantasies and neo-confederate masturbation dreams.[/QUOTE]

The civil was was the circumventing of the constitution and the end of constitutional government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!

This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.

The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.

Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.

Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?

Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.

So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.

Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function? The civil war proves it cannot.

Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?

Edit: Im on the left? are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Quincy Adams

Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."

 

[martybegan]

So basically once a side loses an election, according to you, they can just leave and set up thier own government?

According to George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al; we already had our own governments. That was the whole point of liberty, a people who governed themselves.

Are you an anarchist?

No, I'm constitutionalists. According to the United States Constitution, there are 50, independent, republican governments who have joined a federation. To you, there is one government with 50 territories to rule.

Prior to the civil war, the question of a state leaving the federal union was not an issue, the issue was who would be admitted?

Admission was tough, leaving was up to the states.



You use the word "union," yet speak of an empire. A union can only be voluntary.

In any other case you would have anarchy after every election because the losers would threaten seccession unless they reicieved givebacks. The federal system would be ungovernable.

If you had read the constitution, you would understand that there are no federal elections. You have NEVER cast a "united states ballot," and they don't exist. All elections are held by the sovereign states. When you go cast your ballot for Obama, you will cast it in the state you live in, it has no meaning outside of your state.

So would California secede if an election in Texas doesn't go their way? That is utterly absurd. Elections are only state-wide, and it is the complete failure of our educational system that results in so many not grasping this.

Once states signed the consitution, they were in until let out.

Had such a provision been floated, no state would have ratified the document.

[quoteThe Civil war proved that, despite people's libertarian fantasies and neo-confederate masturbation dreams.

The civil was was the circumventing of the constitution and the end of constitutional government.[/quote]

You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.

and yes, there are federal elections, which are for federal positions. They may be within the state, but they are not responsible to the state government. Senators used to be, but by amendment are no longer. A governor or a state legislature cannot tell a legislative representative how to vote, nor can he tell a senator.

I know the constitution has been messed with, with far too much power going to the federal level above the state level. But that does not result in the right to seccession without the consent of the rest of the whole.

Another point to be made is that the northern states themselves could have stopped the Federal government cold by not giving support to Lincoln, nor answering the callup for state regiments. It wasnt the feds only who disagreed with secesssion, it was the other states involved in the compact.

If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.

 

[martybegan]

Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?

Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.

So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.

Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function? The civil war proves it cannot.

Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?

Edit: Im on the left? are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Quincy Adams

Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."

Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.

 

[martybegan]

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!

This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.

The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.

Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.

According to your logic so did all the other northern states that backed him up.
So basically the consitution is a death pact, where as soon as a minority decides they cant get thier way, they get to leave. No government can work like that.

That makes you an anarchist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function? The civil war proves it cannot.

Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?

Edit: Im on the left? are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Quincy Adams

Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."

Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.

So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.

 

[martybegan]

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Quincy Adams

Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."

Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.

So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.

I have to assume you mean Jefferson.

Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further. Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.

Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.

So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.

I have to assume you mean Jefferson.

Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further. Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.

Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.

Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.

What about the U.S. under the Articles?

You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.

 

[eflatminor]

Woodrow Wilson

 

[martybegan]

So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.

I have to assume you mean Jefferson.

Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further. Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.

Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.

Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.

What about the U.S. under the Articles?

You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.

There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede. To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.

There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have to assume you mean Jefferson.

Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further. Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.

Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.

Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.

What about the U.S. under the Articles?

You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.

There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede. To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.

There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.

So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?

Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.

 

[martybegan]

Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.

What about the U.S. under the Articles?

You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.

There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede. To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.

There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.

So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?

Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.

Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War. At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops). That question was also answered by war.

Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?

The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.

If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)

The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.

and yes, there are federal elections, which are for federal positions.

You are incorrect.

When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.

There are no federal elections, and never have been.

They may be within the state, but they are not responsible to the state government. Senators used to be, but by amendment are no longer. A governor or a state legislature cannot tell a legislative representative how to vote, nor can he tell a senator.

The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.

I know the constitution has been messed with, with far too much power going to the federal level above the state level. But that does not result in the right to seccession without the consent of the rest of the whole.

If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?

Another point to be made is that the northern states themselves could have stopped the Federal government cold by not giving support to Lincoln, nor answering the callup for state regiments. It wasnt the feds only who disagreed with secesssion, it was the other states involved in the compact.

In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.

If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.

Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede. To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.

There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.

So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?

Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.

Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War. At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops). That question was also answered by war.

Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?

The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.

If you and I are talking and you try to stifle my freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you beat me up my right to say what I want never existed. The right existed, and still exists, but is merely be quashed by the use of force. That's exactly what happened with secession, as you basically admitted when you said there's a right to revolution. You think violence grants some legitimacy, but I see no reason for that to be the case. As for the north not agreeing with secession, that's incorrect. The north clearly believed there was a right to secession, as the 1814 Hartford Convention clearly shows. However, even in the case of the south the north was completely uninterested in forcing them to remain in the Union until Fort Sumter. Even then the war fever was more about them attacking the Union than in forcing them to stay in the Union.

Of course the Confederates put down secessionist plots within their borders, as they were no less hypocritical than the Union. Though it should be pointed out that the relationship of counties to states, or cities to states is not the same as the relationship of the states to the federal government, you're absolutely correct on this point. They should have every right to secede if they so choose.

And again, you keep stating that in order to secede one must have the permission of everybody else, but you can't back it up. Where is that stated? Is it in the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?