Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/17/2006 8:55:04 AM EDT
The big one going on right now concerns the motivations behind the war, basically, Slavery vs States Rights.

I don't want to get wrapped around the axle with that debate, so leave questions of motive in that thread (I also don't want to have this one locked because of duping the other).

Here's the main point for discussion:

Regardless of the motives behind the acts of secession:

Did the Confederate states have a legal right to break their relationship with the Federal Union?

Whatever the motives, were they legally right?

I haven't found anything explicit in the Constitution that says entry into the Union is a one way door.

If the states reserved a right to secede, then it would seem that Mr. Lincoln was legally wrong to force them to remain by military means.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 9:43:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 9:48:02 AM EDT by ryann]
"Did the Confederate states have a legal right to break their relationship with the Federal Union?"


Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.

The only rebuttal I've ever heard the Johnny Reb apologists offer against the below is that it didn't apply to the South because the South seceeded. Wrong, the South entered into this to form a "more perfect union."


U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:20:12 AM EDT
I do not want to sound like an elitist prick but from what I have read in previous postings there is a lot of (not all) personal opinion and not many substantial positions based on scholarship. What is taught today in the American school system is simpleton watered down half facts that cannot begin to explain the complexities of the American Civil War. I suggest people who want to know the subject area start with Thomas Wood’s book Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. A good read and then move on to Dr. Thomas Di Lorenzo’s book The Real Lincoln. A Libertarian Theory of Secession and Slavery By Dr. Walter Block is another good start to understanding the problems of Secession and Slavery. Lastly, before any wise ass starts posting their opinions about this divisive subject see what some serious academics have to say. You may find out that “The truth is out there” and its not what you were taught in school.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:23:04 AM EDT
Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.


A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.


No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.


Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.


I'm not sure if they legally had the right of secession or not, but West Virginia was created Illegaly.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:23:39 AM EDT
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:29:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.




Maybe I read through it too quickly, but could you point me toward the specific phrase that explicitly states "once you're in there's no way out?"
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:33:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.



dang, where is the "touche" smiley?
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:41:20 AM EDT
No one pays attention though, the victors write history.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:15:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
The big one going on right now concerns the motivations behind the war, basically, Slavery vs States Rights.

I don't want to get wrapped around the axle with that debate, so leave questions of motive in that thread (I also don't want to have this one locked because of duping the other).

Here's the main point for discussion:

Regardless of the motives behind the acts of secession:

Did the Confederate states have a legal right to break their relationship with the Federal Union?

Whatever the motives, were they legally right?

I haven't found anything explicit in the Constitution that says entry into the Union is a one way door.

If the states reserved a right to secede, then it would seem that Mr. Lincoln was legally wrong to force them to remain by military means.



Since you are in SC, could you remind us when and where and by who the shooting started?
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:20:17 AM EDT

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.


I don't see anything in the constitution preventing a state from suceeding or authorizing the fed to use force to prevent same, seems to me it's reserved to the states or the people to make the choice.
Once they decided to suceede they were no longer bound by the constitution.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:38:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 11:39:23 AM EDT by lincolndz]

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.



Granted, I am no scholar of British history or of British law so I don't know precisely what it said about governing of the colonies, but the American colonists referred to a higher source of rights than those written in fancy scrolls. Rights that we all have - inalienable rights.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:36:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 1:38:06 PM EDT by ryann]

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.




Maybe I read through it too quickly, but could you point me toward the specific phrase that explicitly states "once you're in there's no way out?"




"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:40:30 PM EDT
Yes the states had the right. That was understood before agreement was reached to form the union. Justice Tandy told Stanton, who wanted to try Jefferson Davis, Lee, etc. that the Supreme Court would overturn any conviction upon appeal because the states had that right.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:47:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 1:48:15 PM EDT by OFFascist]

Originally Posted By ryann:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"



The way I read that is like a modern marriage.

Its simply saying as long as you are married to the US you cannot also go and get married with another country.

However if the states seceeded then the US constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land for them and that restriction is removed and they are free to do as they please.

You cant be married to two women at the same time, however once you get divorced you are free to marry another woman if you choose.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:51:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:
"Did the Confederate states have a legal right to break their relationship with the Federal Union?"


Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.

The only rebuttal I've ever heard the Johnny Reb apologists offer against the below is that it didn't apply to the South because the South seceeded. Wrong, the South entered into this to form a "more perfect union."


U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.




Hmmmm....did that include Texas...pwned, argument over.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:53:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.


You state the above because you don't understand the difference between Rebellion and Revolution.
The Revolution against Britan was for basic human dignity, the innate desire in all men for freedom and representation. The British colonized North America, and those born to colonization had no right to personal liberty or representation. The colonists were governed by a foreign power, and were taxed yet not representated. The Revoultion was just, and there's nothing treasonous about persuing liberty.

The Civil War, OTOH was a rebellion. The southern states joined the union to form a more perfect union. The southern states had representation in the House and Senate to air their grievances, and I know how you guys think, but the North was not a separate country or entity.
Basically, the south upon the election of Lincoln eschewed a democratic election, and declared war against their own nation because they saw a peculiar institution threatened.

See the difference?
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:55:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.




Maybe I read through it too quickly, but could you point me toward the specific phrase that explicitly states "once you're in there's no way out?"




"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"

What you are forgetting is that since these states seceded on their own, that clause of the constitution does not apply. The northern states were in violation of the constitution which made it null and void. Therefor, the contract was already broken and the secession was therefor legal.

The main thing most people forget is that we are not a country, as such. We were not the US and formed states within its boundry. We are a union of independent states. Therefor, any violation of the constitution by any state voids the contract which is the constitution and allows for secession. This is based on business law. 2 parties engage in a contract. Party A violates the contract so party B is no longer bound by that contract. The same thing with our constitution.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:56:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By ryann:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"



The way I read that is like a modern marriage.

Its simply saying as long as you are married to the US you cannot also go and get married with another country.

However if the states seceeded then the US constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land for them and that restriction is removed and they are free to do as they please.

You cant be married to two women at the same time, however once you get divorced you are free to marry another woman if you choose.



Comparing a personal marriage to nation building is such a specious analogy that I ain't even going to argue.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:59:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.



+1 Noone sets up a political system as a revolving door.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:00:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.




Maybe I read through it too quickly, but could you point me toward the specific phrase that explicitly states "once you're in there's no way out?"




"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"

What you are forgetting is that since these states seceded on their own, that clause of the constitution does not apply. The northern states were in violation of the constitution which made it null and void. Therefor, the contract was already broken and the secession was therefor legal.

The main thing most people forget is that we are not a country, as such. We were not the US and formed states within its boundry. We are a union of independent states. Therefor, any violation of the constitution by any state voids the contract which is the constitution and allows for secession. This is based on business law. 2 parties engage in a contract. Party A violates the contract so party B is no longer bound by that contract. The same thing with our constitution.



Well,you're wrong. German history is replete with times of the various German states being automomous, and only 4 times in German history have they been a nation, or Reich.

"More Perfect Union" remember that? Or the Articles of Confderacy, which point to "Union in Perpetuity(sp).
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:01:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.


You state the above because you don't understand the difference between Rebellion and Revolution.
The Revolution against Britan was for basic human dignity, the innate desire in all men for freedom and representation. The British colonized North America, and those born to colonization had no right to personal liberty or representation. The colonists were governed by a foreign power, and were taxed yet not representated. The Revoultion was just, and there's nothing treasonous about persuing liberty.

The Civil War, OTOH was a rebellion. The southern states joined the union to form a more perfect union. The southern states had representation in the House and Senate to air their grievances, and I know how you guys think, but the North was not a separate country or entity.
Basically, the south upon the election of Lincoln eschewed a democratic election, and declared war against their own nation because they saw a peculiar institution threatened.

See the difference?



To the British we were REBELLING, not revolting. Had they won, it would have been called the American REBELLION not the American Revolutionary War.

Texas had the right to secede, a right recognized by the North and therefore, this argument is over.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:13:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 556fiend:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.


You state the above because you don't understand the difference between Rebellion and Revolution.
The Revolution against Britan was for basic human dignity, the innate desire in all men for freedom and representation. The British colonized North America, and those born to colonization had no right to personal liberty or representation. The colonists were governed by a foreign power, and were taxed yet not representated. The Revoultion was just, and there's nothing treasonous about persuing liberty.

The Civil War, OTOH was a rebellion. The southern states joined the union to form a more perfect union. The southern states had representation in the House and Senate to air their grievances, and I know how you guys think, but the North was not a separate country or entity.
Basically, the south upon the election of Lincoln eschewed a democratic election, and declared war against their own nation because they saw a peculiar institution threatened.

See the difference?



To the British we were REBELLING, not revolting. Had they won, it would have been called the American REBELLION not the American Revolutionary War.

Texas had the right to secede, a right recognized by the North and therefore, this argument is over.



What makes you believe Texas had a right to secede?

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:22:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By 556fiend:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.


You state the above because you don't understand the difference between Rebellion and Revolution.
The Revolution against Britan was for basic human dignity, the innate desire in all men for freedom and representation. The British colonized North America, and those born to colonization had no right to personal liberty or representation. The colonists were governed by a foreign power, and were taxed yet not representated. The Revoultion was just, and there's nothing treasonous about persuing liberty.

The Civil War, OTOH was a rebellion. The southern states joined the union to form a more perfect union. The southern states had representation in the House and Senate to air their grievances, and I know how you guys think, but the North was not a separate country or entity.
Basically, the south upon the election of Lincoln eschewed a democratic election, and declared war against their own nation because they saw a peculiar institution threatened.

See the difference?



To the British we were REBELLING, not revolting. Had they won, it would have been called the American REBELLION not the American Revolutionary War.

Texas had the right to secede, a right recognized by the North and therefore, this argument is over.



What makes you believe Texas had a right to secede?




It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the ratified form of the Texas Constitution, and the accepted conditions the Union agreed to when allowing Texas into the Union. You live here, try researching some state history.

Texas was essentially given an "out" clause when they entered the Union because they were a sovereign country when they entered the Union. They had a right to secede. They did and were subsequently invaded...heck, we STILL legally have the right to secede.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:27:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.



All that needs to be said.

Of course, the Billy Yank dipshits won't get it, but...

SG
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:27:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 2:40:17 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By 556fiend:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By 556fiend:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.


You state the above because you don't understand the difference between Rebellion and Revolution.
The Revolution against Britan was for basic human dignity, the innate desire in all men for freedom and representation. The British colonized North America, and those born to colonization had no right to personal liberty or representation. The colonists were governed by a foreign power, and were taxed yet not representated. The Revoultion was just, and there's nothing treasonous about persuing liberty.

The Civil War, OTOH was a rebellion. The southern states joined the union to form a more perfect union. The southern states had representation in the House and Senate to air their grievances, and I know how you guys think, but the North was not a separate country or entity.
Basically, the south upon the election of Lincoln eschewed a democratic election, and declared war against their own nation because they saw a peculiar institution threatened.

See the difference?



To the British we were REBELLING, not revolting. Had they won, it would have been called the American REBELLION not the American Revolutionary War.

Texas had the right to secede, a right recognized by the North and therefore, this argument is over.



What makes you believe Texas had a right to secede?




It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the ratified form of the Texas Constitution, and the accepted conditions the Union agreed to when allowing Texas into the Union. You live here, try researching some state history.

Texas was essentially given an "out" clause when they entered the Union because they were a sovereign country when they entered the Union. They had a right to secede. They did and were subsequently invaded...heck, we STILL legally have the right to secede.



That is what I thought you might mean. Anyone has actually read the Texas Constitution knows this is an urban legend.

Texas was never given an out clause. Why don't YOU learn something about the state I was born and raissed in.

One privelege Texas does reserve, and a condition that appears in the resolution approving its statehood, is the option to subdivide itself into as many as four states (a total of five).

You have just been schooled son....




p.s. read the Treaty of Annexation and see if you can find where we have a right to secede. We don't...

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:29:48 PM EDT
There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states from withdrawing from the Union. Due to that omission, the 10th Amendment makes it clear that states CAN secede:

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.

The only way to keep states in the Union is by force, not by any legal or Constitutional requirement.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:30:41 PM EDT
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:31:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By ryann:
Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.


Maybe I read through it too quickly, but could you point me toward the specific phrase that explicitly states "once you're in there's no way out?"


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"


That's all well and good, but if you are no longer a state, you no longer are bound by those requirements.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:35:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:
You state the above because you don't understand the difference between Rebellion and Revolution.
The Revolution against Britan was for basic human dignity, the innate desire in all men for freedom and representation. The British colonized North America, and those born to colonization had no right to personal liberty or representation. The colonists were governed by a foreign power, and were taxed yet not representated. The Revoultion was just, and there's nothing treasonous about persuing liberty.



Um We did have representation, George Washington was our representative, and by his actions caused a war that dam near bankrupted England. The taxes were to pay for the actions of the Colonies representative.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:35:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution says they didn't have the right.




Maybe I read through it too quickly, but could you point me toward the specific phrase that explicitly states "once you're in there's no way out?"




"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"




All that does is tell states what they may or may not do as a state.

I see absolutely nothing that addresses secession.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:46:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "



I think this clearly shows that the Southern states had the right to secede.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:49:35 PM EDT
If something isnt prohibited by law, then it is legal.

Secession isnt mentioned in the US Constitution.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:52:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "



I think this clearly shows that the Southern states had the right to secede.



Of course it does.

Now, I will freely admit that having the "right" to do something and having the "ability" to do it are two different things.

The South had the right. It did not have the ability.

And, what a shame.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 5:50:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "



I think this clearly shows that the Southern states had the right to secede.



How do you get the right to commit treason out of the above passage? What the fuck was destructive about the Federal government that would have given the people the right to abolish it? The North was guilty of......a free election, the outcome of which Southern treason was predicated on.
What part of the below can you guys not comprehend?

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation........"

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War"

Make all the excuses you want, re-write all the history you want, history is what it is.
Maybe if my forefathers were treasonous, maybe if my great grampappy was guilty of gunning down black troops trying to surrender at Ft Pillow, or starving prisoners at Andersonville, or shooting down soldiers flying the Stars and Stripes that I pledge allegiance to I'd search for justification too....naw, no I wouldn't; a great great uncle on my mother's side ffrom Kentucky actually fought for the South.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 5:53:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "



I think this clearly shows that the Southern states had the right to secede.



Of course it does.

Now, I will freely admit that having the "right" to do something and having the "ability" to do it are two different things.

The South had the right. It did not have the ability.

And, what a shame.



Only a shame for the facist planter elite.

So OP, one of the main tenants of Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is to gain possession of 5 American States-do you think if he can take 'em he has the right to keep 'em? Or is treason only acceptable from pot bellied white good ol' boys?
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:41:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 6:42:16 PM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By ryann:
So OP, one of the main tenants of Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is to gain possession of 5 American States-do you think if he can take 'em he has the right to keep 'em? Or is treason only acceptable from pot bellied white good ol' boys?



If I remember correctly, we gained possession of these states by "taking" them from the Indians. We did so because we were "able" to do so.

If Callipso Louie thinks he can take and keep 5 states, then "Come And Take It", as per my flag.

And, just to clear up your error, it was no "treason" to do as the Founding Fathers did, i.e., "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

That's what the Founding Fathers did. It is what the South attempted to do.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:45:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
No we didn't have that right. Neither did the U.S. when it declared it's independance from the crown.


Good point.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 7:42:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "



Well Done
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 8:02:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
I would look instead to the Declaration of Independence.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "



I think this clearly shows that the Southern states had the right to secede.



Of course it does.

Now, I will freely admit that having the "right" to do something and having the "ability" to do it are two different things.

The South had the right. It did not have the ability.

And, what a shame.



Finally, a southerner with a brain. Since the Constitution didn't prohibit secession, it was/is legal.
Since the Constitution didn't prohibit the Federal goverment from forcfully preventing it, that was/is legal too.
The real question wasn't "was it legal", it was " do you have the strength to do it". The South did not, and that is not a shame.
If this country continues the way it has been, the South will be in control very soon. Just be patient, your time is at hand.
Top Top