Where do you stand on State succession?

[Iceman]

Where in the Constitution does it say secession is illegal?

No such thing is needed. The Union is perpetual. Nothing in the constitution grants the right of secession to the states.

The whole point of secession is to create a new legal system.

Gee, ya think, Captain Obvious?

The Founding Father broke all kinds of laws, and committed treason when they took up arms against the British Empire.

Yes, they did. They were terrorists who took up arms against their government. Thing is....they won. Which brings us back exactly to what I said many pages ago. Secession can only be achieved via consent of the several states, or revolution. The south's revolution failed.

I am not talking about a right of secession. There was no law against it, nothing in the Constitution talks about it. But even if there was a law against secession. Who cares? So what?

They lost, so what? So because they lost someone couldn't try again? How do you figure? How is a war 150 years ago stop someone from seceding today?

The Union is not perpetual, that implies it has never changed. States have left and joined overtime and the union has changed, and to say the union will last forever is foolish and ignores history. The US will not be around forever.

 

[SwimExpert]

[
That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

The treaty did not establish the United States. That was established by a future document.


Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

 

[Iceman]

[
That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

The treaty did not establish the United States. That was established by a future document.


Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

That government certainly wasn't perpetual, lol. The Articles of Confederation are irrelevant, lol.

 

[SwimExpert]

Doesn't matter, troops within foreign territory without the nation's consent is occupation. It doesn't matter if they stay on base, on "their property".

Except, it wasn't foreign territory.

Thanks for stating the obvious, the United States didn't view them as legitimate, well no shit Sherlock. That doesn't matter in this context.

In other words, anything that doesn't agree with your goal just doesn't matter.

The British didn't view the Continental Congress as a legitimate entity after the Boston Tea Party, but when they sent troops here and fired the first shots at Lexington and Concord, they were the aggressors.

You are ignoring a fundamental point. The colonists won their war.

 

[SwimExpert]

That government certainly wasn't perpetual, lol. The Articles of Confederation are irrelevant, lol.

Apparently you're quite ignorant of history and law. The constitution restructured the government. The constitution did not dissolve the Union to create a new one.

 

[Iceman]

Doesn't matter, troops within foreign territory without the nation's consent is occupation. It doesn't matter if they stay on base, on "their property".

Except, it wasn't foreign territory.

Thanks for stating the obvious, the United States didn't view them as legitimate, well no shit Sherlock. That doesn't matter in this context.

In other words, anything that doesn't agree with your goal just doesn't matter.

The British didn't view the Continental Congress as a legitimate entity after the Boston Tea Party, but when they sent troops here and fired the first shots at Lexington and Concord, they were the aggressors.

You are ignoring a fundamental point. The colonists won their war.

Yes it was, they were in the waters of the Confederacy. If the Chinese had a base in American waters without our consent, it would be an occupation as well.

It isn't a matter of not agreeing, it has nothing to do with the point at hand, of course they didn't view them as legitimate. The point here is the United States started the war be sending their military into foreign waters.

Yes, the Confederacy lost, no shit, what is your point? Not every secession movement is successful, duh.

 

[Iceman]

That government certainly wasn't perpetual, lol. The Articles of Confederation are irrelevant, lol.

Apparently you're quite ignorant of history and law. The constitution restructured the government. The constitution did not dissolve the Union to create a new one.

The government wasn't under the Articles of Confederation during the Civil War, so who cares? The title of a dead document isn't legally binding. Even if it was, so what?

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes it was, they were in the waters of the Confederacy.

False.

If the Chinese had a base in American waters without our consent, it would be an occupation as well.

Not even remotely close to a meaningful comparison. You're now comparing apples to particle colliders.

It isn't a matter of not agreeing, it has nothing to do with the point at hand, of course they didn't view them as legitimate. The point here is the United States started the war be sending their military into foreign waters.

The "point" is simply to agree with you, eh? No, the "United States" (i.e. the North) did not start the Civil War. South Carolina started it when they attacked Ft. Sumter.

Yes, the Confederacy lost, no shit, what is your point? Not every secession movement is successful, duh.

You keep comparing the Confederacy to the 13 colonies in the American Revolution, and seem to think that the American Revolution somehow made the Confederacy a legitimate government. This, however, is flawed reasoning. The colonies won. That's what made the new United States a legitimate government. The Confederacy lost, so it never achieved legitimacy.

 

[Freewill]

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

No that would be the confederate traitors attacking Sumter because Lincoln didn't want slavery in the new territories...I know faced with the truth about this you will deny it and close your eyes because you have to ignore that slavery was the whole reason the south seceded in the first place and that it was a evil government that the world is better off without.

the issue was state's rights, slavery was blamed because it would stir up passions on both sides.

The civil war was NOT fought over slavery, it was fought over states rights and whether the federal govt could dictate to the states. The feds won and look what we have today----------17 trillion in debt, millionaire senators, a welfare state, loss of individual freedoms, and incompetent leaders.

yeah, the feds won but the people lost. Slavery was coming to an end anyway. But thousands died to speed it up.

What one institution ended with the civil war?

Here is the Georgia declaration of separation from the Union. Note it took two lines before slavery was raised:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. Declaration of Causes of Secession

Also this: A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

Here from Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

You can read the rest if you wish.

 

[SwimExpert]

The government wasn't under the Articles of Confederation during the Civil War, so who cares? The title of a dead document isn't legally binding. Even if it was, so what?

The states entered into a perpetual union. That union did not cease to exist when the constitution was ratified. To this day, that union continues to exist, and continues to be perpetual.

 

[Iceman]

Yes it was, they were in the waters of the Confederacy.

False.

If the Chinese had a base in American waters without our consent, it would be an occupation as well.

Not even remotely close to a meaningful comparison. You're now comparing apples to particle colliders.

It isn't a matter of not agreeing, it has nothing to do with the point at hand, of course they didn't view them as legitimate. The point here is the United States started the war be sending their military into foreign waters.

The "point" is simply to agree with you, eh? No, the "United States" (i.e. the North) did not start the Civil War. South Carolina started it when they attacked Ft. Sumter.

Yes, the Confederacy lost, no shit, what is your point? Not every secession movement is successful, duh.

You keep comparing the Confederacy to the 13 colonies in the American Revolution, and seem to think that the American Revolution somehow made the Confederacy a legitimate government. This, however, is flawed reasoning. The colonies won. That's what made the new United States a legitimate government. The Confederacy lost, so it never achieved legitimacy.

It is a totally fair comparison, both are foreign occupations without consent.

Wrong, war starts when one country invades another. The United States invaded the Confederacy by sending military vessels into Confederate waters and having a base in Confederate Waters without their consent, the Confederacy responded. The United States started the war.

Again, so what, they lost, it doesn't make secession right or wrong, secession just is. Sometimes secession movements secede, sometimes they don't. The point I was making is, both the British Empire and the US were the aggressors and started the respective wars.

 

[Iceman]

The government wasn't under the Articles of Confederation during the Civil War, so who cares? The title of a dead document isn't legally binding. Even if it was, so what?

The states entered into a perpetual union. That union did not cease to exist when the constitution was ratified. To this day, that union continues to exist, and continues to be perpetual.

Perpetual means not changing, it has changed by adding more states. Look at the definition of perpetual. And it won't be ever lasting. The Articles of Confederation weren't perpetual, their dead. Again, how is the title of a document that ceased to be in 1789 legally binding at the time of the Civil War? Even if it was, so what?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can show me where the Constitution forbids secession. Ready................GO!

It does not need to forbid secession.

Your ignorance is not exactly news.

 

[bripat9643]

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

Lincoln ordered their deaths. That fact is indisputable.

Clearly Lincoln's decision to keep the Union intact by force if necessary played a role. However, had the South not seceded, the decision would not have been necessary would it?

"played a role?" You mean like pushing the handle on a detonator plays a role in making the dynamite blow up?

When did you prove that decision was "necessary?"

 

[bripat9643]

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

No that would be the confederate traitors attacking Sumter because Lincoln didn't want slavery in the new territories...I know faced with the truth about this you will deny it and close your eyes because you have to ignore that slavery was the whole reason the south seceded in the first place and that it was a evil government that the world is better off without.

According to the definition in the Constitution, they weren't traitors. Lincoln was the traitor. Whatever the reason for secession, once it was done, then federal troops in Fort Sumter were trespassing on the territory of a foreign sovereign nation. That's an act of war, plain and simple.

The federal government was evil, and as a result of the Civil War, we're stuck with it.

 

[percysunshine]

I will truthfully answer the poll as long as the NSA and IRS are not monitoring the results.

 

[bripat9643]

The decision to secede caused hundreds of thousands to die.

Your other rhetorical question has no basis in reality.

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

The Rebels forced his hand by seceding before he even took office. Turned out to be a disaster for the South.

You have a curios definition of the word "forced." How was he forced? Did someone hold a gun to his head?

As I said previously, your definition is that same as my older brother when he told my mom he was "forced" to punch me in the face because I wouldn't let him play with my toys.

 

[bripat9643]

Clearly Lincoln's decision to keep the Union intact by force if necessary played a role. However, had the South not seceded, the decision would not have been necessary would it?

If Washington uses force to keep states, it is not a "Union," but rather an "Empire."

Lincoln dissolved the Union.

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

They were "let" back in? You have a thousand euphemisms to excuse thuggery.

 

[bripat9643]

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

Just like run away slaves were "let back" on the plantation?

Lincoln ended the Union.

Psssft. The South could have won if Gen. Lee had just kept away from major engagements. Live to fight another day, and to get formal recognition from a foreign power. By 1877 the North was tired of the Occupation (10-12 years, hmmm that reminds me of someplace.....) and let the South go back to it's old power structure.

Did you have a point of some kind?

 

[bripat9643]

Nah, they were let back in. After 1877 when the last federal occupation forces left, many of the old players came back in power.

Just like run away slaves were "let back" on the plantation?

Lincoln ended the Union.

Yup, Lincoln created the nation.

He created the Empire and turned us all into subjects.