NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok.

I like to think I am open minded about things but I am rather hard headed at times.

I do offer this challenge to the Southern History types.

Prove the 10th and the 14th amendments say session was ok .

I have read such claims and see much of the arguments as interpretive. Especially, from opportunistic jack asses like alan Keyes.

I also raise the leary eye when I hear "tyant dictator child raping Lincoln" in historical debate/discussions. Obviously said comment was being sarcastic. But for me it is a warning word that the author has an agenda rather then presenting history.

Here is your chance to convert one of those ignornat stupid unpatriotic northerners(Born in the state of washington ;) ).

I like the "truth" of history and if I am wrong. I will say I am wrong. Even if proven wrong in this case, it's all history now and does not change things. What is gained from the fact the North "violated" the Consitution? What is gained by proving Lincoln was a dictator as some here has said "worst then Hitler"

Seriously, do offer me a "credible" source with a reputation for honest evaluation of the "facts."

So do fire away and lets try to keep it civil.

Especially you Tek! ;)

Well that is if I haven't made the ignore list! :)

Haven't got a clue what those ammendments are, but there's one thing you should bear in mind:

Revolution is always legal when you're the revolutionary, yet, it's always illegal when you're not.

That's true.

Yet to be bitter about it 143 years later?

Do people in England still get bitter over Cromwell or the wars of the Roses? ;)

Well, let's be honest here, who thinks that we'd be better off if the CSA existed today (slavery and all)? Who here thinks that the CSA would even exist today if it won the civil war?

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.

Since secession wasn't delegated to the US, then the states have the right to secede.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

This was just meant to keep pre-war Southern legislators out of government

EDIT: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/. Source

Do people in England still get bitter over Cromwell or the wars of the Roses? ;)

I do.

That damn Henry VII coward, fleeing when Richard III galantly charged at him and offered single combat. Yorkists > Lancastrians.

Cromwell and the wars of the roses are so far in history now it's not an issue.

Cromwell is one of the main reasons that freedom of religion was introduced to the UK. After he introduced his puritanical police state, where even berries were frowned on as decoration during christmas, everyone, even his own government got tired of it.

I do.

That damn Henry VII coward, fleeing when Richard III galantly charged at him and offered single combat. Yorkists > Lancastrians.

Richard III :gundge:

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.

Since secession wasn't delegated to the US, then the states have the right to secede.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

This was just meant to keep pre-war Southern legislators out of government

EDIT: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/. Source
"Texas v. White"


Neither here nor there though, mind answering my questions.

"Texas v. White"


Neither here nor there though, mind answering my questions.

That case was after the Civil War.

I don't think the CSA would keep slavery for much longer, as the US and Britain would probably impose trade embargos if slavery isn't abolished. The CSA would probably be a poorer version of the US. They'd be like Portugal to Spain. Not as wealthy, but still Westernized and 1st world.

[b]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
*SNIP*

EDIT: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/. Source

Excellent source. I refer to them as well! :)

However, it can be interpreted to have that ability. Yet if we look section 10 of article 1.

Section 10.

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.
"

This seems to suggest that session is not an option. In order to setup your own country, you would need all those.....

That case was after the Civil War.

I don't think the CSA would keep slavery for much longer, as the US and Britain would probably impose trade embargos if slavery isn't abolished. The CSA would probably be a poorer version of the US. They'd be like Portugal to Spain. Not as wealthy, but still Westernized and 1st world.
No kidding? Here I was thinking that 1868 was before the civil war (HINT: Read the case).

I don't think the US would have been in a trading mood anyway. So why bother dissolving the union if it would only lead to a far weaker United States (Imagine WWII without the United States...)

Excellent source. I refer to them as well! :)

However, it can be interpreted to have that ability. Yet if we look section 10 of article 1.

Section 10.

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.
"

This seems to suggest that session is not an option. In order to setup your own country, you would need all those.....

Yeah, but when the states seceded, they weren't part of the US, so the US Constitution didn't affect them.

That's true.

Yet to be bitter about it 143 years later?

Do people in England still get bitter over Cromwell or the wars of the Roses? ;)

Well, actually there is a Richard the Third Society still in operation, they even have an American Branch, whose website can be found here:

http://www.r3.org/intro.html

Huzzah, God and the Sunne of Yorke. Personally, I've always thought of the Tudors as a retrograde step - Henry V111 has a lot to answer for.

So, yeah, there is still interest, and controversey, in things historical.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mind you, personally, I'd like to see the Plantagenets back. Or even the Stuarts. Anyone, in fact except the so-called Windsors.

No kidding? Here I was thinking that 1868 was before the civil war (HINT: Read the case).

I don't think the US would have been in a trading mood anyway. So why bother dissolving the union if it would only lead to a far weaker United States (Imagine WWII without the United States...)

Alright, Supreme Court says secession is illegal and we never seceded. I have to disagree, as the 10th Amendment makes it clear that any right not delegated nor prohibited in the Constitution is a right of the State and person.

On a stranger note, Texas vs White bans a state from seceding, but what about an individual. The 10th Amendment applies there, and Texas vs White only says the Union is indestructable, implying states can't secede, but there's nothing about a person.

Alright, Supreme Court says secession is illegal and we never seceded. I have to disagree, as the 10th Amendment makes it clear that any right not delegated nor prohibited in the Constitution is a right of the State and person.

On a stranger note, Texas vs White bans a state from seceding, but what about an individual. The 10th Amendment applies there, and Texas vs White only says the Union is indestructable, implying states can't secede, but there's nothing about a person.
Yes, you can pack up your bags and leave the country...

Yes, you can pack up your bags and leave the country...

Not only seceding, but forming your own independent nation.

Well, actually there is a Richard the Third Society still in operation, they even have an American Branch, whose website can be found here:

http://www.r3.org/intro.html

Huzzah, God and the Sunne of Yorke. Personally, I've always thought of the Tudors as a retrograde step - Henry V111 has a lot to answer for.

So, yeah, there is still interest, and controversey, in things historical.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mind you, personally, I'd like to see the Plantagenets back. Or even the Stuarts. Anyone, in fact except the so-called Windsors.


Apologies for the semi-hijack, but I don't beleive that another family in charge of the monarchy would be less insipid than the windsors. Eitherway things being what they are, Her Majesty is still my queen and long may she reign (preferably past the lifespan of the prince of wales).

However, back on topic, wouldn't the secession of individual states preclude the ruling of article 10 as haverton states?

Or is this back to a case of, yes according to the secessionists, and no according to the unionists?

EDIT:
Sorry, I'm a slow poster. So the state can't secede but the population of the states can. Therefore the confederation can be regarded as a foreign invader upon union soil, historically speaking?

Not only seceding, but forming your own independent nation.
Which would be taking land away from a state...

Which would be taking land away from a state...

One person seceding wouldn't work, but what if everyone in the South seceded, then they could invade the Southern states and claim them as their own! I'm waiting for someone to use this to circumvent Texas vs White.

One person seceding wouldn't work, but what if everyone in the South seceded, then they could invade the Southern states and claim them as their own! I'm waiting for someone to use this to circumvent Texas vs White.
Which would make them a rebellion...which is precisely what the Civil war was...and it was put down by the North.

I don't think the US would have been in a trading mood anyway. So why bother dissolving the union if it would only lead to a far weaker United States (Imagine WWII without the United States...)

You're assuming WWII would have even happened. Without the Zimmerman Telegram freaking out the Southern states, the US might not have even gotten involved in the first World War. If we didn't, the political climate in Europe may have even blocked Hitler from ever having attained power in the first place.

You're assuming WWII would have even happened. Without the Zimmerman Telegram freaking out the Southern states, the US might not have even gotten involved in the first World War. If we didn't, the political climate in Europe may have even blocked Hitler from ever having attained power in the first place.
WWI would have ended in an allied victory regardless of if we joined or not...

WWI would have ended in an allied victory regardless of if we joined or not...

Probably, but it would have taken a good bit longer due to the fact that Germany could press its full force on Britain and France, and Mexico and the CSA would keep the US busy enough to stay out of the war.

Probably, but it would have taken a good bit longer due to the fact that Germany could press its full force on Britain and France, and Mexico and the CSA would keep the US busy enough to stay out of the war.
Yes, it would have taken longer, and more then likely would have ended in an even worse defeat for Germany, making it more likely that someone like Hitler would grab power.

Yeah, but when the states seceded, they weren't part of the US, so the US Constitution didn't affect them.

Hmpf. Yet most of the Southeners seem to forget that when they argue their rights were violated. You succed, you can't claim consititutional abuse.

But has their been an official ruling on the claim?

I still hear interpetation. It isn't said by the feds so it's allowed by the states. That could be said for many things.

Most of the rulings on the 10th seem to be centered around issues of trade. Haven't seen session.....

Hmpf. Yet most of the Southeners seem to forget that when they argue their rights were violated. You succed, you can't claim consititutional abuse.

But has their been an official ruling on the claim?

I still hear interpetation. It isn't said by the feds so it's allowed by the states. That could be said for many things.

Most of the rulings on the 10th seem to be centered around issues of trade. Haven't seen session.....

Secede. It's secede.

And we can complain about constitutional abuse in the US even if we're not from the US. You don't have to be from a country to denounce its actions. Now we can't complain if the US uses the Constitution to hurt us, but if Lincoln steps all over it, we can complain for the good of the North.

Alright, Supreme Court says secession is illegal and we never seceded. I have to disagree, as the 10th Amendment makes it clear that any right not delegated nor prohibited in the Constitution is a right of the State and person.

On a stranger note, Texas vs White bans a state from seceding, but what about an individual. The 10th Amendment applies there, and Texas vs White only says the Union is indestructable, implying states can't secede, but there's nothing about a person.

Isn't a person seceding called imigration to another country?

As to the person argument, well I don't think you will ever hear a court take up the case. Don't know of too many countries that would disallow immigration.

Isn't a person seceding called imigration to another country?

As to the person argument, well I don't think you will ever hear a court take up the case. Don't know of too many countries that would disallow immigration.

Yeah, I suppose you could call secession immigrating to your own nation. I could just "immigrate" to some rock out in international waters with some friends and found the world's new superpower!

Secede. It's secede.

And we can complain about constitutional abuse in the US even if we're not from the US. You don't have to be from a country to denounce its actions. Now we can't complain if the US uses the Constitution to hurt us, but if Lincoln steps all over it, we can complain for the good of the North.

Sorry I am a horrible speller. Someday there will be a spell checker for web pages.

I didn't say you can't complain. I just find it interesting that in one case the constitution is null when you secede and yet say their consititional rights were violated in another. A civil war kind of tosses a wrench into things.

As Kusarii did say.

Revolution is always legal when you're the revolutionary, yet, it's always illegal when you're not.

For those that don't want to look it up....

Texas v. White
US Citation: 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
Docket:
Events: Argued - February 5, 1869
Decided - April 12, 1869

Facts: In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas. The bonds were payable to the state or bearer and were to be redeemable in 1864. In 1862, during the war of rebellion, an insurgent Texas legislature authorized the use of the bonds to purchase war supplies. Four years later, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds.
Question Presented: Was Texas a state in the union eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court? Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?
Conclusion: In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Justices:
Samuel Nelson
Robert C. Grier
Nathan Clifford
Noah Swayne
Samuel F. Miller
David Davis
Stephen J. Field
Salmon P. Chase

Excellent source. I refer to them as well! :)

However, it can be interpreted to have that ability. Yet if we look section 10 of article 1.

Section 10.

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.
"

This seems to suggest that session is not an option. In order to setup your own country, you would need all those.....

Technically speaking, you could do all of that after seceding. And the Constitution says nothing about secession. Joining was voluntary, so it could have been assumed that leaving was also. And the 14th Amendment came after the Civil War, so it's a moot point. The Civil War decided the secession issue once and for all.

I believe that Texas and I think Massachusetts(one of those small New England states anyway) can secede anytime they choose as part of their agreement in joining the union. Texas was an independent republic for a good number of years before it joined the union.

Do people in England still get bitter over the wars of the Roses? ;)

Christ yes. Just listening to people from Yorkshire talking about "that lot over the Pennines" (and vice-versa) and you'd swear the war was still going on. Or go to a Leeds United-Manchester United football match.

Incidentally, on the subject of football, there's significant pockets of Chelsea supporters in Lancashire, even though Chelsea is about 200 miles south, since in the 70s they were Leeds United's biggest rivals.

So, yeah, the whole Lancashire-Yorkshire thing still runs pretty deep.