NationStates Jolt Archive

well today may 10th is confederate memorial day in south and norht carolina to remember all those brave confedereate soldiers who gave their lives fighting for their contry...comments...

I wasn't aware that there was a Confederate Memorial Day. Neat.

Yeah, we should have let the south stay confederate so we could nuke them later on.

Fantastic. I'm sure they died for a good cause.

Fantastic. I'm sure they died for a good cause.
im guessing thats a sarcastic comment?

I kind of dislike the idea of commemorating that. Sure, the dead deserve to be honored, but by singling the confederate soldiers out like that, it seems more like a rally for the Confederacy than a proper mourning of the dead. Both Union and Rebel troops should be commemorated on the same day at the same time.

im guessing thats a sarcastic comment?

Why, never! What gave you that idea?

Yeah, we should have let the south stay confederate so we could nuke them later on.

Wow, only 3 posts before we got the first "The South is teh suck!" post. How long before we get a 3 page diatribe about how Confederates were all baby eating monsters who raped small boys?

Wow, only 3 posts before we got the first "The South is teh suck!" post. How long before we get a 3 page diatribe about how Confederates were all baby eating monsters who raped small boys?
*snickers
"I proud to be a confederate where at least my labor's"... never mind

How long before we get a 3 page diatribe about how Confederates were all baby eating monsters who raped small boys?

Wait... they didn't do that? :eek:

I have been LIED to!

Wait... they didn't do that? :eek:

I have been LIED to!
union soldiers raped women when they came thru the south on shermans march of terror...

Wow, only 3 posts before we got the first "The South is teh suck!" post. How long before we get a 3 page diatribe about how Confederates were all baby eating monsters who raped small boys?

Oh please. And let me guess, the south is the bastion of culture and brilliance right?

Wow, only 3 posts before we got the first "The South is teh suck!" post. How long before we get a 3 page diatribe about how Confederates were all baby eating monsters who raped small boys?

To my knowledge the Confederates never did that, but they are moral equivilants, and to claim the moral high-ground by apologising for people who enslaved, tortured and murdered people due to their race is absurd and distasteful.

And this is coming from a white Briton who would have much rather history occured whereby the USA was split up, unstable and unable to achieve hyperpower status. But the defence of slavery is no excuse for this, and if I had a time-machine I would rather accept US hegemony than doom millions of blacks to slavery and suffering.

Granted, the dead need remembering. But they do not need glorifying, because they were wrong. Instead we should pity them for being convinced to lay down their lives for evil by the manipulative bigwigs in Richmond, just as we should pity all dead soldiers in nationalist wars.

union soldiers raped women when they came thru the south on shermans march of terror...Confederate troops hung any black soldier they captured...

Oh please. And let me guess, the south is the bastion of culture and brilliance right?

Did I say that? Also, check my location before you start accusing me of being mad that "we" lost the war.

My point is that when people mention the Confederacy someone always comes along and accuses the average Confederate soldier of being some kind of horrible monster, when in reality most Confederate soldiers signed up to defend what they perceived as their country, just like the Union troops did.

Did I say that? Also, check my location before you start accusing me of being mad that "we" lost the war.

My point is that when people mention the Confederacy someone always comes along and accuses the average Confederate soldier of being some kind of horrible monster, when in reality most Confederate soldiers signed up to defend what they perceived as their country, just like the Union troops did.

First of all, I never accused you of being a confederate or even came close to it, or even thought about it for that matter.

Second, MY point was that their perception of "their country" was not the Union's, and both should have existed as 2 seperate countries. We would have been better off. The nuke thing was a joke.

First of all, I never accused you of being a confederate or even came close to it, or even thought about it for that matter.

Second, MY point was that their perception of "their country" was not the Union's, and both should have existed as 2 seperate countries. We would have been better off. The nuke thing was a joke.

Ah, I apologize then. The way these things almost always go is someone says "All Southerners should die!!11!", and then if someone doesn't agree with that they accuse you of being mad you lost the war, whether you're Southern or not, and then accuse you of thinking slavery was acceptable.

"Iam fighting cos your down here" a poor confederate Prisoner reply to the a Federal Question on why he was fighting.

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. It was a rogue state born of illegal actions and rebellion without moral grounds. While I agree that it is part of our (USA) history and should not be ignored, it should in no way be celebrated.

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. It was a rogue state born of illegal actions and rebellion without moral grounds. While I agree that it is part of our (USA) history and should not be ignored, it should in no way be celebrated.

Exactly.

BTW, isn't Confederate Memorial Day actually January 19?

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. It was a rogue state born of illegal actions and rebellion without moral grounds. While I agree that it is part of our (USA) history and should not be ignored, it should in no way be celebrated.

Although my earlier post condemned the CSA, I have to disagree with you here. The Confederacy had every moral right to secede, especially if they believed the central government to be wrong. Let me make this clear, if the Confederacy's unorthodoxy was, for example, the right for states to give children free milk instead of supporting slavery. And the Union still ordered it to comply, then I would whole-heartedly support the Confederacy.

It was the CSA's institutionalised racism that made it an immoral state, not the act of breaking away from the USA, and for one very important reason: Federation can only morally exist consentually, otherwise it is simply Empire. Pure and simple. The Union lost the moral high ground permenantly when it invaded the sovereign Confederacy based almost entirely on Imperialistic motives than humanitarian ones.

Although my earlier post condemned the CSA, I have to disagree with you here. The Confederacy had every moral right to secede, especially if they believed the central government to be wrong. Let me make this clear, if the Confederacy's unorthodoxy was, for example, the right for states to give children free milk instead of supporting slavery. And the Union still ordered it to comply, then I would whole-heartedly support the Confederacy.

It was the CSA's institutionalised racism that made it an immoral state, not the act of breaking away from the USA, and for one very important reason: Federation can only morally exist consentually, otherwise it is simply Empire. Pure and simple. The Union lost the moral high ground permenantly when it invaded the sovereign Confederacy based almost entirely on Imperialistic motives than humanitarian ones.
'mm, I agree, actually.

They had the right to secede.

Was it morally correct considering their motives for doing so? No.

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. It was a rogue state born of illegal actions and rebellion without moral grounds. While I agree that it is part of our (USA) history and should not be ignored, it should in no way be celebrated.

Neither was the USA until it rebelled against it's rightful leaders.

Although my earlier post condemned the CSA, I have to disagree with you here. The Confederacy had every moral right to secede, especially if they believed the central government to be wrong. Let me make this clear, if the Confederacy's unorthodoxy was, for example, the right for states to give children free milk instead of supporting slavery. And the Union still ordered it to comply, then I would whole-heartedly support the Confederacy.

It was the CSA's institutionalised racism that made it an immoral state, not the act of breaking away from the USA, and for one very important reason: Federation can only morally exist consentually, otherwise it is simply Empire. Pure and simple. The Union lost the moral high ground permenantly when it invaded the sovereign Confederacy based almost entirely on Imperialistic motives than humanitarian ones.

Actually, The COnfederacy attacked first. Fort Sumter. *nod* The SOuth started the war.

for the Confedarcy to have recognition among the European states then it would of needed an Early Desisive Battle or abolished Slavery then perhaps it would been recognised .

Actually, The COnfederacy attacked first. Fort Sumter. *nod* The SOuth started the war.

As they say on the playground, it really doesn't matter who started it. Besides, if the Confederacy didn't make the first blow, the North would have, they were not going to sit by while the Southern states shunned the sacrasanct authority of Washington. It was an Imperialist War that just so happened to have a humitarian result.

As they say on the playground, it really doesn't matter who started it. Besides, if the Confederacy didn't make the first blow, the North would have, they were not going to sit by while the Southern states shunned the sacrasanct authority of Washington. It was an Imperialist War that just so happened to have a humitarian result.

The North didn't need to make the first blow. They controlled everything. :p

The South didn't have the infrastructure to meet their own needs and they didn't have the ability to set one up in a decent amount of time. They needed, as someone already pointed out, to show Europe they would be a useful ally if their sovereignty was recognized.

A mistake people make is thinking it was about slavery, it wasn’t about slavery till the Emancipation Proclamation. It was mostly about big centralized government vs. states rights. Slavery was only one of the issues. As for the moron who talked about staying apart and nuking, I assume that is in gest because the US would be no super power and would not have nukes at all. That is just silly.

As they say on the playground, it really doesn't matter who started it. Besides, if the Confederacy didn't make the first blow, the North would have, they were not going to sit by while the Southern states shunned the sacrosanct authority of Washington. It was an Imperialist War that just so happened to have a humanitarian result.

Actually no the North would have not fired the first shot. Lincoln needed a cause and the South stupidly gave him one.

Sacrosanct authority of Washington? :D

Ok so they shunned the sacrosanct authority of Washington and switched to the Sacrosanct authority of Richmond.

A mistake people make is thinking it was about slavery, it wasn’t about slavery till the Emancipation Proclamation. It was mostly about big centralized government vs. states rights. Slavery was only one of the issues. As for the moron who talked about staying apart and nuking, I assume that is in gest because the US would be no super power and would not have nukes at all. That is just silly.

Actually yes and no. Lincoln never claimed slavery. People would not have bought into it as much. The South? Yes slavery was a large part of it. If you check the secession papers (especially Georgia) slavery is mentioned many times.

My cousin Cornelia Peake McDonald has a diary that is still published today. She wrote that her husband and friends talked about getting the slave trade going again.

Actually yes and no. Lincoln never claimed slavery. People would not have bought into it as much. The South? Yes slavery was a large part of it. If you check the secession papers (especially Georgia) slavery is mentioned many times.

My cousin Cornelia Peake McDonald has a diary that is still published today. She wrote that her husband and friends talked about getting the slave trade going again.

Well, the CSA Constitution did ban the foreign slave trade. Section IX.

I think it's safe to say that secession was caused by slavery, but not the war. The war was caused by the exact same thing every other war is caused by. Money. The North feared a loss of revenue at the busy Southern ports, and also feared a South that would possibly adopt a free trade policy. Smuggling would have been impossible to stop along such a huge border, and Northern industry would have had a difficult time competing against the better and cheaper European manufactured goods.

Well, the CSA Constitution did ban the foreign slave trade. Section IX.


They had to as they were trying to get the support of England.




I think it's safe to say that secession was caused by slavery, but not the war. The war was caused by the exact same thing every other war is caused by. Money. The North feared a loss of revenue at the busy Southern ports, and also feared a South that would possibly adopt a free trade policy. Smuggling would have been impossible to stop along such a huge border, and Northern industry would have had a difficult time competing against the better and cheaper European manufactured goods.

No comment! :)

They had to as they were trying to get the support of England.

Exactly. I should clarify right now that I wasn't trying to imply that the South was trying to get rid of slavery at the time or anything.

Exactly. I should clarify right now that I wasn't trying to imply that the South was trying to get rid of slavery at the time or anything.

Sorry. Wasn't implying anything just adding to.... ;)

Sorry. Wasn't implying anything just adding to.... ;)

Certainly, but when discussing this particular subject it pays to be very clear about what you're saying before people start throwing wild accusations about.

The Civil War wasn't just an anti-slavery crusade...there were the pro-slavery states that fought as members of the Union.

And this is coming from a white Briton who would have much rather history occured whereby the USA was split up, unstable and unable to achieve hyperpower status.


Like Great Britain did?

I am enjoying Confederate week here in NC. I have an ancestor who was in the Civil War on the Confederate Side. This weekend I'll go lay some flowers on his grave. Of course the story goes that he got shot in battle because he was drunk, eh not the best way to go out but whatever

union soldiers raped women when they came thru the south on shermans march of terror...

Soldiers raped women in virtually every war, so pointing it out on either side of the Civil War is a moot point.

In the eary history of the United States the rights of the States, trumped the rights of the Federal Govt. That's one reason the POTUS is elected by an electorial college, and not by a majority of the voters. When Lincoln led the Northern invasion of the South he was declaring war on a new Nation, not a civil war. Pres Lincoln also jailed several thousand Northern citizens for protesting his invasion of the South. Free speach, at least in the North, was not allowed during the war.

I think it's fitting and proper to honor the memory of those who died defending states rights.

In a time of war, like we are in today, the Federal Govt. must be able to function and that might mean it over-rides the rights of the citizens, but after this war is over, one can only hope those rights are restored, and the States become free of the Federal tyrany.

Fantastic. I'm sure they died for a good cause.

they did die for good causes, but unfortunently today the civil war is seen as being a war for slavery. slavery did play a part in it but president Lincoln was the one that made it after the war appear to be purely about slavery.

and it also doesnt help much with all the fucking redneck assholes flying their confederate battleflags and given the flag a bad image which in turn give the confederacy a very bad image

Ok so they shunned the sacrosanct authority of Washington and switched to the Sacrosanct authority of Richmond.

You may jest but Richmond must have felt lightyears closer in terms to political culture to the Southeners than Washington did. And, if I my American history is correct (as a Brit it comes mostly from wikipedia and Harry Turtledove), the Confederate constitution was more closely based on the earlier 'Articles of Confederation' which proposed a much weaker federation than the comparitively monolithic 'United States Constitution'.

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. It was a rogue state born of illegal actions and rebellion without moral grounds. While I agree that it is part of our (USA) history and should not be ignored, it should in no way be celebrated.
correction the CSA was recognized by 1 nation, look it up on the wiki

well today may 10th is confederate memorial day in south and norht carolina to remember all those brave confedereate soldiers who gave their lives fighting for their contry...comments...
You mean fighting against their country. Tell me, do you celebrate a Benedict Arnold day as well? Got one in the works for Aldrich Ames? :rolleyes:

You mean fighting against their country. Tell me, do you celebrate a Benedict Arnold day as well? Got one in the works for Aldrich Ames? :rolleyes:
up yours

up yours

sounds like a yes to me

correction the CSA was recognized by 1 nation, look it up on the wiki

If you mean by the Vatican and Pope Pius IX, well that has never been fully accepted. Many have argued it was more about being polite then recognizing a nation.

If you mean by the Vatican and Pope Pius IX, well that has never been fully accepted. Many have argued it was more about being polite the recognizing a nation.

The Vatican; every rebels' friend

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/91/Popepiusix.jpg/200px-Popepiusix.jpg

hey, in the south, its Lee-Jackson-King day (on MLK). what a group of guys there.

at least its generic, but i mean. . . .

they did die for good causes, but unfortunently today the civil war is seen as being a war for slavery. slavery did play a part in it but president Lincoln was the one that made it after the war appear to be purely about slavery.

lincoln died before the war ended. and besides, "emancipation" came in 1863 after antietam. lincoln only enforced a sub-reason to the war with it. abolitionists were recognized. now it was a moral war and no european nation would help the south. europe had had no slavery for decades. helping the south was therefore helping slavery.

heh, lincoln was crazy. he forbid habeas corpus. jailed half of the maryland legislators and the governor. freed slaves in another country. disobeyed the supreme court.
and it also doesnt help much with all the fucking redneck assholes flying their confederate battleflags and given the flag a bad image which in turn give the confederacy a very bad image

like the south needed more reinforcement of its bad image. waiving a flag aint gonna bring it back.

Three cheers for slavery and the Flag of Treason.

Three cheers for slavery and the Flag of Treason.

ain't nothing necessarily wrong with the treason. it's the slavery bit that makes the whole thing just shameful.

ain't nothing necessarily wrong with the treason. it's the slavery bit that makes the whole thing just shameful.

It always amazes me to see the kneejerk "Secession is teh treason!11!1!" reaction. It's almost as though they'd never read the Declaration of Independence. The South did a selective reading (forgetting the "created equal" part) but at least they read part of it.

I think Confederate Memorial Day is a great idea. We can celebrate it just like Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated in England.

The south was just throwing a temper tantrum because they failed to get their candidate elected. It was about slavery, but only about the Free Soil movement which Lincoln would have supported.

It was all a power play by the South to try and retain control of the North like they had had since the Hartford Convention.

I have no sympathy for the South or for it's cause, and while I understand that the soldiers were "fighting for what they beleived in", it is only fair to remind people that what they beleived in was a state where the enslavement of their fellow men was a celebrated custom (and Southern appologists may protest otherwise, but many also falsely cast it as the "War of Northern Agression" as well).

I dislike the fact that the Confederacy is still celebrated today in the South which has yet to grow up and realize that it lost it's war.

It always amazes me to see the kneejerk "Secession is teh treason!11!1!" reaction. It's almost as though they'd never read the Declaration of Independence. The South did a selective reading (forgetting the "created equal" part) but at least they read part of it.
The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is. And guess what? It forbids secession.

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. It was a rogue state born of illegal actions and rebellion without moral grounds. While I agree that it is part of our (USA) history and should not be ignored, it should in no way be celebrated.

Oh God, whats wrong with this statement.

*Gulps*

*sweats*

*Wipes forehead*

I agree with you, Keruvalia.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is. And guess what? It forbids secession.

taking that as given, that merely makes for yet another argument that the constitution isn't all it's cracked up to be (on top of a variety of other problems).

taking that as given, that merely makes for yet another argument that the constitution isn't all it's cracked up to be (on top of a variety of other problems).
So you think secession should be written into the Constitution? Why the hell would a government shoot itself in the foot like that?

up yours
Hit a nerve, did I? Why don't you go run and tell your local Klansman that a mean southern liberal called the confederates a bunch of traitors? :rolleyes:

Let's not make the north out to be moral victors either. The south's issue was not that the north was opposed to slavery, but that it wanted to limit the expansion of it. Why? Because if slavery was permitted in new territories, they would inevitably develop agricultural economies, thus making them "southern" states for all practical purposes and providing the south and it's social/economic interests with a majority in Congress. If slavery wasn't permitted, the new states would develop industry-based economies, making them essentially northern states. The north had an industrial economy out of necessity, as the land was not suited for massive farms like that of the south. Why had the north not used slave labor as the backbone of their industrial economy? Because it was un-economical; factories offered shitty working conditions and workers suffered a high rate of deaths and crippling injuries. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to buy a guy for life if you're just going to have to replace him, so for the northern economy, so-called "wage slaves" were the way to go. I do not believe for a second that the civil war was a conflict between the evil, slavery-loving south and the good north, haven of freedom and equality. Both gave an equally negligible shit about human rights.

So you think secession should be written into the Constitution? Why the hell would a government shoot itself in the foot like that?

Because the government of the United States is a means to and end, not an end in and of itself. The states created it for a specific purpose, and if they feel it isn't fulfilling that purpose, why shouldn't they leave?

The south was just throwing a temper tantrum because they failed to get their candidate elected. It was about slavery, but only about the Free Soil movement which Lincoln would have supported.

It was all a power play by the South to try and retain control of the North like they had had since the Hartford Convention.

I have no sympathy for the South or for it's cause, and while I understand that the soldiers were "fighting for what they beleived in", it is only fair to remind people that what they beleived in was a state where the enslavement of their fellow men was a celebrated custom (and Southern appologists may protest otherwise, but many also falsely cast it as the "War of Northern Agression" as well).

I dislike the fact that the Confederacy is still celebrated today in the South which has yet to grow up and realize that it lost it's war.
.


But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
----

Bunch of bigots, all of them.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is. And guess what? It forbids secession.

Actually, the Constitution is pretty ambiguous about secession. However, even if it explicitly stated it was forbidden it wouldn't matter. If the people of a state want to tranfer the sovereign power they let Uncle Sam borrow back to their state, who can rightfully stop them? Stopping them by force would be tantamount to denying the sovereignty of the people, which is what our system is based on.

.



Bunch of bigots, all of them.

All of who...?

All of who...?
Confederates. Granted, the union wasn't too much better, but at least they weren't that bad.

Confederate troops hung any black soldier they captured...

I'm sure you have solid evidence for that? I won't deny some, yes, evil units did that, but to blanket all Confederate soldiers into that is a bit exaggerated. Quite a bit, I must say. It was much more common among Federal troops to mistreat or murder captured Confederates, but even then that rarely occurred. The average southern soldier did view the Negro as inferior, if only in intelligence, but it is safe to say a large portion, if not the majority, did not believe he belonged in slavery.

Because the government of the United States is a means to and end, not an end in and of itself. The states created it for a specific purpose, and if they feel it isn't fulfilling that purpose, why shouldn't they leave?

It's not the leaving I take issue with, it's the idea that a national government would actually write in a clause allowing for states to secede. Too much unreal expectation that the lawmakers in Congress would even propose such an amendment, much less get it approved and signed.

I'm sure you have solid evidence for that? I won't deny some, yes, evil units did that, but to blanket all Confederate soldiers into that is a bit exaggerated. Quite a bit, I must say. It was much more common among Federal troops to mistreat or murder captured Confederates, but even then that rarely occurred. The average southern soldier did view the Negro as inferior, if only in intelligence, but it is safe to say a large portion, if not the majority, did not believe he belonged in slavery.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.]

I'm sure you have solid evidence for that?
Perhaps because it was the official damn policy for the entire Confederate army?

Perhaps because it was the official damn policy for the entire Confederate army?

Show me something that proves that, besides some paper your highschool teacher made you write that supports your accusation. You won't find it, because that was not the policy of the entire Confederate army. I've done honest research into this for years, looking into both sides of the "slavery" arguement. I'm not stupid on this matter.

It's not the leaving I take issue with, it's the idea that a national government would actually write in a clause allowing for states to secede. Too much unreal expectation that the lawmakers in Congress would even propose such an amendment, much less get it approved and signed.

The Soviety Union had an explicit right to secession for its member states. Of course, the USSR provides a good example of how even having an explicit right to secession won't guarantee they'll actually let you do it.

The way the US Constitution is written you don't need an explicit right to secession. The 10th Amendment, paraphrased, says that if the Constitution doesn't give a specific power to the Federal government (Article 1 Sec 8 and 9), or deny it to the states (Article 1 Sec 10) then the states have it.

The Supreme Court decided that secession wasn't legal in Texas v White, but I question the impartiality of Chief Justice Chase in that case. Anyway, Dred Scott shows us that the Supreme Court isn't exempt from making the wrong decision.

So you think secession should be written into the Constitution? Why the hell would a government shoot itself in the foot like that?

because self-determination is a good thing

The Soviety Union had an explicit right to secession for its member states. Of course, the USSR provides a good example of how even having an explicit right to secession won't guarantee they'll actually let you do it.

hell, ussr acts as a general purpose counter-example to those with a belief in the magical power of constitutions.

hell, ussr acts as a general purpose counter-example to those with a belief in the magical power of constitutions.
But... where are they now?

A local majority cannot revoke the constitutional rights of someone by a vote (secession).

A local majority cannot revoke the constitutional rights of someone by a vote (secession).

that was stupid when you said it last month. it hasn't improved with age.

that was stupid when you said it last month. it hasn't improved with age.

Since we're being uncivil:

So what you're trying to say is that you still can't grasp it?

I'll explain it again then, just for you.

Each american citizen is guaranteed certain rights, &c, under the federal constitution.

If a state were to vote on 'secession,' it would effectively revoke the rights of all of its residents.

Secession might be tolerable if the vote were completely unanimous, but that isn't a realistic possibility.

Since we're being uncivil:

So what you're trying to say is that you still can't grasp it?

I'll explain it again then, just for you.

Each american citizen is guaranteed certain rights, &c, under the federal constitution.

If a state were to vote on 'secession,' it would effectively revoke the rights of all of its residents.


and as i said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10704859&postcount=154)

"no, it doesn't. all that seceding means is that a state/region/locality will no longer be taking part in the current political union of such areas. it makes no comment at all about whether the seceding area will operate under a constitution or what set of rights will be recognized by it."

If a state were to vote on 'secession,' it would effectively revoke the rights of all of its residents.

I direct you to the Arizona Declaration of Rights (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/2/title2.htm). If a state were to secede it would likely keep it's current constitution, and you'll see that most state's have more comprehensive bills of rights than the US does.


Secession might be tolerable if the vote were completely unanimous, but that isn't a realistic possibility.

Would you say the original 13 states had no right to leave Great Britain because only 1/3 of the people supported leaving?

Would you say the original 13 states had no right to leave Great Britain because only 1/3 of the people supported leaving?

and wouldn't the lack of unanimity when it came to the u.s. constitution mean that it was an intolerable attack on the rights and such of people under the articles of confederation?

I had no idea there was a Confederate Holiday, but I am glad there is. :D :cool:

and as i said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10704859&postcount=154)

"no, it doesn't. all that seceding means is that a state/region/locality will no longer be taking part in the current political union of such areas. it makes no comment at all about whether the seceding area will operate under a constitution or what set of rights will be recognized by it."


The steps necessary to ensure this - the full execution of every article of the federal constitution - would more or less negate secession.

and wouldn't the lack of unanimity when it came to the u.s. constitution mean that it was an intolerable attack on the rights and such of people under the articles of confederation?




"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Which right was being attacked? The articles make clear how they can be altered or abolished.

The constitution has a similar provision for amendment.

I direct you to the Arizona Declaration of Rights (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/2/title2.htm). If a state were to secede it would likely keep it's current constitution, and you'll see that most state's have more comprehensive bills of rights than the US does.




Would you say the original 13 states had no right to leave Great Britain because only 1/3 of the people supported leaving?




Whether or not they had a right to leave is certainly debatable. The outcome is not, the war was won and the british were driven out. The same might have happened in the civil war.

"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Which right was being attacked? The articles make clear how they can be altered or abolished.

The constitution has a similar provision for amendment.

What was stipulated wasn't what happened. I forget which states were left in the Articles, but the majority bailed out of them without the consent of all of the states.

Whether or not they had a right to leave is certainly debatable. The outcome is not, the war was won and the british were driven out. The same might have happened in the civil war.

So might makes right? Shouldn't we be better than that?

"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Which right was being attacked?

according to your reasoning above, all of them in the entire document.


while we're on the subject, you wouldn't be able to tell me what was needed to ratify the constitution, would you?