Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[DigitalDrifter]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.

 

[Debra K]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

Why would you rely on this work of plagiarism when you may simply review the original argument for succession by its premiere author, Alexander Hamilton Stephens: A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States.

This is a constitutional argument in favor of succession in two glorious volumes compiled by the Vice President of former Confederacy. On the other hand, in Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase ruled against the notion of succession in two paragraphs:

It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
​

If you go by merely the length of the argument, with the longest argument winning, then Stephens wins. Therefore, any state that wishes to withdraw from the union should do so in accordance with Stephens' legal judgment. But, the government of the United States of America might not agree and history discloses that there might be consequences.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.

List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

No answer ehh ?

You seem anxious. I wonder wy?

We have a history of recognizing native nations, secondary in relationship to the federal government. Any person who suggests such is secession clearly reveals no understanding of the situation. It is not much different than the organization of the western states entering the Union with the state and government getting recognized shares of land, while providing for land claims for settlers.

Are the Hawaiian natives Americans ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

No answer ehh ?

You seem anxious. I wonder wy?

We have a history of recognizing native nations, secondary in relationship to the federal government. Any person who suggests such is secession clearly reveals no understanding of the situation. It is not much different than the organization of the western states entering the Union with the state and government getting recognized shares of land, while providing for land claims for settlers.

Are the Hawaiian natives Americans ?

Were the Shoshone or the Arapaho or Cherokee? You should think these things through.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let Ginsberg hold up her blatherings in the face of a 50 caliber....

Posting irresponsible nonsense like that really highlights your personal shortcomings.

Actually, it embodies the essence of what the revolution was about.

When you come down off your soapbox....pick it up and shove it.

I could just as easily said Scalia....the point being that when people hit a limit....paper means little.

 

[there4eyeM]

Rebellion is always an option. Success is not guaranteed.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.

List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.

It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.

List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.

It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.

This is not based on how you feel, and your feeling was and is illogical.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.

List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.

It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.

This is not based on how you feel, and your feeling was and is illogical.

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.

 

[Bombur]

To act like the South was making a serious appeal to the rule of law is ridiculous. They didn't subject their ability to secede to anyone but themselves and brute force.

Every argument made by the apologists for the evil South is ignorant and illogical nonsense.

 

[bendog]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

Irrefutably, you are an obscene child.

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?[/QUOTE]

It has been stated at least twice in this thread.

 

[Unkotare]

Let Ginsberg hold up her blatherings in the face of a 50 caliber....

Posting irresponsible nonsense like that really highlights your personal shortcomings.

Actually, it embodies the essence of what the revolution was about.]

ACTUALLY, it reveals you as a juvenile twerp with a big mouth and no self control.

 

[Unkotare]

....the point being that when people hit a limit....paper means little.
]

And I'm guessing you have never "hit a limit" personally in your short life, big mouth.

 

[Debra K]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

South Carolina had seceded, and viewed Ft Sumter and the personnel there as an invading army. They ordered the Union troops to leave, and they refused, so the Confederacy did what any country would do that had unwelcome foreign troops on their land.

List the fallacies. SC had no right to secede. SC was not a sovereign county and had no right to order the Union to do anything. SC, simply, had no legitimate power to do those things, and it was eventually executed for it. A new SC was created to come to have full rights in the Union.

It wasn't that definite as you imply that S.C. had no right to secede. They certainly felt they had the right, and any thinking person would agree since they freely joined the union, who on earth would force any state to stay ?
That was and is simply illogical.

This is not based on how you feel, and your feeling was and is illogical.

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Secession is another word for "rebellion" and/or "insurrection" against the constituted form of government. The rebel states formed a confederation of states and their "succession" was not peaceful ... the rebel states took up arms and fired upon Fort Sumter.

Doesn't the Constitution of the United States grant the federal government the powers to suppress insurrections and, if necessary, suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion? Perhaps the southern states unwisely hoped the federal government wouldn't use those powers. And, doesn't the Constitution forbid the states from entering alliances or confederations? Just food for thought ...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.

Why would there have needed to be a law ? Territories were allowed to freely enter the union, why would you have a system that once in you were forbidden to leave ?
That's immoral, and should be unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

 

[there4eyeM]

The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.