The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[Rotagilla]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

 

[Discombobulated]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

 

[Rotagilla]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

 

[James Everett]

Exa

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.[/QUOTE
Exactly , discombobulated!!!! The fact that it is NOT means that it is a power reserved by each State individually. The States are the authority, the general govt was and is not party to the U.S. CONstitution between the State hovers, it is only a product thereof. It does not own the States Orr their respective lands within.

 

[Discombobulated]

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

 

[Rotagilla]

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

 

[Discombobulated]

Not even a vague reference to secession.

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

 

[James Everett]

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

 

[Discombobulated]

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

Where ever you live that's my country too.

 

[James Everett]

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

Where ever you live that's my country too.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

 

[Rotagilla]

So?
Secession wasn't illegal..and (arguably) it isn't now.

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

Really?
The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us? We're still subjects of the queen?
Are you sure?

when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

 

[Discombobulated]

Wrong again.

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

Really?
The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us? We're still subjects of the queen?
Are you sure?

when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution. And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations. Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.

 

[Discombobulated]

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

Where ever you live that's my country too.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.

 

[James Everett]

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

Where ever you live that's my country too.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.

Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org

 

[Discombobulated]

Not even remotely comparable.

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

Where ever you live that's my country too.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.

Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org

I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.

 

[Rotagilla]

Again? I haven't been wrong yet and I'm not now.
Secession wasn't (and isn't) illegal.

...besides, it's not really relevant anyway....in the real world, when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

Really?
The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us? We're still subjects of the queen?
Are you sure?

when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution. And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations. Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.

They sent a declaratioon of independence to king george.
There didn't HAVE to be a revolution...but the king thought it was ok to kill people who want to peacefully and democratically withdraw and form their own country.

lincoln thought that way, too.

It'll be different next time. After the collapse and partitioning we'll correct the problems that caused the collapse and move on from there.

 

[Discombobulated]

I'll explain it so even you can understand. The temporary residents of any individual state will never have my permission to dismember my country.

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

Really?
The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us? We're still subjects of the queen?
Are you sure?

when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution. And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations. Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.

They sent a declaratioon of independence to king george.
There didn't HAVE to be a revolution...but the king thought it was ok to kill people who want to peacefully and democratically withdraw and form their own country.

lincoln thought that way, too.

It'll be different next time. After the collapse and partitioning we'll correct the problems that caused the collapse and move on from there.

Good luck with your whole collapse theory. People who talk like you are just fucking traitors as far as I'm concerned......talking traitors. Talking traitors rarely do any actual fighting, so I think we have very little to be concerned about there.

 

[Rotagilla]

"Your country"???? It's not your country, it's a union if States, hence "The United States". The union remains a union, albeit smaller when a State secedes from it as a member to that union. You misunderstand the very foundation.

Where ever you live that's my country too.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.

Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org

I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.

Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south


Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.

Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...

In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.





The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.

Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

 

[Discombobulated]

Where ever you live that's my country too.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.

Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org

I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.

Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south


Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.

Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...

In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.





The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.

Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.

 

[James Everett]

That's what the british said, too...We didn't ask their permission either.

Not even remotely comparable.

Really?
The colonies didn't secede from britain? the british didn't attack us? We're still subjects of the queen?
Are you sure?

when a group of people democratically decide to withdraw from an oppressive/corrupt government and form their own nation, they don't ask "permission"....

They didn't achieve independence through any legal means, they fought a revolution. And that's what states will have to do if they really want to be sovereign nations. Oh wait.....that's right, they already tried that.

They sent a declaratioon of independence to king george.
There didn't HAVE to be a revolution...but the king thought it was ok to kill people who want to peacefully and democratically withdraw and form their own country.

lincoln thought that way, too.

It'll be different next time. After the collapse and partitioning we'll correct the problems that caused the collapse and move on from there.

Good luck with your whole collapse theory. People who talk like you are just fucking traitors as far as I'm concerned......talking traitors. Talking traitors rarely do any actual fighting, so I think we have very little to be concerned about there.

Such is your opinion, as was the. Same held by many loyal subjects of King George. I am of the opinion that you are a traitor, as the founders fought for the very Liberty that your government has denied, and you support its tyranny. We will continue our work, you sit back and do whatever it is that you do.

Hmmm, so if I live in the Ukraine that would be YOUR country to? You are funny.

If you live in the Ukraine you've got enough problems already.

Sir, The Southern Confederate States did secede via their lawful authority, for the past 150 years they have been under the illegal occupation of the U.S. suffered colonization against international law and continue such violation. The states that were occupied by Russia forming the former Soviet Union, regained their freedom when it collapsed, we will see the same soon enough, this is why we continue moving forward with the registration and restoration process. You can learn of our project and progress at CSAgov. Org

I guess it's just unfortunate for Confederates that the Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't support their view. Because that's who determines what's constitutional or not, the Constitution was never legitimately subject to the interpretations of a bunch of politicians who didn't want to give up their slaves.

Well, son..that's not exactly true. Chief Justice Roger Taney favored allowing the south to secede...but it doesn't matter...the south had the legal right to secede and didn't need the supreme court to confirm or deny....Lincoln had to have his war, though and invaded the south


Recommended Reading:Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly: This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential prerogative during the Civil War.

Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both, for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...

In an 1862 group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.





The 10th Amendment states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secession is not prohibited anywhere in the constitution and was considered an obvious right of all States until after the War for Southern Independence.
Because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is therefore a power delegated to the States.

Remember that the States are independent and sovereign, and they created the Union, not the other way around.
The USA is simply an agent for the individual States. Without the threat of leaving, the States are completely powerless to the Federal Government.

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

In other words: The Supreme Court in no way ever interpreted secession as being legal.

your SCOTUS Han never considered the case, and no Texas v White was not a case concerning secession, that was a case concerning bonds. Your SCOTUS opinion would be irrelevant anyway as the Southern States have already seceded, such would be a case before the world court, which we would not Entertain such jurisdiction. We have our own method in progress.