The American Revolution and the Founding Principle of Secession

[candycorn]

They talk secession every time they lose
Just like 1860

Yeah...they just won though.... LOL.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure, the Federal government spends millions in Texas on highways, grants, national parks, and other projects. For Texas to decide, “Well, thanks but I think we’ll just go off an become our own nation” violates the spirt of those investments which were made with tax monies from other states.

It’s more than just investments, it is debt
It is like a divorce, you have to split up the marital assets but also the debt you have accumulated
How do you handle the military?
US bases in seceding states
What about the Navy? Nuclear weapons ? Veterans benefits to seceding states?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sure, the Federal government spends millions in Texas on highways, grants, national parks, and other projects. For Texas to decide, “Well, thanks but I think we’ll just go off an become our own nation” violates the spirt of those investments which were made with tax monies from other states.

But that was not the case in 1860. The federal government spent very little money on internal improvements at the time. Plus, the Confederate government offered to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states.

Confederate leaders also expressed a willingness to pay the South's share of the federal debt.

Your argument is fair and valid in principle, but in 1860 the federal government spent only a very small amount of money on public works projects of any kind. Confederate leaders recognized that they had an ethical obligation to compensate the U.S. Government for the federal installations that had been built in the South.

Anyway, this is all well and good, but the subject of the OP is the fact that the founding fathers believed the Colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England. That fact is documented beyond any credible doubt. It is plastered in period Patriot sources. Most historians have ignored this fact because it has obvious implications for the South's invoking of the right of secession.

 

[dudmuck]

One of the primary grievances of our founders was “Taxation without representation”

The Southern states had full representation in Congress and electing a President.

WIth the election of Lincoln, they chose to ignore a lawful election and secede rather than accept the results.

 

[mikegriffith1]

What liberals need to do is explain how Southern secession could have been unconstitutional when the record is absolutely clear that the founding fathers believed the Colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England and viewed England's resort to force as immoral and unnatural.

This being said, it is also fair to say that the seven Deep South states showed no common sense in choosing to secede right after the election and without even waiting to see how Lincoln would govern. If you're going to exercise the right of peaceful separation (secession), you should show a modicum of wisdom when choosing the time to exercise that right. You don't secede right after a fair election and before the elected president has even had a chance to show how he will govern; you don't refuse to do your constitutional duty to honor the election results; and you don't ignore the fact that you still control the Senate.

Nevertheless, the Republicans should have allowed the seven Deep South states to leave in peace. Secession is like divorce: sometimes one of the parties leaves for no valid reason, but that doesn't mean you should force them to stay. Even if they're leaving for dubious reasons, you don't have the right to resort to force to keep them in a union they no longer want.

 

[rightwinger]

What liberals need to do is explain how Southern secession could have been unconstitutional when the record is absolutely clear that the founding fathers believed the Colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England and viewed England's resort to force as immoral and unnatural.

If they thought the UNITED STATES was an entity you could come and go as you please, they would have made provisions on how to withdraw.
It is not an easy process as you have to account for distribution of federal assets, debt, wealth

 

[mikegriffith1]

If they thought the UNITED STATES was an entity you could come and go as you please, they would have made provisions on how to withdraw. It is not an easy process as you have to account for distribution of federal assets, debt, wealth

You just can't seem to process contrary facts. You just repeat your arguments and ignore facts that have been presented to you.

One, if the framers had intended the federal government to have the right to use force to keep states from leaving they surely would have included this right in the Constitution and would have specified this in the ratification debates. Instead, Madison said the federal government would not have the right to use force to compel the obedience of a state, as I've documented:

Proof that the Union Was Supposed to Be Voluntary

Two, if the framers had intended the U.S. to be an entity that you could never leave, they surely would have said so in the Constitution and would have made this clear in the ratification debates. If they had said any such thing in the ratification debates, a number of states would not have ratified the Constitution. Several states stipulated in their ratification ordinances or state constitutions that they retained the right to resume full sovereignty, precisely because they were not sure how the new federal union would pan out, and not one of the founding fathers objected to that stipulation.

Three, you again simply ignore the fact that the framers believed the Colonies had a natural right to secede from England, even though there were no provisions in British law for a colony to leave the empire. You are once again arguing that the founders gave the federal government a right that they bitterly condemned the British government for claiming to have.

Four, the Confederate government offered to pay compensation for federal installations in the South, offered to pay the South's share of the national debt, and tried to establish mutually beneficial trade relations with the U.S.