Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[thanatos144]

Yes, indeed

The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

.

I guess the government overreach when they were trying to make it so that the new territories wouldn't have slavery in them. I mean what dirty bastards to make it harder for others to own other people.

Bullshit. Slavery was on its way out. Every country on the face of mother earth abolished slavery without wiping out 620,000 citizens.

Lincoln bent over reach the south did and started a war. . South certainly did rise up and cause the death of far too many Americans

More bullshit.

South Carolina asked politely and respectfully for Lincoln to remove federal troops from Fort Sumter. The scumbag refused.

The war of northern aggression wasn't about slavery it was about excise taxes and real state.

Apologists came up with the slavery subterfuge because they needed a pretext after causing 620,000 Americans to die.

.

truth is a whole different story than what your mommy and Pappy told you about the Confederat states. you can screen that slavery was going out to the Confederate Constitution went out of its way to talk about how slavery was going to be cornerstone of Southern economics. I mean Jefferson Davis was so nice to say that all freed slaves would no longer be free if caught

 

[bripat9643]

1. U.S. law, prior to 1862 mentioned nothing about the legality or illegality of secession. The Constitution didn't mention it all. There were no SCOTUS rulings on it. So, under the 10th Amendment, the states had the right to secede.

2. Other than some being tried for war crimes, I don't believe that any Confederate commanders were ever charged with any crimes involving insurrection, rebellion, etc...

3. The 1869 SCOTUS decision was a farce and obviously ruled on biasly; but none-the-less the law of the land.

4. Texas Constitution: Article 1-Section 1: FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Note that Sec. 1 DOES NOT say that it is subject to the President of the United States, or to the Federal Government of the United States. It talks about the perpetuity of the Union depending up the "preservation of the right of local self-government." Seeing as how the federal government hasn't kept up it's end of the bargain I'd say the Texas Constitution gives perfect grounds for secession; espicially considering that the United States agreed to the terms in the Texas Constitution upon annexation....

5. Is it likely? No. The United States would never let Texas go without a war. Texas has the 14th largest economy in the world and is home to a TON of natural gas and oil reserves, as well as natural gas and oil refineries. If Texas wants out, it's going to have to fight it's way out. It won't only be fighting a war with the U.S., but will also be fighting a war with drug cartels to keep them from taking over...I love my state but now is not the right time to secede.

Absence of law on the issue did not de facto authorize any state to ‘secede.’

And it was never the intent of the Framers of the Tenth Amendment to ‘authorize’ secession.

Indeed, the very purpose of the Constitution was to acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal government, the laws of Congress, and decisions of Federal courts. The notion that a state or states could ‘secede’ unilaterally was anathema to the Founding Generation and the intent of the people to live as citizens of one Nation, not a collection of states.

That's an outright lie. The Founding generation just got done seceding from the English Empire. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for secession. Many of the Founding Fathers can be quoted endorsing the idea of secession.

You're just plain full of shit. Your nothing more than a shill for the totalitarian state.

 

[bripat9643]

Why can't states secede today?

Just because some states that seceded 150 years ago started a war with the U.S.?

I'm pretty sure if circumstances called for it a state could secede anytime now.

When did the seceeding states start a war? I was under the impression that a specific state, after seceeding, asked federal troops to leave the state seeing as how the state was no longer a member of the Union. The federal troops refused to leave after numerous warnings and the seceeding state wasn't bluffing when it said it would retake the Fort.

States in the Union cannot compel Federal troops to leave Federal territory, which would be anywhere in the Union – then or now.

After it seceded South Carolina wasn't in the union. It wasn't Federal territory.

Your argument, as usual, is just a pile of totalitarian horseshit.

 

[Sallow]

[.
They surrendered that part of their sovereignty by ratified the Constitution, or by later applying for statehood.

.

LINK

I am NOT asking for YOUR opinion, - I want to read where Patrick Henry stated "Let's waive our sovereignty"

EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS OR STFU

.

Um really?

Oh man.

 

[thanatos144]

there is one thing we can honestly say without a doubt. The Civil War is over

 

[BrianH]

When did the seceeding states start a war? I was under the impression that a specific state, after seceeding, asked federal troops to leave the state seeing as how the state was no longer a member of the Union. The federal troops refused to leave after numerous warnings and the seceeding state wasn't bluffing when it said it would retake the Fort.

Yes, indeed

The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

.

The DoI is a political, not legal, document.

It has no binding judicial authority.

And in any event, there is nothing about the current government that has ‘become destructive’ that would warrant its ‘overthrow.’

In fact, Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any time in our Nation’s history. To believe otherwise is to be either willfully ignorant or a partisan demagogue.

Last, those who attempt to present the government’s surveillance programs as some sort of ‘evidence’ of a government ‘become destructive’ are clearly ignorant of the fact that those programs exist at the behest of the people, authorized by their elected representatives in Congress, and administered by the courts in accordance with the Constitution.

Anyone who believes otherwise is at liberty to seek the end of these programs either at the ballot box or in the courts; but until such time as the laws authorizing the surveillance programs are repealed or invalidated, they remain legal and Constitutional and not justification to ‘overthrow’ the government.

Ok, well let's start:

1. The conducting of wars without the Declaration of War from Congress; resulting in Congress illegally turning over their powers to declare war, via the War Powers Act, to the Executive Branch.

2. The violations of the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
--Our system does not operate so that the majority can elect representatives and then violate the rights of the minority. The 51% cannot enact laws that violate the rights of the remaining 49%. This idea that, because we elect representatives and those representatives make laws, is a strawman at best and does not reflect the type of Constitutional government we have. I don't care of 95% of the people supported spying and the SIEZURE of data of all Americans, it's still unconstitutional. That's why the Bill of Rights is called as such. It's not called the "Bill of Rights, Uless Rpresentatives of the Pople Say They're Not Rights Anymore."

3. The illegal arms trafficking of dangerous weapons to Mexico, on tax-payer time, all while endangering the lives of Mexican citizens, law enforcement, and American citizens along the U.S.-Mexico border.

4. The refusal of the federal government to properly enforce our national borders; as was stipulated in the Constitution. States are prohibited from exercising thier own border security under the agreement that the Federal Government would do so in order to keep them safe; failing to live up to their end of the agreement.

5. The unconstitutional federal blanket laws exercising powers not granted to them in the Constitution as well as enacting federal blanket laws that violate state constitutions that were agreed upon by the U.S. upon the annexation of that state...


These are just a few off of the top of my head.

 

[Sallow]

1. U.S. law, prior to 1862 mentioned nothing about the legality or illegality of secession. The Constitution didn't mention it all. There were no SCOTUS rulings on it. So, under the 10th Amendment, the states had the right to secede.

2. Other than some being tried for war crimes, I don't believe that any Confederate commanders were ever charged with any crimes involving insurrection, rebellion, etc...

3. The 1869 SCOTUS decision was a farce and obviously ruled on biasly; but none-the-less the law of the land.

4. Texas Constitution: Article 1-Section 1: FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Note that Sec. 1 DOES NOT say that it is subject to the President of the United States, or to the Federal Government of the United States. It talks about the perpetuity of the Union depending up the "preservation of the right of local self-government." Seeing as how the federal government hasn't kept up it's end of the bargain I'd say the Texas Constitution gives perfect grounds for secession; espicially considering that the United States agreed to the terms in the Texas Constitution upon annexation....

5. Is it likely? No. The United States would never let Texas go without a war. Texas has the 14th largest economy in the world and is home to a TON of natural gas and oil reserves, as well as natural gas and oil refineries. If Texas wants out, it's going to have to fight it's way out. It won't only be fighting a war with the U.S., but will also be fighting a war with drug cartels to keep them from taking over...I love my state but now is not the right time to secede.

Absence of law on the issue did not de facto authorize any state to ‘secede.’

And it was never the intent of the Framers of the Tenth Amendment to ‘authorize’ secession.

Indeed, the very purpose of the Constitution was to acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal government, the laws of Congress, and decisions of Federal courts. The notion that a state or states could ‘secede’ unilaterally was anathema to the Founding Generation and the intent of the people to live as citizens of one Nation, not a collection of states.

That's an outright lie. The Founding generation just got done seceding from the English Empire. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for secession. Many of the Founding Fathers can be quoted endorsing the idea of secession.

You're just plain full of shit. Your nothing more than a shill for the totalitarian state.

What lie?

Do you understand exactly what you are talking about?

When the colonies seceded from England, the broke a pact with the English. The English responded by attacking.

The Colonists won.

When the Confederates decided to secede and fire upon Americans, the broke a pact with America. Americans responded by attacking.

The Americans won.

What's your problem with that?

You are free to leave the country and found a new one based on Confederate principles.

 

[BrianH]

1. U.S. law, prior to 1862 mentioned nothing about the legality or illegality of secession. The Constitution didn't mention it all. There were no SCOTUS rulings on it. So, under the 10th Amendment, the states had the right to secede.

2. Other than some being tried for war crimes, I don't believe that any Confederate commanders were ever charged with any crimes involving insurrection, rebellion, etc...

3. The 1869 SCOTUS decision was a farce and obviously ruled on biasly; but none-the-less the law of the land.

4. Texas Constitution: Article 1-Section 1: FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Note that Sec. 1 DOES NOT say that it is subject to the President of the United States, or to the Federal Government of the United States. It talks about the perpetuity of the Union depending up the "preservation of the right of local self-government." Seeing as how the federal government hasn't kept up it's end of the bargain I'd say the Texas Constitution gives perfect grounds for secession; espicially considering that the United States agreed to the terms in the Texas Constitution upon annexation....

5. Is it likely? No. The United States would never let Texas go without a war. Texas has the 14th largest economy in the world and is home to a TON of natural gas and oil reserves, as well as natural gas and oil refineries. If Texas wants out, it's going to have to fight it's way out. It won't only be fighting a war with the U.S., but will also be fighting a war with drug cartels to keep them from taking over...I love my state but now is not the right time to secede.

Absence of law on the issue did not de facto authorize any state to ‘secede.’

And it was never the intent of the Framers of the Tenth Amendment to ‘authorize’ secession.

Indeed, the very purpose of the Constitution was to acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal government, the laws of Congress, and decisions of Federal courts. The notion that a state or states could ‘secede’ unilaterally was anathema to the Founding Generation and the intent of the people to live as citizens of one Nation, not a collection of states.

That's an outright lie. The Founding generation just got done seceding from the English Empire. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for secession. Many of the Founding Fathers can be quoted endorsing the idea of secession.

You're just plain full of shit. Your nothing more than a shill for the totalitarian state.

You're exactly right. I'm not sure where Clayton is getting this from. The 10th Amendment was designed to address the absence of a law. Just reading it is enough to understand it. If a power is not granted to the federal government, and there's no law prohibiting that power to the states, then the state (OR THE PEOPLE) have the right to use that power. Seeing as how secession was not a power granted to the federal government, and wasn't a power prohibited to the states Circa 1860, the states had perfect legitimacy in using it. Hell, the seceeded from the Articles of Confederation before ratifying the Constitution. Anyone who knows the history of how this nation began and ratified its first founding documents would understand that the founders intended for states to be able to seceed from the Union until the Union got it's act together. It was meant as a punishment mechanism in the event that the federal government became to powerful, or enacted laws that disenfranchised states, or violated it's own set of laws. Knowing where the founding fathers came from, and what they were fighting against, it's obvious what their intentions were.

 

[Contumacious]

truth is a whole different story than what your mommy and Pappy told you about the Confederat states. you can screen that slavery was going out to the Confederate Constitution went out of its way to talk about how slavery was going to be cornerstone of Southern economics. I mean Jefferson Davis was so nice to say that all freed slaves would no longer be free if caught

Here is a letter your boy sent to The Editor of The New York Tribune on August 22nd, 1862. Show me where he repudiates slavery therein. Show me where he says that the reason for the invasion was slavery.

.

.

 

[BrianH]

Absence of law on the issue did not de facto authorize any state to ‘secede.’

And it was never the intent of the Framers of the Tenth Amendment to ‘authorize’ secession.

Indeed, the very purpose of the Constitution was to acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal government, the laws of Congress, and decisions of Federal courts. The notion that a state or states could ‘secede’ unilaterally was anathema to the Founding Generation and the intent of the people to live as citizens of one Nation, not a collection of states.

That's an outright lie. The Founding generation just got done seceding from the English Empire. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for secession. Many of the Founding Fathers can be quoted endorsing the idea of secession.

You're just plain full of shit. Your nothing more than a shill for the totalitarian state.

What lie?

Do you understand exactly what you are talking about?

When the colonies seceded from England, the broke a pact with the English. The English responded by attacking.

The Colonists won.

When the Confederates decided to secede and fire upon Americans, the broke a pact with America. Americans responded by attacking.

The Americans won.

What's your problem with that?

You are free to leave the country and found a new one based on Confederate principles.

Not quite friend. The colonies didn't secede from the British before the British attacked. The DOI was written the following year. The British viewed the colonists as rebels, not as a foreign military who had broken a pact.

I don't think anyone is debating living somewhere with "Confederate Principles." But the OP was about the legality of secession based on the Constitution as it was written in 1860. Fact of the matter is, despite the dislike of many, the 1860 Constitution did not give the power of secession to the federal government and did not prohibit it to the states, therefore the power of session fell to the states or the people.

Other than that you'r right; the South lost, the end.

 

[bripat9643]

truth is a whole different story than what your mommy and Pappy told you about the Confederat states. you can screen that slavery was going out to the Confederate Constitution went out of its way to talk about how slavery was going to be cornerstone of Southern economics. I mean Jefferson Davis was so nice to say that all freed slaves would no longer be free if caught

Here is a letter your boy sent to The Editor of The New York Tribune on August 22nd, 1862. Show me where he repudiates slavery therein. Show me where he says that the reason for the invasion was slavery.
.

He doesn't. Lincoln stated numerous times that his reason for invading was to enforce federal tariffs. He didn't give damn about the slaves and wanted to ship them all back to Africa.

 

[Contumacious]

When did the seceeding states start a war? I was under the impression that a specific state, after seceeding, asked federal troops to leave the state seeing as how the state was no longer a member of the Union. The federal troops refused to leave after numerous warnings and the seceeding state wasn't bluffing when it said it would retake the Fort.

Yes, indeed

The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

.

The Declaration is a one shot deal.

It's never been used in any serious way in any legislation.

That's because wh have no serious legislators.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, indeed

The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

.

I guess the government overreach when they were trying to make it so that the new territories wouldn't have slavery in them. I mean what dirty bastards to make it harder for others to own other people.

Bullshit. Slavery was on its way out. Every country on the face of mother earth abolished slavery without wiping out 620,000 citizens.

Lincoln bent over reach the south did and started a war. . South certainly did rise up and cause the death of far too many Americans

More bullshit.

South Carolina asked politely and respectfully for Lincoln to remove federal troops from Fort Sumter. The scumbag refused.

The war of northern aggression wasn't about slavery it was about excise taxes and real state.

Apologists came up with the slavery subterfuge because they needed a pretext after causing 620,000 Americans to die.

.

I guess you can explain to us why the seceding states specifically mentioned slavery in their secession proclamations?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Absence of law on the issue did not de facto authorize any state to ‘secede.’

And it was never the intent of the Framers of the Tenth Amendment to ‘authorize’ secession.

Indeed, the very purpose of the Constitution was to acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal government, the laws of Congress, and decisions of Federal courts. The notion that a state or states could ‘secede’ unilaterally was anathema to the Founding Generation and the intent of the people to live as citizens of one Nation, not a collection of states.

That's an outright lie. The Founding generation just got done seceding from the English Empire. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for secession. Many of the Founding Fathers can be quoted endorsing the idea of secession.

You're just plain full of shit. Your nothing more than a shill for the totalitarian state.

You're exactly right. I'm not sure where Clayton is getting this from. The 10th Amendment was designed to address the absence of a law. Just reading it is enough to understand it. If a power is not granted to the federal government, and there's no law prohibiting that power to the states, then the state (OR THE PEOPLE) have the right to use that power. Seeing as how secession was not a power granted to the federal government, and wasn't a power prohibited to the states Circa 1860, the states had perfect legitimacy in using it. Hell, the seceeded from the Articles of Confederation before ratifying the Constitution. Anyone who knows the history of how this nation began and ratified its first founding documents would understand that the founders intended for states to be able to seceed from the Union until the Union got it's act together. It was meant as a punishment mechanism in the event that the federal government became to powerful, or enacted laws that disenfranchised states, or violated it's own set of laws. Knowing where the founding fathers came from, and what they were fighting against, it's obvious what their intentions were.

They seceded from the Articles of Confederation?

lol, are you mentally disabled?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When did the seceeding states start a war? I was under the impression that a specific state, after seceeding, asked federal troops to leave the state seeing as how the state was no longer a member of the Union. The federal troops refused to leave after numerous warnings and the seceeding state wasn't bluffing when it said it would retake the Fort.

States in the Union cannot compel Federal troops to leave Federal territory, which would be anywhere in the Union – then or now.

After it seceded South Carolina wasn't in the union. It wasn't Federal territory.

Your argument, as usual, is just a pile of totalitarian horseshit.

It could not legally secede. A state possesses no authority to void the citizenship of Americans in residence in that state.

That is not arguable.

 

[bripat9643]

States in the Union cannot compel Federal troops to leave Federal territory, which would be anywhere in the Union – then or now.

After it seceded South Carolina wasn't in the union. It wasn't Federal territory.

Your argument, as usual, is just a pile of totalitarian horseshit.

It could not legally secede. A state possesses no authority to void the citizenship of Americans in residence in that state.

That is not arguable.

Horseshit. That's a claim lacking any visible means of support. There is no language in the Constitution stating anyone has a fundamental right to be a citizen of the federal government. In those days people considered themselves to be citizens of their respective states. No one ever said "I am an American." They said "I'm a Virginian" or "I'm from North Carolina."

You have no facts or logic on your side. You simply repeat the same pathetic arguments over and over.

 

[bripat9643]

That's an outright lie. The Founding generation just got done seceding from the English Empire. The Declaration of Independence is a justification for secession. Many of the Founding Fathers can be quoted endorsing the idea of secession.

You're just plain full of shit. Your nothing more than a shill for the totalitarian state.

You're exactly right. I'm not sure where Clayton is getting this from. The 10th Amendment was designed to address the absence of a law. Just reading it is enough to understand it. If a power is not granted to the federal government, and there's no law prohibiting that power to the states, then the state (OR THE PEOPLE) have the right to use that power. Seeing as how secession was not a power granted to the federal government, and wasn't a power prohibited to the states Circa 1860, the states had perfect legitimacy in using it. Hell, the seceeded from the Articles of Confederation before ratifying the Constitution. Anyone who knows the history of how this nation began and ratified its first founding documents would understand that the founders intended for states to be able to seceed from the Union until the Union got it's act together. It was meant as a punishment mechanism in the event that the federal government became to powerful, or enacted laws that disenfranchised states, or violated it's own set of laws. Knowing where the founding fathers came from, and what they were fighting against, it's obvious what their intentions were.

They seceded from the Articles of Confederation?

lol, are you mentally disabled?

The articles of Confederation stated the signers formed a "perpetual union." The Founders clearly didn't think that meant the document couldn't be abrogated since they threw it into the waste bin when they approved the Constitution. The claim that states couldn't escape from the Constitution are therefore equally spurious.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

lol, that's like saying if I declare I've seceded from my township, I no longer have to pay town taxes.

It's a ridiculous circular argument you're making.

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

Because we are a nation of laws, not a nation of three hundred million kings and queens.

Actually, the laws were set up to protect the rights of sovereign citizens. That's what all men are created equal is about, the rejection of the idea of royalty and tyrannical governments.

Everyone who is forced to pay income tax on earned income is suffering involuntary servitude. There is no other sane way to look at it.

 

[bripat9643]

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

Because we are a nation of laws, not a nation of three hundred million kings and queens.

Actually, the laws were set up to protect the rights of sovereign citizens. That's what all men are created equal is about, the rejection of the idea of royalty and tyrannical governments.

Everyone who is forced to pay income tax on earned income is suffering involuntary servitude. There is no other sane way to look at it.

Taxation is theft.

 

[thanatos144]

Because we are a nation of laws, not a nation of three hundred million kings and queens.

Actually, the laws were set up to protect the rights of sovereign citizens. That's what all men are created equal is about, the rejection of the idea of royalty and tyrannical governments.

Everyone who is forced to pay income tax on earned income is suffering involuntary servitude. There is no other sane way to look at it.

Taxation is theft.

Slavery is evil.