Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Correll]

"...the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States..."
The Union of States created as perpetual and that was perpetuated in the new document.

Do you believe that government derives it's legitimacy from the consent of the governed?

 

[paperview]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

So, MIght makes Right?

And you libs claim to be progressive?!

Right makes Might.

LOL.

IF you are serious, you are harkening back to reasoning the predates Socrates, and has primarily been found sincein totalitarian regimes.

As I have repeatedly said, modern "liberals" instead of being progressive, are actually extremely reactionary.

Ironically, Lincoln spoke on this, and took the opposite view of you.

Just saying.

Lincoln took the opposite view, did he?

Cooper Union Address ---> "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - Abraham Lincoln

Oops. sorry, I misread your statement.

But, you were just making exactly the opposite point, when your presented the victory of the larger army as proof of the Righteousness of the cause of the Union.

So, why did you do that if you don't really think that way?

It believes that might makes right. It is merely playing games with semantics... there's nothing in the hollow mind of a Leftist wherein Rights make Might... The Ideological Left lives solely upon the means of the POWER of the Federal Judiciary, which is sustained by the POWER of the Federal Government.

Remove the threat of death from the power of the IRS over the individual and the US Federal Government wold be bankrupt within the subsequent qrtr... and with that death, do dies the Ideological Left, with no means to bribe their constituents with monthly stipends... and a LIVING WAGE, etc.

And that is because in truth, thus in reality THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SUCH SUBSIDY... and absent the MIGHT... there is no means to so much a proclaim the right, without getting beat to a bloody pulp for so much as doing so, by the people one demands should be stripped of their property to provide such.

Again... where you find a Leftist speaking, you find a liar lying.

 

[Correll]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

 

[regent]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification: that it does not make New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

I already did, numskull. The text has been quote several times already.

Nope. You never did. You've *told* us that the NY ratification doctrine maintains the right to secede. But when pressed to SHOW us where it is, you give us excuses.

Try again: Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong, numskull. I already posted the document and I highlighted the text where NY reserved the right to secede. Your Komrade paperview admitted that the document contained the language I described but claimed it was "rejected," whatever that is supposed to mean. He offered no evidence of it.

New York changed the wording in essence from we demand to "we hope". That's why Lansing and a couple of others quit. the "we hope" acceptance won by three votes.

The word 'hope' doesn't appear anywhere in the NY ratification document of the Constitution.

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Is it possible you're referring to a different turn of phrase? I'm genuinely interested in seeing the actual quote that conservatives claim to be alluding to in the NY ratification document. And so far, its just not there.

I said in essence. The exact words are difficult to post but the only demand that was met was a promise for the Bill of Rights. As I remember NY used the word influence instead of it list of demands.

 

[paperview]

The constitution makes no mention of secession. Not one. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

Actually I like quoting James Madison. He's a far better source on what the constitution meant in the Founder's era than you are.

And Madison explicitly rejects your claims. Why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you?

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede.

Yet they did.

Meet Texas v White.

Oh, and you may notice the words Perpetual in their ruling there.

"Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. "

Are you insane? The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power.

"The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have."

They can. Gedditup, boy, gedditup. What are you waiting fer?

 

[paperview]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede.

Yet they did.

Meet Texas v White.

Oh, and you may notice the words Perpetual in their ruling there.

"Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. "

Are you insane? The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power.

"The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have."

They can. Gedditup, boy, gedditup. What are you waiting fer?

And therein rests the problem with a system built upon honor and reason... as the dishonorable and unreasonable will eventually come to tear it down.

Now understand what the would-be 'contributor' is saying... 'The constitution gives power and just because the power is beyond the limits provided by the Constitution, doesn't give the people the right to rise up and take that power back.'

When in reality, thus in truth... the Constitution provides for precisely that.

 

[Correll]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

 

[paperview]

How about some in the South themselves?

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: the rebellion record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier they were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

He wasn't. Where it was.

Why do cons get so con-fused?


The South. The map. Expansion. Do you understand where things were heading?

 

[paperview]

To the Southerners, yes, they had grand plans of expansion, and they also knew their practice of owning humans was frowned upon, even as they held it up on high as a Christian good - and even noble - they saw it's demise in the future --

but they sure as hell were going to fight with every tooth, nail, body and limb to keep it.

 

[there4eyeM]

From an earlier post:
In the situation between the states that led to the Civil War, there was honest debate about interpreting the contract that formed the Union. No one had a clear point that absolutely proved one's position. Yes, it was clear that the original organization into a nation declared the Union to be perpetual. Yes, the arrival of a new Constitution rendered vague the effect of the original agreement.

So, did secession have a legal basis? Yes and no. That is not a very satisfactory answer and seems like a legalistic wiggle to palliate everyone. Yet, it seems the only fair way to express things. Did the South have the 'right' to ruin the nation and demean humanity with the disgraceful practice of slavery? Is there a reasonable answer to that question that is other than 'no'?

 

[bripat9643]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification: that it does not make New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

I already did, numskull. The text has been quote several times already.

Nope. You never did. You've *told* us that the NY ratification doctrine maintains the right to secede. But when pressed to SHOW us where it is, you give us excuses.

Try again: Here's the NY ratification document:

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York July 26 1788

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong, numskull. I already posted the document and I highlighted the text where NY reserved the right to secede. Your Komrade paperview admitted that the document contained the language I described but claimed it was "rejected," whatever that is supposed to mean. He offered no evidence of it.

New York changed the wording in essence from we demand to "we hope". That's why Lansing and a couple of others quit. the "we hope" acceptance won by three votes.

Wrong, it doesn't say that.

 

[Correll]

So, they changed their minds.

Why is that important?

Why is it important?

It seems the Statesmen of the south there in 1851 understood secession was not sanctioned by the Constitution.

When threatened with the map, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

A Convention cannot place restrictions on the actions of a State in the future.

How would you respond if in a debate about an issue, I started citing the current Republican Congress, and claiming that some future Democratic Congress would not have the right to "change it's mind"?

Rhetorical question: You would ridicule me mercilessly.

And you would be right to do so.

See where I am going with this?

No one "placed restrictions on them."

It was how they read the Constitution -- at that time --

As I said -- When threatened with the map of the expanding country, and the numbers that showed they would be losing the power they held for most of the entire history of the country, and the potential loss of their enormous wealth in human bondage a decade later, they...yeah, changed their minds.

It came down to *shit* we're gonna lose our slaves and our literal lifeblood!

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

He wasn't. Where it was.

Why do cons get so con-fused?


The South. The map. Expansion. Do you understand where things were heading?

Because Lincoln's supposed reversals on the issue are not credible.

He was an abolitionist in his early days, and only became moderate on the subject when he was aiming for the Oval Office.

HIs policies on the issue when the SOuthern Congressmen had been arrested and dragged from Congress, IMo showed his true colors, where he waged a bloody war of fire and conquest against the South.


Demographics were not on the side of the South, but the Election of Lincoln was the tipping point.

 

[Correll]

From an earlier post:
In the situation between the states that led to the Civil War, there was honest debate about interpreting the contract that formed the Union. No one had a clear point that absolutely proved one's position. Yes, it was clear that the original organization into a nation declared the Union to be perpetual. Yes, the arrival of a new Constitution rendered vague the effect of the original agreement.

So, did secession have a legal basis? Yes and no. That is not a very satisfactory answer and seems like a legalistic wiggle to palliate everyone. Yet, it seems the only fair way to express things. Did the South have the 'right' to ruin the nation and demean humanity with the disgraceful practice of slavery? Is there a reasonable answer to that question that is other than 'no'?

It wasn't the "fair" way to express it, it was the politically expedient way to express it, so as to get the best chance of passage, and leave the issue unresolved.

And of course, there is the principle from the Declaration of Independence that the governed have a right to rebel against oppressive government.

 

[bripat9643]

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

The constitution makes no mention of secession. Not one. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Actually I like quoting James Madison. He's a far better source on what the constitution meant in the Founder's era than you are.

And Madison explicitly rejects your claims. Why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you?

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

The fact that secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't help you because it goes the opposite direction, reinforcing the understanding that the power to secede is not granted by the Constitution, nor can it be taken away by the Constitution. ...

You know what doesn't help you?

The Civil War.

Which answered that question.


But good.

the only question that answered is who had the most and the best guns.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

He wasn't. Where it was.

Why do cons get so con-fused?


The South. The map. Expansion. Do you understand where things were heading?

It's trotting out the Leftist deflection, which comes out every time the reality that the Civil War was NOT about Slavery, thus refuting their entire justification for the war... which claims that because new states were no slave holding states, that the South was threatened by such.

Which in reality, is nonsense... as such literally gave the South the agricultural advantage, because of its means to out produce competing states, with higher margins of profit.

The Southern States were being robbed by the Union States... plain and simple. So, they left the Union.

And in a shell best suited for the lowly socialists, that is the whole of the reason the South seceded.

 

[paperview]

Another thing the neo confederates won't tell you about when they talk about the "fight to be free" as they hold up the CSA as a noble cause --

For decades before the war, Free speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association was not allowed in the South.

Any and all anti-slavery books, pamphlets, organizations, or even speaking ill or gathering to discuss anything against the "peculiar institution" of Slavery could land you in jail.

Real freedom those Southerners embraced, eh?

Hell, the South had even imposed a Gag order in the US Congress preventing people from speaking about Slavery on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Yes, for real and true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He wasn't. Where it was.

Why do cons get so con-fused?


The South. The map. Expansion. Do you understand where things were heading?

It's trotting out the Leftist deflection, which comes out every time the reality that the Civil War was NOT about Slavery, thus refuting their entire justification for the war... which claims that because new states were no slave holding states, that the South was threatened by such.

Which in reality, is nonsense... as such literally gave the South the agricultural advantage, because of its means to out produce competing states, with higher margins of profit.

The Southern States were being robbed by the Union States... plain and simple. So, they left the Union.

And in a shell best suited for the lowly socialists, that is the whole of the reason the South seceded.

This nonsense from the guy who not that long ago claimed that Jesus was an abnormal pervert because he was celibate.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution makes no mention of secession. Not one. If you believe it does, show us. Don't tell us.

Actually I like quoting James Madison. He's a far better source on what the constitution meant in the Founder's era than you are.

And Madison explicitly rejects your claims. Why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you?

Because the Constitution is a written document, and despite what Madison wanted it to mean, we can read the actual document and SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES, that the position he held was NOT put in there.

And when folks look at the constitution 'with their own eyes', they find absolutely no mention of secession whatsoever. Not the slightest peep.

So the constitution says absolutely nothing about secession, and the "Father of the Constitution" says no such right exists. With the States that tried to reserve the right to secede pulling such amendments, as the would not have been ratification of the Constitution.

You've given us exactly jack shit to back your claims with. You have absolutely nothing affirming your argument. Nothing in the constitution says what you do. And we have excellent sources from the era of the founding that demmonstrate that the issue was discussed, debated, and your claims refuted.

I agree, there is no mention of secession in the Constitution. Thank you for admitting that.

"Admitting' that? I've been the one telling you that. Your argument has so utterly imploded that you're trying to adopt my argument as you own.

And well you should. The evidence overwhelmingly supports my position.

The question, IMO, was open to reasonable disagreement.

Ignoring the history of the ratification of the constitution, the debates on this very issue, and the explicit and repeated rejection of the idea by the 'father of the constitution' isn't what I'd call 'reasonable'.

Reasonable would be following the preponderance of the evidence. And it lines up overwhelmingly on one side of the issue. As even southerners of the era of ratification admitted 'The Union of the States: the Majority must govern; secession is treason."

And this from a leading leading Virginian judge Spencer Roane, and leader of State's rights in the State.

Even the USSC recognized that the status of the State as sovereign changed once they joined under the constitution, as articulated in Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

I've provided overwhelming, overlapping, and among the most widely respected sources there are on the matter. You've provided nothing to refute any of it.

The Supreme Court derives its power from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states.

The constitution derives its power from 'We the People'. You can tell as its the first three words of the document.

It's more than unseemly to suggest the Supreme Court can weigh in on whether or not states can secede.

'Unseemly'? The Supreme Court weighs in on all issues that arise under the constitution. And the Gibbon v. Ogden case spoke specifically to the State's status as sovereign having changed with the adoption of the constitution. The courts, by design, were intended to interpret the constitution.

Even floating that argument betrays an ignorance of the formation of the Union on a fundamental level. The states can, at their leisure, convene an Article 5 convention and do away with the Supreme Court if they so wish. The states have the power and always have.

Ignorance would be failing to follow the context of the conversation: a state acting alone. Thus what relevance would Article 5 convention have as an amendment is passed by no single state? A sovereign doesn't need a 3/4 vote to act. They simply act. The States used to be sovereign. But after joining under the constitution, their status changed.

It would be akin to the difference between monarchy and a republic.

The States used to be individual sovereigns, very much like little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, each became one voice among many, requiring agreement of many, many other voices to make the changes they could have made alone as sovereigns.

Which is exactly the point being raised. Alone, they lack the authority o do what they can do collectively. And the States that fell into rebellion acted unilaterally. Its authority each lacked. Like California just notifying the rest of the union that it had voted in an new federal amendment.