Is it time for secession?
- Thread starter Pat H
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
War of Northern Agression
Lincoln was A murderer
The next civil war
No wonder gun owners get a bad rep.
WilddontblameguyslikerudyandthesoccermommieswhowillvoteforhimAlaska TM
Lincoln was A murderer
The next civil war
No wonder gun owners get a bad rep.
WilddontblameguyslikerudyandthesoccermommieswhowillvoteforhimAlaska TM
Which of course it was, and remains lawful. All of the states that enacted laws or acts of secession did so within the laws applicable at the time.
Negotiations to pay for any federal property was underway from the initial secession by South Carolina until Lincoln finally refused to enter said negotiations. Firing on federal troops occured well after numerous acts of war by the Union, in response to those acts.
The Union commited the first acts of war, I thought anyone familiar with the history had that well in hand.
The Union invaded the Confederacy and committed the first acts of war by historical fact. As an illustration, if Mexico placed hundreds of troops within Texas, without firing a shot mine you, is that an act of war, or benign hegemony?
Again, War of Northern Aggression would be best discussed in another thread. I attempted to start a thread on this subject, but it was closed by the management.
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
People will say this, then bitch if they hear someone say Bush has killed thousands!!! Guess it just depends on the direction one is looking in.
This has been an amazing work of sophistry. I'm more then a little surprised at how many are participating.
A leading poll and the argument that 'opting out' of something can be validated or forbidden by what your not participating in turns logic on it's head.
It's not illegal to not participate because there has been no law written by what your not participating in against it? There can be no law written for entities not under that law can there? If a group (State or individual) decides that by their own will to take territory from the United States and claim it as their new country have they not become themselves a defacto occupier of US territory? Just stating that it is no longer US territory doesn't make that true. It remains US territory and unless that entity can repel the forces of the United States regaining that territory that doesn't change.
Also, to lay claim to the citizens rights or legal protections of the Country you are seceding from is duplicitous. You don't want to be part of that country and claim sovereignty yet expect that the country who's territory your now occupying now must treat you as a citizen. It isn't illegal to retake your territory or murder to kill military adversaries.
Why would a self proclaimed nation expect that the country who's territory they now occupy NOT expect that countries armed forces to come and reclaim it.
Simply proclaiming you don't want to participate any more doesn't mean you have any claim on the US territory your on. And when that country shows up to take it back, that's not unprovoked aggression, it's an inevitable consequence.
Was there any question that this was US territory before some decided that suddenly it wasn't?
Regardless of the sophistry it remains that taking US territory via proclaiming yourself sovereign is still the taking of US territory and an act of rebellion.
A leading poll and the argument that 'opting out' of something can be validated or forbidden by what your not participating in turns logic on it's head.
It's not illegal to not participate because there has been no law written by what your not participating in against it? There can be no law written for entities not under that law can there? If a group (State or individual) decides that by their own will to take territory from the United States and claim it as their new country have they not become themselves a defacto occupier of US territory? Just stating that it is no longer US territory doesn't make that true. It remains US territory and unless that entity can repel the forces of the United States regaining that territory that doesn't change.
Also, to lay claim to the citizens rights or legal protections of the Country you are seceding from is duplicitous. You don't want to be part of that country and claim sovereignty yet expect that the country who's territory your now occupying now must treat you as a citizen. It isn't illegal to retake your territory or murder to kill military adversaries.
Why would a self proclaimed nation expect that the country who's territory they now occupy NOT expect that countries armed forces to come and reclaim it.
Simply proclaiming you don't want to participate any more doesn't mean you have any claim on the US territory your on. And when that country shows up to take it back, that's not unprovoked aggression, it's an inevitable consequence.
Was there any question that this was US territory before some decided that suddenly it wasn't?
Regardless of the sophistry it remains that taking US territory via proclaiming yourself sovereign is still the taking of US territory and an act of rebellion.
No comment necessary.
Please rewrite this so that it makes sense.
Although the initial part of this post doesn't make sense, I'll address the latter part of it. The US government only holds title to that land and property covered in the Constitution. The US government does not hold title to every square mile or acre of America and never has. For those that might argue that the Louisiana Purchase gave the US government title to land, that's incorrect. Under Constitutional law, the US government signed a treaty with France to abrogate any claim they had on the land cover by the treaty. The US government held no title to the land.
This post makes no sense, please rephrase. Based on the part that's readable, the US government is restricted by the Constitution. If an entity, a state, is a part of that agreement, it may exercise any power not forbidden it under the agreement. In that sense, the Constitution is a treaty between the states and the general government, as many of the founders stated. As a suggestion, read your Jefferson.
The territory within the Confederacy did not belong to the federal government for the reasons stated. Again, the federal government holds title to a very limited area of America, even Lincold didn't claim the US government held title to all the land.
That idea has no legal basis.
Not only was there a question, it in fact wasn't US territory then or now, contrary to your understanding. You need to learn the definition of what the US government owns and what it does not own.
No, that's not true under any known legal theory or fact.
Right because that whole concept of "All Men Are Created Equal" of course only applied to white men... THe 13 colonies sidestepped a direct confrontation on slavery because if they hadn't the south would never have gone along with independence... Guess owning human beings was more important than the ideals of freedom but I digress...
There were many reasons for the war, some good and some bad. There was certainly one reason above all others that made the war worth fighting and that was the issue of slavery. If the South had wished to defuse much of the issue and sap a great deal of momentum from the North they could always have freed the slaves but again... owning humans as property just seemed to important to the leadership present.
The average Confederate trooper cared nothing for slavery, he cared that there were Union troops in his state. That is why he fought. The average German soldier fought because he believed he was protecting his nation from Communism and subjugation but western powers. In either case though it doesn't matter because at the core victory for both armies meant the abhorrent practices of slavery or the Holocaust. Sorry, the southern cause rooted in "States Rights" was poisoned by one of those major rights being the right to own human beings as if they were cattle. I don't blame the many soldiers who died for the southern cause or even the majority of the officers and generals. Their system, like that of Nazi Germany, carried out and would have perpetuated indefinitely without outside action, an atrocity against modern man. Sadly it took so many Americans loosing their lives to settle the matter.
What disgusts me though are "Americans" who to this day poo poo the issue of slavery and romanticize the Civil War into a War for Southern Rights, War of Secession or my real favorite, The War of Northern Aggression. The acts of the North are vilified in the same way that self hating American reporters, writers and activist/celebrities find fault with anything the US does while being blind to the many noble achievements of this nation. There is nothing wrong with being proud of the duty your forefathers stepped forward to take, North or South. They fought for their homes, their nation, the freedom of other men and, more than anything else, the brothers in arms standing next to them. We have too many fools though who confuse the nobility of service with the end result which would have occurred had the South won. We would have a glorious world of State's Rights, a divided and weakened continent and human bondage. Whoo Hoo there is a cause to celebrate.
Again, there were real issues of trade and taxation, rights of states and the rise of Federalism at play. All of that is overshadowed by the issue of slavery. If you cannot comprehend that then you just don't get it. Perhaps you can look back and read the words of some of those people who cried out for freedom or had it given to them at the point of a Union bayonet. As for the Northerners who freed them from the comfort of their "Lilly White States" (how white were the parlors of the southern gentry by the way, slave servants not included?) you could always visit the many battlefields which hold their corpses.
Grow up people. The was is over. The South lost. Slavery was evil and needed to be ended by ball and bayonet if needed. You can honor the dead of both sides without ignoring the evil present. If you can't do that here in America you are no better than a German who claims the Holocaust was a myth.
Did the Confederacy lay title on the territory it was claiming was no longer US territory? NOPE Just claimed it as their territory. The country they claimed it FROM just took it back.
And using the assertion you made about the Constitution being a treaty, well if that is taken as the premise then the treaty was broken and the consequences for breaking a treaty are forfeiture of it's protection and terms.
US territory is different then US property. Is Kansas within US territory? Of course but that doesn't mean that Kansas is the PROPERTY of the US.
If a foreign power invades Oregon have then not invaded the US? Of course they have but that isn't because Oregon is the PROPERTY of the US, it is because it is within US territory that the foriegn power invaded.
Would some entity or group simply laying claim to the territories of American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island' Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, or Wake Island simply get away with just claiming them as their own new country despite thier being neither property or States? NOPE. They would face the US forces coming to reclaim their territory.
Title makes property not territory. Much more is required to take US territory than simply claiming it your territory.
As far as using the terms 'legal' and 'rights' for the Confederacy, I thought they were claiming sovereignty, why would they have any claim to another nations rights or protections of law if they are sovereign?
And using the assertion you made about the Constitution being a treaty, well if that is taken as the premise then the treaty was broken and the consequences for breaking a treaty are forfeiture of it's protection and terms.
US territory is different then US property. Is Kansas within US territory? Of course but that doesn't mean that Kansas is the PROPERTY of the US.
If a foreign power invades Oregon have then not invaded the US? Of course they have but that isn't because Oregon is the PROPERTY of the US, it is because it is within US territory that the foriegn power invaded.
Would some entity or group simply laying claim to the territories of American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island' Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, or Wake Island simply get away with just claiming them as their own new country despite thier being neither property or States? NOPE. They would face the US forces coming to reclaim their territory.
Title makes property not territory. Much more is required to take US territory than simply claiming it your territory.
As far as using the terms 'legal' and 'rights' for the Confederacy, I thought they were claiming sovereignty, why would they have any claim to another nations rights or protections of law if they are sovereign?
The above appears to be one long non sequitur. If you don't know or understand the law or the Constitution, just stop posting I'd recommend.
The seceeded states lawfully left the Constitutional compact of states since there was no prohibition to that in the Constitution. The legality of secession was established by the Declaration of Independence long before the southern states acted. Further, no founder questioned the lawful right of state secession, and in fact most wrote about its lawfullness.
Again, bringing us back to the original question, should secession be one of the answers to the leviathan state that we have today?
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
They could name it Hotnhumidnbuggyistan
Agreed. the question then becomes related to the other thread. As Jefferson said, secession shouldn't be for light and transient reasons, and I think if secession were begun by a state of group of states, it would be for serious reasons.
Still, could those of us outside such a region legitimately question their reasons for secession? Aren't they entitled to self government for their own perceived self benefit?
JuanCarlos
New member
This "they"...who are we talking about here? The state's legislature? Its citizens?
What of those in the state who oppose secession? Are they just expected to move out? Is that reasonable? If somebody who had made their life in a state still considers themselves more of a US citizen than, say, a California citizen then does the US have any obligation to them?
Because I know I'd be pretty angry if my state suddenly up and decided I wasn't in the US anymore.
EDIT: For a more direct question, should an actual referendum among a state's citizens be required for secession? Should a simple majority be enough to pass it?
Last time the reason was the economic impact of the loss of cheap labor via human bondage, that was not a good enough serious reason.
What would those serious reasons be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level?
What would those serious reasons be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level?
What are you trying to prove, Pat? Your initial "poll" was terribly inadequate, seemingly designed to provoke thought along the lines of the question but nothing of substance has been offered to justify the need. A "leviathan" state...come on! Even in good 'ol TR you have access to a way of life and freedoms well beyond most world denizens. You're obviously a rabble rouser from "Up North" whiling away some lonesome hours in a dorm at Furman.
- Status