NationStates Jolt Archive

Happy Secession Day

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Perhaps the best evidence of how American history was rewritten, Soviet style, in the post-1865 era is the fact that most Americans seem to be unaware that "Independence Day" was originally intended to be a celebration of the colonists’ secession from the British empire. Indeed, the word secession is not even a part of the vocabulary of most Americans, who more often than not confuse it with "succession." The Revolutionary War was America’s first war of secession.

America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." The word "secession" was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word "separation" instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists.

The Declaration is also a states’ rights document (not surprisingly, since Jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the American states’ rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most Americans. But read the final paragraph of the Declaration which states:

That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original).

Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as "the United States of America" in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called "The United States of America." The "United States" as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861–1865.

Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." (In sharp contrast, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln promised an "invasion" with massive "bloodshed" (his words) of any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff rate by seceding from the union).

Jefferson made numerous statements in defense of the defining principal of the American Revolution: the right of secession. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.

In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge Jefferson addressed the same issue, in light of the New England Federalists’ secession movement in response to his Louisiana Purchase. If there were a "separation" into two confederacies, he wrote, "God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

So on July 4 stoke up the grill, enjoy your barbecue, and drink a toast to Mr. Jefferson and his fellow secessionists. (And beware of any Straussian nonsense about how it was really Lincoln, the greatest enemy of states’ rights, including the right of secession, who taught us to "revere" the Declaration of Independence. Nothing could be further from the truth.)

Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Happy Secession Day

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo



Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html)

Couldn't have said it better myself.
That is why you fail.

I hate when people feel they have to demonize Lincoln and romanticize the Confederacy. Makes me think you got a rebel flag and perhaps a black man hanging in your front yard.

Wow now the confederate wannabes try to link themselves to the Revolution?

And they claim history has been redefined! :rolleyes:

I hate when people feel they have to demonize Lincoln and romanticize the Confederacy. Makes me think you got a rebel flag and perhaps a black man hanging in your front yard.

Where did he romanticize the Confederacy? Demonizing Lincoln =/= romanticizing the Confederacy.

Where did he romanticize the Confederacy? Demonizing Lincoln =/= romanticizing the Confederacy.

Because most of those that romanticize the confederacy tend to demonize Lincoln.

-edit-

I forgot to mention that the author of the article gets rather rabid when talking about Lincoln.

Where did he romanticize the Confederacy? Demonizing Lincoln =/= romanticizing the Confederacy.
You're saying this article isn't pro-Confederacy?

Where did he romanticize the Confederacy? Demonizing Lincoln =/= romanticizing the Confederacy.

And beware of any Straussian nonsense about how it was really Lincoln, the greatest enemy of states’ rights, including the right of secession

Gee, now what could this be referring to when he talks about Lincoln being an "enemy" of the "right of secession?" Could it maybe be the Confederacy? I dunno, the author was too PC to come out and say it. Maybe he meant Sri Lanka.

Because most of those that romanticize the confederacy tend to demonize Lincoln.

Most, but not all.

You're saying this article isn't pro-Confederacy?

I don't see where it's pro-Confederacy. I see it as being anti-Lincoln. I'm most certainly not a fan of the Confederacy, in fact I despise them for their horrible human rights abuses. However, I also despise Lincoln for his human rights abuses, especially his refusal to allow those states to exercise their right to self determination. Lincoln may have been the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't exonerate him.

I hate when people feel they have to demonize Lincoln and romanticize the Confederacy. Makes me think you got a rebel flag and perhaps a black man hanging in your front yard.
I don't like the Confederacy, but people need to stop painting Lincoln as a saint. He wasn't!!!

I don't like the Confederacy, but people need to stop painting Lincoln as a saint. He wasn't!!!

Too many people think that believing in a right to secession equals a love of the Confederacy.

Most, but not all.


True. A cousin founded the 7th Virginian Cavalry. ;)


I don't see where it's pro-Confederacy. I see it as being anti-Lincoln. I'm most certainly not a fan of the Confederacy, in fact I despise them for their horrible human rights abuses. However, I also despise Lincoln for his human rights abuses, especially his refusal to allow those states to exercise their right to self determination. Lincoln may have been the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't exonerate him.

Thomas is rather rabid about Lincoln.

I say meh. He did what he felt he needed to do to preserve the union.

If he let the confeds go, we would not be here today.....

For the record, according to wikipedia,

Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954) is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics and is an anarcho-capitalist. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute.[1]

He has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln and How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present. He is also outspoken in favor of the formation of the Confederate States of America, claiming that the South had the right to secede and taking a view similar to abolitionist Lysander Spooner.[2]

Man, I don't understand a lick of this whole 'confederacy versus the other guys' thing part of your US history...

the author does not seem to like Lincoln at all

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Yeah, we get it. All that lovely evidence you've supplied, well; you're Freedom-loving, and soon will be posting about "states' rights" ad nauseam, and after that, we'll start hearing about how the civil rights campaigns of the '50s and '60s were an assault on "our" freedoms, how measures to prevent unfair racial and sexual discrimination are wrong "because they curtail freedom", how multi-culturalism is actually communism, and probably...eventually you'll get bold enough for the "evidence" that slaves were actually "better off" and even "liked" being slaves.

All with the implied notion that you are denuding us of our stifling liberal agenda. Ooh, stifle, stifle.

Here's my response- if the above is so, MinnCon...

You are an actual crypto-Confederate in conservative or Libertarian garb and a fucking traitor. What makes you think that real Americans negotiate or philosophize with traitors?

There's no denying that the Reconstruction was authoritarian cruelty gone utterly mad, and a swinish thing to perpetrate. BUT-

That doesn't make the Confederacy somehow OK. Their "freedom" to enact the "Peculiar Institution" was predicated on the diminishment, dehumanizing and torture of thousands upon thousands.

So fuck all that "federalism is wrong/states' rights forever" swill. Always just an excuse to enact some Southern Supremacist agenda.

I don't see where it's pro-Confederacy.

it's in the subtext, especially when you know that lewrockwell.com has a noted tolerance for neo-confederates (which is odd, considering they are supposed to be an anarcho-cappie outlet)

Man, I don't understand a lick of this whole 'confederacy versus the other guys' thing part of your US history...
Don't worry too much about it.

Too many people think that believing in a right to secession equals a love of the Confederacy.
It usually does.

Thomas is rather rabid about Lincoln.

I say meh. He did what he felt he needed to do to preserve the union.

If he let the confeds go, we would not be here today.....

Yes, he is rather rabid about Lincoln. I have one of his books. While I don't agree with a lot of what he says, I agree with him about there being a right to secession.

My problem is that I don't believe he should have preserved the Union by force. If he could have preserved it by diplomacy, that would have been great, but using force was terribly wrong. I believe very strongly in a right to self-determination, and invading the Confederacy, as wrong as the Confederacy was, was wrong.

For the record, according to wikipedia,

Again, you're making the mistake of thinking that believing in secession equals support of Confederate policies. I believe the Confederate States had a right to leave the US if their citizens wanted to, because I believe people have a right to live under the government they want to. However, I absolutely hate the policies the Confederate government had.

By your argument being glad that Belarus left the Soviet Union equates to support of all of their policies, which I think is a rather silly proposition.

It usually does.

And by "usually", we mean ALMOST OVERWHELMINGLY. Hence my immediate and over-the-top response.

There has not been a historical movement in the US that advocated for "secession" and "states' rights" in those terms that wasn't crypto-Confederate and not-so-crypto-racist.

These days, they claim otherwise, though. And of course, our calling them on their lying bullshit is just "PC authoritarianism".

Fuck that. It isn't political correctness. It's moral correctness.

My problem is that I don't believe he should have preserved the Union by force. If he could have preserved it by diplomacy, that would have been great, but using force was terribly wrong. I believe very strongly in a right to self-determination, and invading the Confederacy, as wrong as the Confederacy was, was wrong.


So do you call it the War of Northern Aggression then?


Again, you're making the mistake of thinking that believing in secession equals support of Confederate policies.

No, I believe "outspoken support of the formation of the Confederacy" is equal to "outspoken support of the formation of the Confederacy." A=A.

As for secession, fuck it. The only state that would be remotely successful on it's own is California. And why stop at states rights? How about counties? People? Maybe anarchy is better. Maybe WWII shoulda been won by the Axis since the allies were a bunch of anarchies. Yay secession! ;)

And by "usually", we mean ALMOST OVERWHELMINGLY. Hence my immediate and over-the-top response.

There has not been a historical movement in the US that advocated for "secession" and "states' rights" in those terms that wasn't crypto-Confederate and not-so-crypto-racist.

These days, they claim otherwise, though. And of course, our calling them on their lying bullshit is just "PC authoritarianism".

Fuck that. It isn't political correctness. It's moral correctness.
Be scholarly, get some respect in educated circles and then...

Go home and drink beer with your friends and relish the glory days of the Southern Confederacy.

Does anyone want to counter this article's arguments that the founding fathers, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, did not support a people's right to separate themselves from government that they did not approve of?

Or are we all going to sit around and debate whether this guy wants the south to rise again?

Also note that in the article DiLorenzo supported New England's secessionist movement. He didn't support the confederacy so much as he supported the free ability to secede from one's government.

And by "usually", we mean ALMOST OVERWHELMINGLY. Hence my immediate and over-the-top response.

There has not been a historical movement in the US that advocated for "secession" and "states' rights" in those terms that wasn't crypto-Confederate and not-so-crypto-racist.

These days, they claim otherwise, though. And of course, our calling them on their lying bullshit is just "PC authoritarianism".

Fuck that. It isn't political correctness. It's moral correctness.

Yes, you're right, most states' rights movements in the US have been couched in racist ideologies, but that doesn't have to be the case. As you can see from my political compass scores in my sig I'm not exactly right wing, but I believe in secession. I'm a very big proponent of states' rights, but I'm also a social democrat and would like to see my state enact things like universal healthcare.

So do you call it the War of Northern Aggression then?

No I don't. Again, I don't support the Confederacy's policies, I just support their right to decide what government they live under. Much in the same way I support the right of Fred Phelps and the KKK to spew their garbage.

No, I believe "outspoken support of the formation of the Confederacy" is equal to "outspoken support of the formation of the Confederacy." A=A.

Again, support for their right to secede doesn't equal support for all of their policies. In 1860 I would have been an abolitionist, but I would have supported their right to secede.

As for secession, fuck it. The only state that would be remotely successful on it's own is California. And why stop at states rights? How about counties? People? Maybe anarchy is better. Maybe WWII shoulda been won by the Axis since the allies were a bunch of anarchies. Yay secession!

Holy slippery slope, Batman!

edit: Damn, I have to take off.

Let the people secede, better a lack of disagreement than civil war.

Does anyone want to counter this article's arguments that the founding fathers, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, did not support a people's right to separate themselves from government that they did not approve of?

Or are we all going to sit around and debate whether this guy wants the south to rise again?

No. Yes.

No I don't. Again, I don't support the Confederacy's policies, I just support their right to decide what government they live under. Much in the same way I support the right of Fred Phelps and the KKK to spew their garbage.


But you said the North invaded the south and you believe it was wrong. Doesn't that make it the 'War of Northern Aggression?'


Again, support for their right to secede doesn't equal support for all of their policies. In 1860 I would have been an abolitionist, but I would have supported their right to secede.

Heh okay. And I support the right of 1930's and 40's Germany to do whatever it wants in it's own nation, but I don't support their policy of exterminating Jews and Gypsies and whatnot.

Mm, I like this feeling of slipperiness I have, how about you? :)

Holy slippery slope, Batman!

It's not a slippery slope. If all states seceed there is no USA - in fact the article basically says the USA is a Soviet-style propaganda fiction anyway just because King George didn't recognize it as a single entity - and so it follows there is no industrial superpower to come rescue the West in WWII.

The author is an anarchist anyway, so the idea of everyone being their own little secessionist state is not a slippery slope, but probably pretty damn close to what the guy would advocate.

Does anyone want to counter this article's arguments that the founding fathers, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, did not support a people's right to separate themselves from government that they did not approve of?

that would be difficult, to say the least. better to keep the whole revolution thing at arm's length, and not have to deal with some messy spots of hypocrisy going round these days.

that would be difficult, to say the least.

I would like to see someone try the argument.

better to keep the whole revolution thing at arm's length, and not have to deal with some messy spots of hypocrisy going round these days.

The good thing about discussion, particularly over an internet forum, is that hypocrisy is easily noted and ignored.


EDIT: Considering your political make-up, I imagine you would be a strong supporter of secession in general (even if you aren't too supportive of state's rights)

Yes, he is rather rabid about Lincoln. I have one of his books. While I don't agree with a lot of what he says, I agree with him about there being a right to secession.

My problem is that I don't believe he should have preserved the Union by force. If he could have preserved it by diplomacy, that would have been great, but using force was terribly wrong. I believe very strongly in a right to self-determination, and invading the Confederacy, as wrong as the Confederacy was, was wrong.

Diplomacy would not have worked as a central core of the South was the question of Slavery. They saw econcomic ruin and wanted to stretch it out as long as possible.

There have been claims that the South was ready to give it up but I don't belive it. Especially when reading my cousins diary where she mentioned that Angus and his friends were excited by the possibility of getting the trade going again.

There is also the question of Europe. They were looking with greed at the possibility. The south would have have grabbed all over anybody that would have recognised them.

The fact there was a shooting war going on kind of made it rather hard for the Europeans to recognise the South. They had to wait it out to see who would win.

The right of seccession? Well if it was held absolute then we would probably have 50 if not more countries.


Again, you're making the mistake of thinking that believing in secession equals support of Confederate policies. I believe the Confederate States had a right to leave the US if their citizens wanted to, because I believe people have a right to live under the government they want to. However, I absolutely hate the policies the Confederate government had.


Which was supporting Confederate policies.

I think Thomas Jefferson really was a libertarian nutcase who would have supported secession, however, this does not mean that secession is a good thing. If the south had seceeded, it would easily become the pawn of European powers who would use it to dominate South America and continue their imperialist escapades. It also would have probably left America in a much worse condition today as the American economy would be smaller and both Americas would have less resources to draw off of. There is no right to secede, and to support that right means to be willing to watch gleefully as nations crumble leaving bitter anarchy in their wake. It is a dangerous precedent to allow secession, and civil war can often be better in the long run than division.

So fuck all that "federalism is wrong/states' rights forever" swill. Always just an excuse to enact some Southern Supremacist agenda.
when you speak in absolutes you are always wrong.*

It is unfair to say that all of the 'state's rights' crowd have some supremacist agenda, in fact they could just be minarchists like me ;) (although if you are pro-federalism I suppose I would be pretty scary to you)









*yeah, I know imagine the big huge paradoxical disclaimer thingy here

Considering your political make-up, I imagine you would be a strong supporter of secession in general (even if you aren't too supportive of state's rights)

and i am. but the american confederacy and it's apologists just piss me off, and they deserved to have their asses kicked. and after the ass kicking and emancipation, i'd have left it up to the former slaves to decide the political future of the area.

We won .:p

In other words:

Bitter rant about the South's failed attempt to upset the applecart turned into revisionist history, accusing the 230 year old strong account of the War of Independence to be revisionist. (Why was it not called the Declaration of Secession?)

The sad thing is that in many ways--particularly in the worlds of religion and politics--the south lost the battle and won the war. The US is more like the old south today than the old north.

There is no right to secede

and thus the united states still rightfully belongs to the british, and croatia and montenegro and the rest of them are still yugoslavia.

I think Thomas Jefferson really was a libertarian nutcase who would have supported secession, however, this does not mean that secession is a good thing. If the south had seceeded, it would easily become the pawn of European powers who would use it to dominate South America and continue their imperialist escapades. It also would have probably left America in a much worse condition today as the American economy would be smaller and both Americas would have less resources to draw off of. There is no right to secede, and to support that right means to be willing to watch gleefully as nations crumble leaving bitter anarchy in their wake. It is a dangerous precedent to allow secession, and civil war can often be better in the long run than division.

Liberterianism is over 200 years old :eek:

Doubtful considering the desire to aquire land for the new nation......

Why was it not called the Declaration of Secession?

that's harder to spell

The sad thing is that in many ways--particularly in the worlds of religion and politics--the south lost the battle and won the war. The US is more like the old south today than the old north.

No, the sad thing is that the South tied secession to slavery and sunk the idea for a very, very long time.

Also, I don't agree with your statement, but not enough to argue it.

Why was it not called the Declaration of Secession?

Because the term does not apply to the political structure imposed upon the colonies by the Crown in England. They were subjects, not citizens, they were colonies, not states. As such, there was no union of states for them to secede from at the time. There was only an imperial crown from which to gain independence.

Once they are independent though, the issue of maintaining or not the union of these newly formed states is one that allows for secession as a possibility.

What I am amazed by here is the amount of 'guilt by association' that is being thrown out. Approving of a principle of secession does not mean approving of any other policy of the historical Confederates. Or are you going to argue that considering that the state should provide minimal health care for its citizens means that you support the Nazi final solution? After all the Nazis provided health care for their citizens. The Confederates supported the right to secede, but supporting this right does not mean that you support every other policy of the Confederates.

What I am amazed by here is the amount of 'guilt by association' that is being thrown out. Approving of a principle of secession does not mean approving of any other policy of the historical Confederates.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum. The author of the article in question WAS an outspoken supporter of the formation of the Confederation. You can't, knowing history as we do, support the formation of the CSA and then try to dissociate yourself from anything the CSA was.

Or are you going to argue that considering that the state should provide minimal health care for its citizens means that you support the Nazi final solution? After all the Nazis provided health care for their citizens.

The final solution had nothing to do with health care, whereas the policies of the CSA had everything to do with why they were separating.

So fuck all that "federalism is wrong/states' rights forever" swill. Always just an excuse to enact some Southern Supremacist agenda.
Huh. Okay, that's ONE option. Or, you could simply believe that the DEA shouldn't be allowed to kick in your door, toss you on the ground, handcuff you and beat you, just to take your eight ounces of medical marijuana which your state has grown for you. Or, you could also believe that a doctor shouldn't be put in federal prison for murder when he has assisted a patient with suicide, in full accordance with state law. Ohhh... but I forgot! Only Southern Supremacists support the Tenth Amendment. My mistake, I'll throw out my political beliefs because I'll automatically become a Southern Supremacist instead of a Western Libertarian if I continue to believe that Oregon should have Medicinal Marijuana and Death with Dignity laws.

and thus the united states still rightfully belongs to the british, and croatia and montenegro and the rest of them are still yugoslavia.
I never said secession never happened as it obviously does. I said that there is no right to it. Nations may secede as they want, however, this does not constitute a right for it as they must always face opposition from the nation from which they broke from.

Liberterianism is over 200 years old :eek:

Come on, Jefferson fits the bill relatively well. Besides, it is a political philosophy, it wouldn't surprise me if it were thousands of years old just more popular now than ever.

Doubtful considering the desire to aquire land for the new nation......
So, your claim is that the new nations would have started invading other countries for land. Well, now we have a worse moral quandry, instead of the north invading the south for secession, we have the south and/or the north invading random territories for land. I hardly see how that is a better conclusion.

Come on, Jefferson fits the bill relatively well. Besides, it is a political philosophy, it wouldn't surprise me if it were thousands of years old just more popular now than ever.


Meh. I always took it as an attempt to claim legitimacy by claiming ownership of a famous historical person.

It's rather hard to claim he was one only by reading what he wrote. That question can only be answered by questioning him directly. Someday maybe a time machine. ;)

Look at posts 45 & 48. DÉJÀ-VU OR WHAT?

Happy Secession Day

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html)

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Seccession is rather the same as independence.

I never said secession never happened as it obviously does. I said that there is no right to it. Nations may secede as they want, however, this does not constitute a right for it as they must always face opposition from the nation from which they broke from.
By the right to self-determination, a people have the right to possession of the government of their country, its resources and its means of production. Foreign peoples and governments do not have such rights.

Yes, of course the occupying power is going to resist it. They have a lot to lose if they are no longer allowed to steal their colony's resources or exploit its people.

Meh. I always took it as an attempt to claim legitimacy by claiming ownership of a famous historical person.

It's rather hard to claim he was one only by reading what he wrote. That question can only be answered by questioning him directly. Someday maybe a time machine. ;)
It is an attempt to claim legitimacy however, I think that Jefferson would be considered libertarian by our standards as he was a big proponent of states rights as the argument of nullification first started from him yet not on the religious right as many churches opposed his election because they thought he was godless. I think that his ideals really wouldn't mesh with our current system, he would really be afraid of our "big government", this is not saying that our government isn't too big but the man was afraid of banks and military forces.

I never said secession never happened as it obviously does. I said that there is no right to it. Nations may secede as they want, however, this does not constitute a right for it as they must always face opposition from the nation from which they broke from.

I would argue that a nation (or state, what have you) has a right to self-determination. It's the founding principal of democracies. However, the opposition from the 'original nation' has some merit in some cases as well.

If you take a look at the Quebec situation, the Clarity Act is all about this. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec has a legal right to leave confederation, but the Clarity Act spells out the rules; a referendum must be clearly worded, a supermajority (67%?) vote is needed, the fact that Quebec itself would be divisible, as there are english townships and aboriginal reserves who would be subject to the same principles, etc.

If you believe in democracy and self-determination, than the right to self determination for one's state/province/patch-of-land only makes sense.

By the right to self-determination, a people have the right to possession of the government of their country, its resources and its means of production.

How do you figure?

I would like to agree with you but I don't see any way that I can.

Look at posts 45 & 48. DÉJÀ-VU OR WHAT?
I accidently posted the same post again. It is no big deal.

I would argue that a nation (or state, what have you) has a right to self-determination. It's the founding principal of democracies. However, the opposition from the 'original nation' has some merit in some cases as well.

If you believe in democracy and self-determination, than the right to self determination for one's state/province/patch-of-land only makes sense.
I believe in democracy and I believe that a democracy has a right to vote for something but that does not constitute a right to secession. If they had a right to secession then actions of agression by the home nation would then be considered wrong and I do not believe that they are. There is no right to secession and there is no wrong to secession necessarily either. Secession is secession, if you do it make sure it is worth the risk you take.

Huh. Okay, that's ONE option. Or, you could simply believe that the DEA shouldn't be allowed to kick in your door, toss you on the ground, handcuff you and beat you, just to take your eight ounces of medical marijuana which your state has grown for you. Or, you could also believe that a doctor shouldn't be put in federal prison for murder when he has assisted a patient with suicide, in full accordance with state law. Ohhh... but I forgot! Only Southern Supremacists support the Tenth Amendment. My mistake, I'll throw out my political beliefs because I'll automatically become a Southern Supremacist instead of a Western Libertarian if I continue to believe that Oregon should have Medicinal Marijuana and Death with Dignity laws.

Nuh-uh. You're getting the tone of the rant confused with the specifics.

Also, you're assuming I'm targeting all those who believe in less repressive federal cruelty and equating them with "secessionists".

Those I am referring to, as I said, have historically ALWAYS been thinly-guised pro-Confederate Supremacists.

There are likely individuals out there who may attach themselves to ideas like this who are NOT the above. BUT...the movements are historically not just anti-federalist but pro-Confederacy.

Yes, I'm taking a hell of a step in assuming that of poor ol' MinnCon, that he is part of, or a sympathizer to, the pro-Confederacy part.

There's nothing he's said before that diminishes that asumption at all.

Cruel and overbearing of me? You betcha. I'm not a hippie. I'm a leftist who believes that movements to exalt treasonous AND IMMORAL "cultures" such as the Old South are not to be dealt with kindly.

Pro-Confederacy sympathizers have foregone the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm totally wrong about MinnCon...

Naaah, forget that. No lousing about being ambivalent. If I'm "wrong" about him, it's a wrong impression he deliberately fostered.

By the right to self-determination, a people have the right to possession of the government of their country, its resources and its means of production. Foreign peoples and governments do not have such rights.

Yes, of course the occupying power is going to resist it. They have a lot to lose if they are no longer allowed to steal their colony's resources or exploit its people.
Self-determination if taken to its extreme could be taken as a right to refuse taxation as well. After all, if people have the right to oppose the government oppression of their group, couldn't they claim the same for their rights for the smallest group, the individual? I don't think that households have the right to secede although that would be people taking possession of the government of their country. I am not saying that secession is wrong in all cases, if a people are being brutally oppressed then I would be for it, but I do not consider it a right, that opens up a can of worms.

To Minnesotan Confederacy: What of the areas of the Confederacy that tried to stay with the Union? They were crushed underfoot. How can secession be sanctioned when this happened? The Southenerns had representation, overrepresentation, in fact.

I believe in democracy and I believe that a democracy has a right to vote for something but that does not constitute a right to secession. If they had a right to secession then actions of agression by the home nation would then be considered wrong and I do not believe that they are. There is no right to secession and there is no wrong to secession necessarily either. Secession is secession, if you do it make sure it is worth the risk you take.

If we're talking about 'rights', espescially in the context of the time that the American Revolution occurred, then secession is most definitely the right of the people. It holds that the government receives the mandate from the will of the people, and anything otherwise is illegitimate. This includes by default the land and territories of the governed people; the government uses this land at the behest of the governed. Any use or abuse of that land without the consent of those people would therefore be illegitimate. The use of force to keep seceding states or provinces in line would thus be an abuse of a groups collective rights.

As distasteful as the Confederacy may have been, if individual states have a right to join a union, it would logically follow that a right to leave that same union should exist as well.

If we're talking about 'rights', espescially in the context of the time that the American Revolution occurred, then secession is most definitely the right of the people. It holds that the government receives the mandate from the will of the people, and anything otherwise is illegitimate. This includes by default the land and territories of the governed people; the government uses this land at the behest of the governed. Any use or abuse of that land without the consent of those people would therefore be illegitimate. The use of force to keep seceding states or provinces in line would thus be an abuse of a groups collective rights.

As distasteful as the Confederacy may have been, if individual states have a right to join a union, it would logically follow that a right to leave that same union should exist as well.
I still disagree, if the majority of the people in the rest of the nation disaprove of the separation then they have as much right to protest as the secession has to secede. If the entire nation votes and agrees that the province should secede then they have as much of a right as anyone. I do not believe that secession is a right due to harm that secession can cause to nations either by encouraging other secessions or simply the economic repercussions of a single secession. Now, we can also put it this way, I am not in support of direct democracy and I do not see government as necessarily being guided by the will of the people or having to be, the founding fathers may have agreed with the right to secession but I do not.

I still disagree, if the majority of the people in the rest of the nation disaprove of the separation then they have as much right to protest as the secession has to secede. If the entire nation votes and agrees that the province should secede then they have as much of a right as anyone. I do not believe that secession is a right due to harm that secession can cause to nations either by encouraging other secessions or simply the economic repercussions of a single secession.

That's like arguing that Mom and Dad can't get divorced because the kids outnumber them in the voting process. What's right is right, regardless of the economic cost. Now, in the Mom and Dad scenario, there are courts that can decide the economic and legal ramifications of that split, if Mom and Dad can't agree to them. On the world stage, it's not much different. If Hawaii decided they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore, what does it matter that the rest of the US wants them to stay? Zero. I realize that the world doesn't work that simply, but keeping them in by force wouldn't be any more right.

Again, I refer to Quebec. Canada recognizes their right to secede, but not unilaterally, and not without consulting Canada about how that process is going to work, and not without recognizing the rights of communities and groups within Quebec itself.

The US should have been even more clear-cut. Each state signed its own entrance into the Union, with nowhere on the dotted line that it was an 'all-or-nothing' deal.

why is there even an arguement over this BS anyways? I mean, if a group of people want to secede from any entity they should be able to. If its the kurds, the chechnians, or the Southern US, they should be able to, no?

From reading this thread, it appears as though there is a particular agenda surrounding the issue of sucession in regards to what are referred to as the 'confederate' states...but the concept itself, that each state should be, if it wants to be, a nation unto itself...is that really such a terrible idea?

From reading this thread, it appears as though there is a particular agenda surrounding the issue of sucession in regards to what are referred to as the 'confederate' states...but the concept itself, that each state should be, if it wants to be, a nation unto itself...is that really such a terrible idea?

No, it's just an idea. And the term is "secession", not "succession". I know you know the diff, but we gotta be careful, not every poster or reader might:)

The idea as a pure idea merits much debate.

That's obviously NOT what's being presented here. This is the "agenda" most of us dissenters are attacking.

The idea of independence from already-recognized-authority as an idea, with no specific historical context other than what is imagined in the minds of some American forefathers, is NOT what brings the flush to my face or the grind to my molars.

why is there even an arguement over this BS anyways? I mean, if a group of people want to secede from any entity they should be able to. If its the kurds, the chechnians, or the Southern US, they should be able to, no?

If it were as simple as that, bloodshed would never occur.

I'm not dismissing your question, Zilam; it's just that you seem to have oversimplified the problem a bit.

<sarcasm>The weight of historical examples favor the notion that the problem is neither simple, nor always the same from nation to nation, nor easily resolved in any particular circumstance. </sarcasm>;)

EDIT: SWeet f@kkin' poop of God, I'm tired. I must get away for a bit. Sorry.

Local majorities are not entitled to abridge the rights as american citizens of their neighbors.

The nation did not oppress the south, only greed and hubris informed their attack on it.

Had the war of southern treason been won by the south, they would have succeeded at nothing more than the destruction of the country whose birthday we celebrate today.

Nothing could be less patriotic than saluting that gravest of all threats to the USA.

From reading this thread, it appears as though there is a particular agenda surrounding the issue of sucession in regards to what are referred to as the 'confederate' states...but the concept itself, that each state should be, if it wants to be, a nation unto itself...is that really such a terrible idea?
I wouldn't mind living in the country of New York.

Local majorities are not entitled to abridge the rights as american citizens of their neighbors.
The nation did not oppress the south, only greed and hubris informed their attack on it.
Had the war of southern treason been won by the south, they would have succeeded at nothing more than the destruction of the country whose birthday we celebrate today.
Nothing could be less patriotic than saluting that gravest of all threats to the USA.

Fuck yeah. And well-said.

That's like arguing that Mom and Dad can't get divorced because the kids outnumber them in the voting process. What's right is right, regardless of the economic cost. Now, in the Mom and Dad scenario, there are courts that can decide the economic and legal ramifications of that split, if Mom and Dad can't agree to them. On the world stage, it's not much different. If Hawaii decided they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore, what does it matter that the rest of the US wants them to stay? Zero. I realize that the world doesn't work that simply, but keeping them in by force wouldn't be any more right.

Again, I refer to Quebec. Canada recognizes their right to secede, but not unilaterally, and not without consulting Canada about how that process is going to work, and not without recognizing the rights of communities and groups within Quebec itself.

The US should have been even more clear-cut. Each state signed its own entrance into the Union, with nowhere on the dotted line that it was an 'all-or-nothing' deal.
Divorce isn't international politics and if it was then a lot of people would be screwed over. What is right is what has the least economic cost. I really don't care about what Hawaiians want if it starts causing economic problems for me, I want the problem fixed. Now of course, I would argue that we should try to avoid situations where secession is something desired, however, I do not believe in the right to secession. I believe that it may be good at times however, it exists about as much as the right to war in my mind.

I don't really care about Canadian law, I do not care who thinks Quebec has the right to secede. Canada can have its own laws governing secession but considering laws against treason which secession can often be considered a part of I do not believe that secession is a right.

The US may or may not have been clear enough in the constitution but considering the fact that we have put down rebellions in the past I think that it can be inferred from precedent going back to the whiskey rebellion that we do not accept the right to secede.

If it were as simple as that, bloodshed would never occur.

I'm not dismissing your question, Zilam; it's just that you seem to have oversimplified the problem a bit.

<sarcasm>The weight of historical examples favor the notion that the problem is neither simple, nor always the same from nation to nation, nor easily resolved in any particular circumstance. </sarcasm>;)

EDIT: SWeet f@kkin' poop of God, I'm tired. I must get away for a bit. Sorry.

The only reason bloodshed occurs is because one side is hard headed, and they refuse to give up something, even if they don't need it.

Meh.

Lincoln was a would-be dictator and Booth probably saved the country a great deal of anguish.

The South was a land mostly made up of racists who supported slavery even if they didn't own slaves because they hoped one day to do so.

The North behaved like barbarians and ruined the future livelihood of the South for both Whites and Blacks and continued to screw the area for a hundred years.

Jefferson was a secessionist and believed human rights trumped state’s rights.

From reading this thread, it appears as though there is a particular agenda surrounding the issue of sucession in regards to what are referred to as the 'confederate' states...but the concept itself, that each state should be, if it wants to be, a nation unto itself...is that really such a terrible idea?


People who dont want to be americans have two options.

They can leave or they can fight.

The states are not sovereign countries, if they want the land to be a new country then they have to win it by force.

The southern states made their binding pact to form the country willingly. They were not at liberty to break it and they did so at their own peril.

Meh.
Lincoln was a would-be dictator and Booth probably saved the country a great deal of anguish.
The South was a land mostly made up of racists who supported slavery even if they didn't own slaves because they hoped one day to do so.
The North behaved like barbarians and ruined the future livelihood of the South for both Whites and Blacks and continued to screw the area for a hundred years.
Jefferson was a secessionist and believed human rights trumped state’s rights.


Agreed on the bolded.

I'm having a great independence day.

Yeah, I do have a confederate flag on the front of my benz.

Heritage, not hatred.

People who dont want to be americans have two options.

They can leave or they can fight.

The states are not sovereign countries, if they want the land to be a new country then they have to win it by force.

The southern states made their binding pact to form the country willingly. They were not at liberty to break it and they did so at their own peril.


The typical response "either you agree with me, or you can leave"... right:rolleyes:

The war wasn't even about slavery to begin with though, It did begin over expansion of the federal government and states rights....If there was no issue of slavery, the confederacy would've been right, and most likley would've won.

I'm having a great independence day.

Yeah, I do have a confederate flag on the front of my benz.

Heritage, not hatred.



See what I dont understand is, the "confederate flag" isnt that, the flag most people associate with being rebel is actually the "battle flag" of the confederacy, the actuall flag is the "stars and bars" the battle flag has nothing to do with slavery, but stars and bars would...

Agreed on the bolded.
Yes, by not going far enough. The reconstruction was far to easy on the south. They got away with too damn much following the betrayal of 1876.

The typical response "either you agree with me, or you can leave"... right:rolleyes:


No, not at all, go back up and read the post again, shame on you.

If someone doesnt want to be an american anymore, can you think of any other ways to go about it?

You can either:
A) Leave and become a citizen of another country
or
B) Try to take some land from the US and make your own new country from it. This requires fighting.

The only reason bloodshed occurs is because one side is hard headed, and they refuse to give up something, even if they don't need it.

AAARGH, Dammnit, you pulled me back in! I HAVE TO SLEEP GODDAMNIT!!:)

The examples you gave were, um, a little leading. "Hard-headed" certainly exemplifies the leaders of Iraq and Russia, to say the least.

But the secession of the South was a different thing. Remember, the "population of the South" wasn't looking to do anything. They were controlled by wealthy slaveowners who made their secession decision for them; that includes the poor Whites, who then had to fight the South's war, and die for something they never got a say in.

We weren't just being "hard-headed", certainly not like Putin or Hussein. But yeah, we didn't want to give up a part of our Union.

For all sorts of reasons--some of which were as cruel and opportunist as those of the vampire landholders of the South.

Again, just becuase the war was vicious, and Reconstruction was basically taken over by thieves and war-ghouls (if you'll excuse my florid languge), doesn't erase the Old South's intrinsic nature. To view them as merely "wanting to be free" and the North as being "hard-headed" is way too simplified.

The war wasn't even about slavery to begin with though, It did begin over expansion of the federal government and states rights....If there was no issue of slavery, the confederacy would've been right, and most likley would've won.


Kind of like how history is alway twisted, to make one side look so evil. In this case, the south was uber evil because of its slavery issue, and the north was good and pure, because they wanted equal rights.:rolleyes: Bullshit...the people in the north were just as racist as those in the south...

Divorce isn't international politics and if it was then a lot of people would be screwed over. What is right is what has the least economic cost. I really don't care about what Hawaiians want if it starts causing economic problems for me, I want the problem fixed. Now of course, I would argue that we should try to avoid situations where secession is something desired, however, I do not believe in the right to secession. I believe that it may be good at times however, it exists about as much as the right to war in my mind.

I don't really care about Canadian law, I do not care who thinks Quebec has the right to secede. Canada can have its own laws governing secession but considering laws against treason which secession can often be considered a part of I do not believe that secession is a right.

The US may or may not have been clear enough in the constitution but considering the fact that we have put down rebellions in the past I think that it can be inferred from precedent going back to the whiskey rebellion that we do not accept the right to secede.

By that analogy then, did the US have a right to secede from the British Empire? Did any of Britain's colonies? After all, it affected Britain economically. I'm assuming that you're arguing that it wasn't a 'right', but the people who started the war of Independence certainly seemed to think so; it was the basis of their motion to secede from Imperial Britain. However, with that line of thinking, all aquisition of land is in effect 'theft' from the previous owner, since no one has a 'right' to secession.

Sidenote: Everyone get's screwed over in divorce - except the lawyers.

See what I dont understand is, the "confederate flag" isnt that, the flag most people associate with being rebel is actually the "battle flag" of the confederacy, the actuall flag is the "stars and bars" the battle flag has nothing to do with slavery, but stars and bars would...


So instead of slavery, it has the connotation of shooting and killing loyal american soldiers?

Kind of like how history is alway twisted, to make one side look so evil. In this case, the south was uber evil because of its slavery issue, and the north was good and pure, because they wanted equal rights.:rolleyes: Bullshit...the people in the north were just as racist as those in the south...
At least the north didn't blatantly try to disenfranchise blacks multiple times.

I'm having a great independence day.

Yeah, I do have a confederate flag on the front of my benz.

Heritage, not hatred.

Bullshit, and once again using bumper-sticker aphorisms to hide bigotry. Poorly, I might add.

I'll hold off so as not to get deleted yet. But everyone who reads these forums regularly knows what you are.

The war wasn't even about slavery to begin with though, It did begin over expansion of the federal government and states rights....If there was no issue of slavery, the confederacy would've been right, and most likley would've won.
What?
If not for slavery the tensions between North and South would never have become so great. If you really look at the history, the war couldn't have been about anything but slavery.

No, not at all, go back up and read the post again, shame on you.

If someone doesnt want to be an american anymore, can you think of any other ways to go about it?

You can either:
A) Leave and become a citizen of another country
or
B) Try to take some land from the US and make your own new country from it. This requires fighting.


Why does everything require fighting or fleeing? If the population of an area so desires to break away from a country, then it has a right to, simple as that. There is no need to fight. Fighting only causes more problems than it solves.

At least the north didn't blatantly try to disenfranchise blacks multiple times.


Im not saying that the slavery thing was a good thing. Just saying if they wanted to leave the nation they could have. Besides slavery would have ended before the 1900s with out a civil war between the north and the south. You would either have a mass slave uprising in the south OR the slaves simply would have quit having children, cutting away at slave numbers, making the economy of the south crumble.

What?
If not for slavery the tensions between North and South would never have become so great. If you really look at the history, the war couldn't have been about anything but slavery.


Thats why lincoln didn't even care about the issue of slavery until half way through the war.

Bullshit, and once again using bumper-sticker aphorisms to hide bigotry. Poorly, I might add.

I'll hold off so as not to get deleted yet. But everyone who reads these forums regularly knows what you are.

Since when have I become a 'bigot'?

They know I despise terrorists (And I call them filthy, vile names too), hate anti-constitutionalists....whatelse...

Interracial couple find commonality in interest
Sunday, June 25, 2006
KELLI HEWETT TAYLOR
News staff writer
Dorothy Widerborg and Richard Kochendofer of Enterprise always turn heads as an interracial couple at Civil War re-enactments.

"Everybody loves me and I'm always the center of attraction," said Widerborg, 55, who re-enacts as a nurse with the 6th Alabama Cavalry in Mobile. "I love it."

Widerborg met her fiance, Richard Kochendofer, 53, through friends six years ago. He soon invited her camping.

"He told me it was a little bit different, but when we got there, it was a re-enactment," Widerborg said with a laugh.

She said she was immediately welcomed by other women.

"They swooped me off and dressed me in a day camp dress," Widerborg said. "I just loved it because you could dress so pretty. I think that's every woman's favorite part - the fashion and the shopping."

Kochendofer said their scenario is historically correct.

"You did have white soldiers with black women," he said. "They just might not have been as public as everyone knows now."

But Widerborg's family and black friends still don't join in.

"They thought since it was a Civil War re-enactment, that it might be racist - but it's not," she said. "People are just out there to get away" from life's stresses.

Two years ago, some Southern heritage groups complained about the couple and pressured their unit to skip a re-enacting event.

"The whole unit backed us up," Kochendofer said. "Everybody in the re-enacting community and the units we fought with all came to me and said, `We want to make sure you are coming.'"

Black people are re-enacting in record numbers, said Ed Cooper, editor of a leading Civil War re-enactment magazine, Camp Chase Gazette.

In places such as Georgia, Ohio and Michigan, blacks portray U.S. Colored Troops, perhaps their own relatives, who fought in the war. Others play freed slaves or free blacks.

"When you go away the whole weekend, you're not in reality, you're not yourself," Widerborg said. "And I never loved history until I learned about it like this."

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Why does everything require fighting or fleeing? If the population of an area so desires to break away from a country, then it has a right to, simple as that. There is no need to fight. Fighting only causes more problems than it solves.


In a world of pixies, maybe people could behave like this.

If a group can get permission, it can certainly take land to start a new country without a fight.

How often does this happen?

One consideration is for the americans who do not want to have their rights taken away or be forced to move. Another is for the broad national interest in keeping the land.

Local majorities are not entitled to revoke the rights as citizens from their neighbors. Simple as that. It is not due process, it is barred in the constitution.

By that analogy then, did the US have a right to secede from the British Empire? Did any of Britain's colonies? After all, it affected Britain economically. I'm assuming that you're arguing that it wasn't a 'right', but the people who started the war of Independence certainly seemed to think so; it was the basis of their motion to secede from Imperial Britain. However, with that line of thinking, all aquisition of land is in effect 'theft' from the previous owner, since no one has a 'right' to secession.

Ok, so they disagree with me, so what? I don't really care, they can cover this all up with whatever flowery language they want, still, it is not a right to secede, it may be in one's best interests but the can of worms that one opens by calling this a right is something that they probably did not care to consider. George Washington still crushed the Whiskey Rebellion and the attempts by Jefferson to nullify federal laws still failed. All acquisition of land isn't theft from the previous owner if the previous owner agrees. If the government agrees to let go of the land then there is no wrong as it appears to be the case with Quebec, it hardly constitutes a right to secede though, there is also no right to healthcare although many governments provide that as well.

Since when have I become a 'bigot'?

They know I despise terrorists (And I call them filthy, vile names too), hate anti-constitutionalists....whatelse...



The worst anti-constitutionalist in american history was Jefferson Davis.

The second-worst was Robert E Lee.

Unlike whatever "anti-constitutionalists" your imagination conjurs up today, these men fought a war to destroy the constitution.

Im not saying that the slavery thing was a good thing. Just saying if they wanted to leave the nation they could have. Besides slavery would have ended before the 1900s with out a civil war between the north and the south. You would either have a mass slave uprising in the south OR the slaves simply would have quit having children, cutting away at slave numbers, making the economy of the south crumble.
Conjecture and unlikely. Even if that is posited, there would still be large amounts of institutionalized racism above and beyond the levels we still have today. Reconstruction did not go far enough, and it's halfassed sellout by the Republicans in 1877 didn't help things.

Why does everything require fighting or fleeing? If the population of an area so desires to break away from a country, then it has a right to, simple as that. There is no need to fight. Fighting only causes more problems than it solves.

Well, not always.

The Russians are fighting in Chechnya because of the oil/gas pipeline there-it's a major player in their economy.

If california decided to break off and join mehico we'd beat them into submission (several reasons, one it's because they are california) to keep those ports on that side of the coast.

Thats why lincoln didn't even care about the issue of slavery until half way through the war.
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.

Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, CSA.

The worst anti-constitutionalist in american history was Jefferson Davis.

The second-worst was Robert E Lee.

Unlike whatever "anti-constitutionalists" your imagination conjurs up today, these men fought a war to destroy the constitution.

Nope-it wasn't fought over slavery, but state's rights, something the north trampled on. I am proud of my southern heritage (I am a transplant, really, but I got here as fast as I could) because we were willing to fight over rights. And die over them.

And when I talk of anti-consitutionalists, I talk of those who would like to overwrite the constitution-replace it with a Koran, or a Bible, or a holy book of the Flying spaghetti monster. The ACLU also falls under this label, as does Aztlan, Mecha, etc...

Since when have I become a 'bigot'?

They know I despise terrorists (And I call them filthy, vile names too)
You equate "Muslim" with "terrorist" by implication all the time, which makes you a bigot, and you talk about women (little girls, for heaven's sake) in a tone which is beyond misogynistic, which makes you a bigot, oh yeah, you're a bigot because you think it's cool to have a symbol for traitors who propped up their region with racial caste systems.

How many Nazi Skins have I heard using that "heritage, not hatred" jive?

Oh, yeah, EVERY ONE I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH.

Interracial couple find commonality in interest
Sunday, June 25, 2006
KELLI HEWETT TAYLOR
News staff writer
Dorothy Widerborg and Richard Kochendofer of Enterprise always turn heads as an interracial couple at Civil War re-enactments.
QUOTE]

I live with, am good friends with, a re-enactor. Don't bring them upand equivocate between their activities, and your damned flag on your modern-day car. They are not the same or even similar. How dare you?!

The amount of "record numbers" of black people joining is "damned few", from what my housemate has seen. "Record numbers" from nothing isn't impressive. Furthermore, he notes an astounding number of Confederate apologists prevail in re-enactment ranks...

Well, not always.

The Russians are fighting in Chechnya because of the oil/gas pipeline there-it's a major player in their economy.

If california decided to break off and join mehico we'd beat them into submission (several reasons, one it's because they are california) to keep those ports on that side of the coast.


So its fair to oppress people in name of capitalism?

Nope-it wasn't fought over slavery, but state's rights, something the north trampled on. I am proud of my southern heritage (I am a transplant, really, but I got here as fast as I could) because we were willing to fight over rights. And die over them.

And when I talk of anti-consitutionalists, I talk of those who would like to overwrite the constitution-replace it with a Koran, or a Bible, or a holy book of the Flying spaghetti monster. The ACLU also falls under this label, as does Aztlan, Mecha, etc...


See what I mean by your imagination?

Not a word about slavery in my post.

The ACLU as anti-constitution, now there's a laugh.

There is a difference between acceptable states' rights and the destruction of the country and constitution, as prosecuted by the great anti-constitutionalists Lee and Davis.

Happy Secession Day

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo



Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I can't argue the actual points because they seem to make perfect sense, but, based on my study of History, the scientific Precepts of Evolution and Quantum Electrodynamics in high school, I am going to declare Minnesotan Confederacy to be a racist.

So its fair to oppress people in name of capitalism?
Who said anything about fair? It is life. If a nation sees something occuring within it that would be too its detriment then it will oppose it. Not only that but most nations have laws against treason which secession would ultimately fall under. If a population does not like this then it can either try to change laws to allow this or it can attempt to leave.

So its fair to oppress people in name of capitalism?

If your country depends on oil, I would do it. And there is the added benefit of keeping a radical islamic republic from taking over on YOUR border. It's not capitalism at play, it's keeping the country from becoming a turd world craphole, because at the rate we are depending on oil for industry....we need it.

You equate "Muslim" with "terrorist" by implication all the time, which makes you a bigot, and you talk about women (little girls, for heaven's sake) in a tone which is beyond misogynistic, which makes you a bigot, oh yeah, you're a bigot because you think it's cool to have a symbol for traitors who propped up their region with racial caste systems.

How many Nazi Skins have I heard using that "heritage, not hatred" jive?

Oh, yeah, EVERY ONE I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH.

Interracial couple find commonality in interest
Sunday, June 25, 2006
KELLI HEWETT TAYLOR
News staff writer
Dorothy Widerborg and Richard Kochendofer of Enterprise always turn heads as an interracial couple at Civil War re-enactments.
QUOTE]

I live with, am good friends with, a re-enactor. Don't bring them upand equivocate between their activities, and your damned flag on your modern-day car. They are not the same or even similar. How dare you?!

The amount of "record numbers" of black people joining is "damned few", from what my housemate has seen. "Record numbers" from nothing isn't impressive. Furthermore, he notes an astounding number of Confederate apologists prevail in re-enactment ranks...

I've never equated muslim=terror. Never.

Otherwise I would say just nuke the whole middle east eh?

I guess you've never seen my Iraqi Army and Police posts. Oh wait, they're muslim. CRAP! I gotta 'hate' them.

FYI, nazi skinheads are based on the premise that somehow the white race is superior to others. Some recent examples of whites really don't prove that.

Because the term does not apply to the political structure imposed upon the colonies by the Crown in England. They were subjects, not citizens, they were colonies, not states. As such, there was no union of states for them to secede from at the time. There was only an imperial crown from which to gain independence.


The answer, I think, to my rhetorical question and why the Revolution was not a secession.

I've never equated muslim=terror. Never.

Otherwise I would say just nuke the whole middle east eh?

I guess you've never seen my Iraqi Army and Police posts. Oh wait, they're muslim. CRAP! I gotta 'hate' them.


Hmmmm, your point is made. I should detail what I meant.

Your "Muslim Rape Epidemic" OP was meant by implication to denigrate immigrant Muslims as a whole, by not only linking their religion and respective (often very diverse) cultures to the actions of a small bunch of scumbags, but also to the vulture scumbags who (anecdotally) support the rape of White Euro women, because they view Euro-Christian culture as inferior, and those same women as objects to destroy in order to, by extension, knock down Euro-Christian nations.

The article you posted was skewed in order to generate hysteria that "invading" Muslims are bent on attacking "our women" (misogynous and ethnocentric...) and to essentially equate the rapes being committed as being something of an undeclared terror war on White Christian Europe.

Hence, religious bigotry, ethnic (and effectively racial) bigotry, and misogynist bigotry. And a cockeyed equivocating of Muslim=invader and rapist=cultural terrorist trying to destroy Europe.

Or have I gotten you confused with Ny Nordland? You sound alike.

FYI, nazi skinheads are based on the premise that somehow the white race is superior to others. Some recent examples of whites really don't prove that.

Don't "FYI" me. I went to high school with WAR supporters. I had to deal with them at damn near every show in Buffalo, and Cleveland, and, Christ...

Nonetheless, your one-sentence-aphorism rhetoric is IDENTICAL to that which they use. Given your other traits, it makes the comparison worth looking into, if not entirely spot-on. So you're not "actually" White Supremacist?

I guess that makes the symbol of treason and slavery on your Benz A-OK.:mad:

From reading this thread, it appears as though there is a particular agenda surrounding the issue of sucession in regards to what are referred to as the 'confederate' states...but the concept itself, that each state should be, if it wants to be, a nation unto itself...is that really such a terrible idea?

People associate secession with slavery just like people associate communism with gulags or fascism with concentration camps.

The ideas are judged on their connotations rather than their merits.

Ok, so they disagree with me, so what? I don't really care, they can cover this all up with whatever flowery language they want, still, it is not a right to secede, it may be in one's best interests but the can of worms that one opens by calling this a right is something that they probably did not care to consider. George Washington still crushed the Whiskey Rebellion and the attempts by Jefferson to nullify federal laws still failed. All acquisition of land isn't theft from the previous owner if the previous owner agrees. If the government agrees to let go of the land then there is no wrong as it appears to be the case with Quebec, it hardly constitutes a right to secede though, there is also no right to healthcare although many governments provide that as well.

So it's the 'can of worms' created by assuming that no state/nation has a right to secede vs. the 'can of worms' that all revolutions/rebellions/secessions are illegal appropriations of territory from the rightful owners; i.e. you only have the 'right' to what you can fight for.

I'd sooner open the first can of worms. At least it recognizes that there is more to legitimate government than 'he who holds the most guns'.

Thats why lincoln didn't even care about the issue of slavery until half way through the war.
For one thing, he was an outspoken critic of slavery well before the war, but so were many, doesn’t make him a saint.

The war would not have happened were it not for slavery, period.

Anyone else notice that the OP's article neatly skipped over the Constitution and the formation of a strong federal union that replaced the weak and ineffectual confederation?

It kinda takes all the wind out the sails right there.

Anyone else notice that the OP's article neatly skipped over the Constitution and the formation of a strong federal union that replaced the weak and ineffectual confederation?

It kinda takes all the wind out the sails right there.
And the Articles of confederation themselves were perpetual.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. 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.

And my history teacher said secession wasn't allowed. I knew he was wrong!

Now let the Northeast secede from this craphole we call the US of A.

And my history teacher said secession wasn't allowed. I knew he was wrong!

Now let the Northeast secede from this craphole we call the US of A.


Its pretty severe treason for a new englander to speak well of secession.

Its pretty severe treason for a new englander to speak well of secession.
You should do some research into the early 1800's.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it.

These are the constitutional principles for the guidance of every citizen. When the people of Georgia, left in doubt by the silence of the Federal compact on the subject of secession, refer to these to enlighten them, to what conclusion must they come -- what hesitation can they feel? They are told that the "pursuit of happiness" is "an inalienable right of man"; they feel that the government over them has become "destructive of this end"; they read that thereupon "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." It will, indeed, be said that the people referred to, are the whole people of the whole country, but this is not the fact. That, indeed, may promote the happiness of Georgia, which produces woe in California, at a distance of three thousand five hundred miles. By what arithmetic can the balance of happiness be adjusted between them? Further, the Declaration of Independence did not speak for all the people under the rule it denounced, but for a small portion of them only; nor did it speak for the people of the United States as a single people, but as separate colonies now claiming to be independent, the respective, original States. Clearly, then, this language is adopted by the people of each separate colony now a State, having a form of government over it of which it is to judge, and which, whenever so disposed, it may abolish.

Again, governments are unjust unless their powers are based on the "consent of the governed." Here the same question arises, Who are the governed who are to consent? Are the people of the State of Georgia to refrain from dissenting until they agree with the people of Oregon, more remote than England from Arabia? But this principle also was enunciated, like the last, for the guidance of each separate, distinct community. Upon these principles we can arrive at no other conclusions than these -- that according to the Constitutional doctrines of America, whenever a State decides by the vote of a majority of its people, that the government over it has become destructive to the ends of its welfare and happiness, and no longer exists in its consent, such State has a right to abolish that government, so far as it concerns itself, or, in other words, has a right to secede from the Union.

Interesting stuff....http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b75d2fa71a5.htm

WAS THE INVASION JUSTIFIED BY THE SEIZURE OF FORT SUMTER?
In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union's invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy's firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away. If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union's initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy. The incident at Fort Sumter is largely significant as a political victory for the Union. President Lincoln, while holding a hostile military force on Southern soil, was able to outmaneuver the Confederacy into firing the first shot of the war.9 That such a shot would be fired, however, was guaranteed by President Lincoln when he disingenuously announced in his Inaugural Address that "there shall be [no violence] unless it be forced upon the national authority." He then defined the term "national authority" in such a way as to insure that war would come: "The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using of force against, or among the people anywhere."

Whatever one's views, legal, political, or moral about the Civil War or President Lincoln, it should be obvious that Lincoln was being dishonest here. He was suggesting that he would not resist secession, but would continue to tax the seceders and hold hostile military installations on their property--an absurdity. Before becoming President, Lincoln had been more honest. He simply said "we won't let you" secede. The truth is, the Southern states wanted to go in peace, but Lincoln "wouldn't let them

http://jimostrowski.com/articles/secession.html

legal arguments.

Lincolns own words.

On Secession:

"...they [the South] commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State." ~ Lincoln, in his Special Message to Congress July 4 1861.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements." ~ Lincoln January 12 1848, expressing the near-universally held Jeffersonian principle, before Lincoln unilaterally destroyed it, that no state could claim its inhabitants as its property.

"[I am] determined . . . to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government . . . in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." ~ Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a man whom Lincoln himself considered "the most distinguished politician in our history."

"... a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical ... a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." ~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union... let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." ~ Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address, 1801.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" ~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to W. Crawford, June 20, 1816

"To coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.... Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself – a government that can only exist by the sword? ~ Alexander Hamilton, during the Constitutional Convention.

"The Union, in any event, won't be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn't do it.... We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not." ~ Lincoln, in a campaign speech in Galena, Illinois, Aug. 1 1856.

"... the right of a state to secede from the Union [has been] settled forever by the highest tribunal – arms – that man can resort to." ~ Ulysses S. Grant's theory of constitutional law. Organized murder replaces reason.

"A policy of violent opposition to secession is a policy of forced association. As with all forms of forced association, the stronger party will tend to exploit the weaker. Such is the case with the master-slave relationship. Such is the case when a state is forced to remain in the Union against its will. Both forms of forced association are immoral." ~ James Ostrowski 'Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession' in Secession, State, and Liberty.

"Even though unionists have placed great stock in the Preamble, their recitations rarely extend past the first 15 words... the presence in the Preamble of the phrase, "We, the People of the United States" was an accident! It originally read: 'That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.' It was amended, not for the purpose of submitting the constitution to the people in the aggregate, but because the convention could not tell, in advance, which States would ratify it." James Ostrowski 'Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession' in Secession, State, and Liberty.

Lincoln's view of the Union as irrevocable and inescapable is both ahistorical and immoral. His notion that the Union created the States is as absurd as someone claiming a child fathered its own parents. The federal government is not a partner in a marriage, but rather the offspring of a marriage between the sovereign States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Slavery:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young8.html

You should do some research into the early 1800's.


And you should do some research into the 1860s.

Changed attitudes, one should think.

Happy Secession Day



From the mental cripples who brought you Usian and Sarcasm tags comes Secession Day!

And the arguments against the rights of secesion.

Still smarting from the results of the Presidential and Congressional elections, a number of Democrats and liberal pundits have opined that the "blue states" ought to secede from the Union. The electoral map looks amenable to the plan. By joining with culturally sympathetic Canada, the blue states of the East Coast, the West Coast and the upper Midwest could create a contiguous land mass, with only the islands of the blue state of Hawaii left at a distance.

Talk of secession is not meant to be taken literally. Instead, those who raise the subject wish to underscore the degree to which cultural and political divisions track geographic ones. Appearances can be deceptive, however. Blue states contain many Republicans, just as red states contain many Democrats. Even the rhetorical point of contemporary secessionists is thus subject to question.



But the legality of secession nonetheless warrants serious consideration. Understanding why it is not a realistic option will help us understand the sense in which the United States is--for all its divisions--a Union.

As I will explain below, it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government. However, the arguments that led to this settled understanding are hardly unassailable, and the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html


Lincolns bassis ...

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office." 1
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. 2
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 3
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. 4
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. 5
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
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. 6
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? 7
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? 8
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"? 9
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. 10
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 11
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 12
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. 17
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. 18
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. 19
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? 20
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? 21
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 22
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. 23
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? 24
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. 25
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. 26
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. 27
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. 28
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. 29
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. 30
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. 31
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. 32
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. 33
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." 34
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature


dude sure talked alot .

From the mental cripples who brought you Usian and Sarcasm tags comes Secession Day!

Very well put.

Our right to secede was banned in 1865. Therefore it is Independance Day.

Its pretty severe treason for a new englander to speak well of secession.

better tell that to the 8% of vermonters that currently support the formation of the second vermont republic (at least theoretically ), and the 18% that would be interested to see a report on the economic impact of restoring it's independent status.

Meh.

Lincoln was a would-be dictator and Booth probably saved the country a great deal of anguish.

He also saved the South from a well-executed, merciful reconstruction.

better tell that to the 8% of vermonters that currently support the formation of the second vermont republic (at least theoretically ), and the 18% that would be interested to see a report on the economic impact of restoring it's independent status.


So 8% of vermont's fine people arent quite so fine as the rest?

The bell curve at work.

He also saved the South from a well-executed, merciful reconstruction.


Excellent point But lost on the " South will rise again " crowd .

better tell that to the 8% of vermonters that currently support the formation of the second vermont republic (at least theoretically ), and the 18% that would be interested to see a report on the economic impact of restoring it's independent status.


Read this....

it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html



are they ignorant of the law or tilting at windmills...BTW ..Is Dean still around ? maybe he is making them desperate to get out .

First off – saying that the Civil war was all about slavery just shows how woefully inadequate an education students are getting. It was not about slavery at all – in fact Lincoln had to wait until Gettysburg to raise the issue, and even then could only get it passed by couching it in economic terms (in other words, he could only get slavery abolished using the excuse of hurting the southern economy). Some of you may find this surprising, but there are many events in history that cannot be attributed to one overly simple explanation. A substantial part of the problem was economic, but not about slavery – it was about tariffs and trade agreements. The north pushed for rather high tariffs to protect the domestic market for its manufactured goods, which the south (having little industry) resented greatly. This was not an issue of the rich southerners forcing poor white men that never entertained the idea of owning slaves to fight for slavery (which is rather ridiculous – had you told them the only reason why they were fighting was slavery, the vast majority of the soldiers on both sides would have just walked away) the poor white men were suffering from excessive tariffs to protect the profits of rich factory owners.

Secondly – every state did have the right to secede. The civil war was illegal – the northern states occupied the southern states in a bloody invasion. Were the state governments seceding to setup monarchies you would have a good argument for invasion, but it was the will of the people to secede.

Thirdly – pointing these simple facts out in no way constitutes supporting or even condoning slavery. The response of “you are racist and love slavery” is both ignorant and childish – please present an argument with some substance relevant to the discussion at hand. Even if the author of the quoted text did support slavery, it does not invalidate the accuracy of his statements.

Finally, Lincoln is held up as one of the greatest presidents because he was assassinated in office. Had he lived for another decade he would in no way be hailed as such a great man, but being that our culture thinks it rude to speak poorly of the dead (and indeed tends to overly idealize them) he reached such an exulted status by being martyred. Unfortunately, as is prone in most simplistic history books, most students are indoctrinated with the popular view that Lincoln was always right, had infinite wisdom, and his flatulence smelled like roses.

There will of course be some closed minded idiots on this board who will try to vilify me for saying these things, but I do not support slavery, the KKK, the Confederacy, white supremacy, Nazis, or any other such group. However, though I find them repugnant, I will defend the rights of these groups to hold and express their ideas.

it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government

of course, since they would no longer be bound by the constitution (having declared independence and all), it seems something of a moot point. unless you would honestly support invading a state to force them to stay in the country, if they seriously wanted to leave, they would leave.

of course, since they would no longer be bound by the constitution (having declared independence and all), it seems something of a moot point. unless you would honestly support invading a state to force them to stay in the country, if they seriously wanted to leave, they would leave.


Most of the military and the government has taken oaths to defend the constitution haven't they?

A group of people attempting to overthrow the consitution like would clearly have to be stopped in consequence of these oaths.

First off – saying that the Civil war was all about slavery just shows how woefully inadequate an education students are getting. It was not about slavery at all

bull-fucking-shit. read the various declarations of secession. for not being about slavery, they all seem to talk about it a lot. almost exclusively, one might say.

Most of the military and the government has taken oaths to defend the constitution haven't they?

A group of people attempting to overthrow the consitution like would clearly have to be stopped in consequence of these oaths.

this is insanity. you would seriously approve of and call for the military to bomb and invade michigan (for example)?

this is insanity. you would seriously approve of and call for the military to bomb and invade michigan (for example)?


If michigan tried to overthrow the constitution they should absolutely be put down, just as the south was when it tried. Some people who live in michigan do not have the right to deprive the life, liberty or property of americans without due process.

Its right there in the constitution.

"Secession" is not due process.

If a State actually VOTED its way out of the US I can see no reason .. (and I can see no one except a minority of crazed idividuals who would use force to keep them)..not to let them go . I would'nt fight to keep them and I may even fight those who tried ...I cant See another American shooting at them .
But strangling them economically and turning them into a third world hell hole ..that I can see . Off the power grid...off the transportation grid..travel restrictions ...trade restrictions out the ear... It would be insane for a state to secede .

If michigan tried to overthrow the constitution they should absolutely be put down

don't hide behind euphemisms.

would you call for the people of a state that declared independence to be bombed and shot and tried for treason and executed? for their cities to be attacked and their infrastructure to be destroyed?

don't hide behind euphemisms.

would you call for the people of a state that declared independence to be bombed and shot and tried for treason and executed? for their cities to be attacked and their infrastructure to be destroyed?


They would be made to capitulate before it came to that, but if it did come to it, it would be necessary and appropriate.

There is no more grave attack on the rule of law than "secession." The government has a duty to uphold the laws.

We will not address made-up scenarios where the government changes and becomes oppressive, because (A) that considers factors unrelated to this discussion because (B) that was not the situation leading to the southern secession and the civil war.

don't hide behind euphemisms.

would you call for the people of a state that declared independence to be bombed and shot and tried for treason and executed? for their cities to be attacked and their infrastructure to be destroyed?

YES! Kill everything that moves.

If a State actually VOTED its way out of the US I can see no reason .. (and I can see no one except a minority of crazed idividuals who would use force to keep them)..not to let them go . I would'nt fight to keep them and I may even fight those who tried ...I cant See another American shooting at them .
But strangling them economically and turning them into a third world hell hole ..that I can see . Off the power grid...off the transportation grid..travel restrictions ...trade restrictions out the ear... It would be insane for a state to secede .

Just making them all get passports and work visas would kill them in no time! ;)

If a State actually VOTED its way out of the US I can see no reason .. (and I can see no one except a minority of crazed idividuals who would use force to keep them)..not to let them go . I would'nt fight to keep them and I may even fight those who tried ...I cant See another American shooting at them .
But strangling them economically and turning them into a third world hell hole ..that I can see . Off the power grid...off the transportation grid..travel restrictions ...trade restrictions out the ear... It would be insane for a state to secede .


There is little difference between shooting a confederate soldier and shooting any other armed, dangerous criminal.

Secession, even by "a vote" is still a blatant attack on the americans who live wherever the vote is taken.

The constitution clearly says that life, liberty and property shall not be abridged without due process of law.

Secession means overthrowing the constitution. It means treason.

They would be made to capitulate before it came to that, but if it did come to it, it would be necessary and appropriate.

There is no more grave attack on the rule of law than "secession." The government has a duty to uphold the laws.

We will not address made-up scenarios where the government changes and becomes oppressive, because (A) that considers factors unrelated to this discussion because (B) that was not the situation leading to the southern secession and the civil war.

South Carolina has put the word out to all the fundie Christians that its the state to live in with those that share common values. When they finally get a two thirds or more majority and vote to change their state constitution to forbid abortion and allow prayer in schools and other fundie things on their list, of course the Supreme court overturns all that shit and they refuse to abide by the descision and in fact use it as the reason to vote to secede..saying the federal government no longer represents them and acts in the interest of the people of the state and has become an arm of repression ..

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.



Now Substitute the United Staes of America for britain and change the reasons to the fundie view of the world .


Do you get the picture yet ?

Why would you stop them ?

South Carolina has put the word out to all the fundie Christians that its the state to live in with those that share common values. When they finally get a two thirds or more majority and vote to change their state constitution to forbid abortion and allow prayer in schools and other fundie things on their list, of course the Supreme court overturns all that shit and they refuse to abide by the descision and in fact use it as the reason to vote to secede..saying the federal government no longer represents them and acts in the interest of the people of the state and has become an arm of repression ..



Now Substitute the United Staes of America for britain and change the reasons to the fundie view of the world .


Do you get the picture yet ?

Why would you stop them ?


They would have to be stopped because their attempt is to revoke the constitutional rights of americans, steal american land, and over-throw the US constitution.

Even if 99 out of a hundred voted to secede, that 99 has no standing to abridge the rights of the one percent.

Okay, about the whole "they had a right" thing. While it is true that many early liberal (using the traditional sense of the word) thinkers did advocate for a "right to revolt", they ALWAYS maintained that it was only to be used in the most dire of circumstances.

The circumstances were not most dire. Tyranny (except as defined by certifiable libertarians AKA anarchists) was not present, and the issues that were on the table were NOT enough to revolt over.

There is little difference between shooting a confederate soldier and shooting any other armed, dangerous criminal.

Secession, even by "a vote" is still a blatant attack on the americans who live wherever the vote is taken.

The constitution clearly says that life, liberty and property shall not be abridged without due process of law.

Secession means overthrowing the constitution. It means treason.

Three words for you; United Empire Loyalists.

You know, all those folks who were tarred and feathered for showing loyalty to the legal administration during the American Revolution? How is secession from Congress in Washington treason, while secession from Parliament in England perfectly Ok? Where was the due process of law when it came to the property of Americans run out of the US for their loyalty to England?

Precisely.

Secession is not revolt against tyranny, that is called "revolt against tyranny" and not what is at issue here.

Secession is revolt without just cause.

So if the idea behind secession is that the government must have the consent of the governed, why wasn't anyone asking the black people in the confederate states who they wanted to govern them?

Even if states have a legal right to secede, the confederate states did not do so with due process of law for all who were governed. Therefore, even if we recognize the right of states to secede, there was no reason to recognize the illegal secession of the confederate states.

The circumstances were not most dire. Tyranny (except as defined by certifiable libertarians AKA anarchists) was not present, and the issues that were on the table were NOT enough to revolt over.

indeed. a three pence per pound tax on tea to help pay for a war you demanded?! fuck man, circumstances are more dire now

Three words for you; United Empire Loyalists.

You know, all those folks who were tarred and feathered for showing loyalty to the legal administration during the American Revolution? How is secession from Congress in Washington treason, while secession from Parliament in England perfectly Ok? Where was the due process of law when it came to the property of Americans run out of the US for their loyalty to England?


I was under the impression that parliament DID consider it treason and DID prosecute a war to put it down??

Where was the fifth amendment during the revolutionary war?

Thats right, there wasn't a constitution!

What are you getting at?

So if the idea behind secession is that the government must have the consent of the governed, why wasn't anyone asking the black people in the confederate states who they wanted to govern them?

Even if states have a legal right to secede, the confederate states did not do so with due process of law for all who were governed. Therefore, even if we recognize the right of states to secede, there was no reason to recognize the illegal secession of the confederate states.

exactly why it's ok to be all down with secession and think the south got a well-deserved ass kicking. the south has fuck all to do with secession and political free association.

Here's the more important question:

If any group can seceed from the country, how would we be able to establish justice if the rich can all move to one country with low taxes and leaving the poor to pay for their own government benefits?

So if the idea behind secession is that the government must have the consent of the governed, why wasn't anyone asking the black people in the confederate states who they wanted to govern them?

Even if states have a legal right to secede, the confederate states did not do so with due process of law for all who were governed. Therefore, even if we recognize the right of states to secede, there was no reason to recognize the illegal secession of the confederate states.

Well?

For one thing, they were property. It's along the same line as asking the cows, pigs, and horses who should govern them.

Precisely.

Secession is not revolt against tyranny, that is called "revolt against tyranny" and not what is at issue here.

Secession is revolt without just cause.

Right... and I'm saying that TJ himself would be disgusted that these folks are taking his support of "revolt against tyranny" to mean that he supported secession.

The differences between the Revolutionary and Civil wars are many and do not, I believe, need to be trotted out here.

Here's the more important question:

If any group can seceed from the country, how would we be able to establish justice if the rich can all move to one country with low taxes and leaving the poor to pay for their own government benefits?

Because the vacancy opened by exodus of the Rich allows for others to rise and take their place.

I was under the impression that parliament DID consider it treason and DID prosecute a war to put it down??

Where was the fifth amendment during the revolutionary war?

Thats right, there wasn't a constitution!

What are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is that people view the War of Independence as a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile enterprise while the Civil War as an unjust one. The principle behind both is the same; they were rebelling against an administration that they didn't feel reflected their interests. How is one okay, but not the other?

Or are you arguing that it is 'Never' okay to split from the 'mother country', or only okay if you have the guns to back it up?

What I'm getting at is that people view the War of Independence as a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile enterprise while the Civil War as an unjust one. The principle behind both is the same; they were rebelling against an administration that they didn't feel reflected their interests. How is one okay, but not the other?

Or are you arguing that it is 'Never' okay to split from the 'mother country', or only okay if you have the guns to back it up?


The 'mother country' is obliged to fight over it, whether or not they win is another matter.

Because the vacancy opened by exodus of the Rich allows for others to rise and take their place.

Then please explain why their isn't equal distribution of money across the world? Basically, from what I learned in class, the third world exists because of American greed, so how will letting the greediest of Americans seceed help this matter? After our teacher reviewed the facts, my class was determined what we really need is the United Nations to start taxing the rich all across the world to make sure that even the poor have healthcare, childcare, and reproductive freedom.

Because healthcare, childcare, and reproductive freedom are rights, not priveleges, and property is a privelege granted by the government, not a right.

What I'm getting at is that people view the War of Independence as a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile enterprise while the Civil War as an unjust one. The principle behind both is the same; they were rebelling against an administration that they didn't feel reflected their interests. How is one okay, but not the other?

No not really. They are really two different causes.

I feel the present government doesn't reflect my interests. There are many others and yet there isn't an armed rebellion.

There were avenues that could be pursed to attempt change for things you didn't like in the time of the Civil war.

There were no avenues to attempt changes during the Revolution. England dictated and that was it......


Or are you arguing that it is 'Never' okay to split from the 'mother country', or only okay if you have the guns to back it up?

Few countries willingly let territory go......

The 'mother country' is obliged to fight over it, whether or not they win is another matter.

Alright. At least I get your 'Realpolitik' point of view. I just don't agree how one can rationalize the legitimacy of one rebellion over another. The endgame is that military victory is the only legitmacy in international relations.

They would have to be stopped because their attempt is to revoke the constitutional rights of americans, steal american land, and over-throw the US constitution.

Even if 99 out of a hundred voted to secede, that 99 has no standing to abridge the rights of the one percent.

Good argument ..but in reality states have the right of eminent domain and can reimburse those who lose property to the state. They can reimburse the US for federal land or negotiate rights to lease it . In short they can negotiate as a soveirgn state with another sovergn state. Those that choose to stay and live under the new constitution that is voted for and approved by the people of south Carolina...JUST like in every other STATE in the union..stay those who dont leave . states already have sovergnty and are members of a republic ..you cant say that membership is irrevokable under any conditions without claiming imperial power over a sovergn state .
There is recourse to deal with the percentage of those who do not aggree with the majority.
and if you check the US constitution you will see NO WHERE mentioned that a state cannot secede once it is a member of the United States.
Ask yourself why is that ? You realise that only federal land and buildings are owned by the US ..the rest belongs to the state . So the " American land " is a tiny portion of the state .

Read the part of the US constitution that acknowlages and enumerates states rights .

Well?

For one thing, they were property. It's along the same line as asking the cows, pigs, and horses who should govern them.

According to the OP, the right of secession is derived from the fact that a government should draw its power from the consent of the governed. It doesn't say, "The consent of the governed that the other people want to call property."

Meanwhile, it isn't along the same line as asking cows, pigs, horses, etc. because they are not human beings.

And what about the women who also didn't get a say in the matter? Or the non-landed whites? They were all human beings being governed as well - and none of them were officially listed as property.


What I'm getting at is that people view the War of Independence as a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile enterprise while the Civil War as an unjust one.

Could have something to do with the fact that those who fought in the Revolutionary War were fighting against a government that was unjust to them. They were fighting to get rights that should have been theirs already. The confederate states were seceding specifically so that they could be an unjust government.

Read the part of the US constitution that acknowlages and enumerates states rights .

Notice that it does not give any mechanism for leaving the union. The assumption seems to be that once you sign off on the Constitution, you follow it forever.

Alright. At least I get your 'Realpolitik' point of view. I just don't agree how one can rationalize the legitimacy of one rebellion over another. The endgame is that military victory is the only legitmacy in international relations.


It could certainly be argued that neither rebellion was more legitimate.

It could certainly be argued that neither rebellion was more legitimate.

In truth, the only way to ensure economic equality, which we all want, will be to encourage more combinations of nations, not separations.

In a sense, the American Revolution was an illegal war, just like Bush's illegal war.

No not really. They are really two different causes.

I feel the present government doesn't reflect my interests. There are many others and yet there isn't an armed rebellion.

There were avenues that could be pursed to attempt change for things you didn't like in the time of the Civil war.

There were no avenues to attempt changes during the Revolution. England dictated and that was it......


What avenues did the South have to attempt changes in the Union? If the Civil War hadn't broken out and Lincoln had emancipated the slaves, did the South have a legal recourse against it? Or did they have to just accept the decision of the President? Why do you think they fought a war in the first place? For kicks?

Then please explain why their isn't equal distribution of money across the world?

Equal distribution of money doesn't make wealth. It's the idea and the best delivery system to get what every people want to them.

Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak didn't have much money before the started Apple. Neither did Hewlet and Packard. Somebody liked their ideas and invested.

Basically, from what I learned in class, the third world exists because of American greed, so how will letting the greediest of Americans seceed help this matter?

The third world exists for many reasons. Europe had much more of an effect on Africa then the US.

Is the US a reason? I am sure it is.
Is the US the cause. Nope, sorry.


After our teacher reviewed the facts, my class was determined what we really need is the United Nations to start taxing the rich all across the world to make sure that even the poor have healthcare, childcare, and reproductive freedom.

That will not work.

Humanity has to change it's whole being for poverty to disappear.

The concept of profit will have to change. For some to acquire wealth, others have to loose out.

Because healthcare, childcare, and reproductive freedom are rights, not priveleges, and property is a privelege granted by the government, not a right.

Good argument ..but in reality states have the right of eminent domain and can reimburse those who lose property to the state. They can reimburse the US for federal land or negotiate rights to lease it . In short they can negotiate as a soveirgn state with another sovergn state. Those that choose to stay and live under the new constitution that is voted for and approved by the people of south Carolina...JUST like in every other STATE in the union..stay those who dont leave . states already have sovergnty and are members of a republic ..you cant say that membership is irrevokable under any conditions without claiming imperial power over a sovergn state .
There is recourse to deal with the percentage of those who do not aggree with the majority.
and if you check the US constitution you will see NO WHERE mentioned that a state cannot secede once it is a member of the United States.
Ask yourself why is that ? You realise that only federal land and buildings are owned by the US ..the rest belongs to the state . So the " American land " is a tiny portion of the state .

Read the part of the US constitution that acknowlages and enumerates states rights .


You're ignoring the due process clause.

Secession is not due process. Life, liberty (the criminal courts) and property (eminent domain) can only be abridged by due process.

Neither the constitution nor the body of american law hold secession to be due process.

As has been explained above, secession is neither legal under settled law nor one of the enunumerated rights in the constitution.

Notice that it does not give any mechanism for leaving the union. The assumption seems to be that once you sign off on the Constitution, you follow it forever.


There are no assumptions only interpretations .


At any rate here's one of them


Interesting stuff....http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b75d2fa71a5.htm

What avenues did the South have to attempt changes in the Union? If the Civil War hadn't broken out and Lincoln had emancipated the slaves, did the South have a legal recourse against it? Or did they have to just accept the decision of the President? Why do you think they fought a war in the first place? For kicks?


Could lincoln have legally emancipated the slaves during peacetime?

Would an amendment abolishing slavery been passed had not the civil war occurred?

This aside, the south is not the best argument for secession because the south's goals were both illegal and morally despicable.

The concept of profit will have to change. For some to acquire wealth, others have to loose out.

We agree with that, but you don't seem to agree with the entire point.

The bigger point is that secession cannot be allowed, unless taxation by the United Nations was legalized and the World Court findings are followed in every so-called nation, but unless those two things are allowed, you cannot seceed.

What avenues did the South have to attempt changes in the Union? If the Civil War hadn't broken out and Lincoln had emancipated the slaves, did the South have a legal recourse against it? Or did they have to just accept the decision of the President? Why do you think they fought a war in the first place? For kicks?

Lincoln only had 8 years to be in office (that is if he could be re-elected). The fact is there were avenues but that doesn't mean they would have worked in their case.

Slavery was done for and if was a fools errand to try and keep it. Part of the reason Great Britain would not recognize the South was because of it.

I believe even Lee himself said he wished they freed the slaves first....

Could have something to do with the fact that those who fought in the Revolutionary War were fighting against a government that was unjust to them. They were fighting to get rights that should have been theirs already. The confederate states were seceding specifically so that they could be an unjust government.

What exactly did the British Crown do to the colonists that was 'unjust'? It's not like it was Imperial India or something.

The confederate states were obviously seceding so they could uphold slavery as an economic model, or at least to delay the inevitablity of removing it. But it's difficult to say that George Washington was fighting for 'rights' when he was a major slave owner.

You're ignoring the due process clause.

Secession is not due process. Life, liberty (the criminal courts) and property (eminent domain) can only be abridged by due process.

Neither the constitution nor the body of american law hold secession to be due process.

As has been explained above, secession is neither legal under settled law nor one of the enunumerated rights in the constitution.


My whole point is that the State is following due process. The States version of it .


Interesting stuff....http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b75d2fa71a5.htm

My whole point is that the State is following due process. The States version of it .


Interesting stuff....http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b75d2fa71a5.htm


The federal government is the final arbiter of the federal constitution.

If the federal government decides that some local kangaroo court isn't due process, the state is overruled.

But it's difficult to say that George Washington was fighting for 'rights' when he was a major slave owner.

Great Britain was still in the practice of the slave trade at that time.

Apples and Oranges.....

What I'm getting at is that people view the War of Independence as a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile enterprise while the Civil War as an unjust one. The principle behind both is the same; they were rebelling against an administration that they didn't feel reflected their interests. How is one okay, but not the other?

because one was a just cause and one was an unjust cause. it's simple really.

Here's the more important question:

If any group can seceed from the country, how would we be able to establish justice if the rich can all move to one country with low taxes and leaving the poor to pay for their own government benefits?

the rich already can all move to one country with no taxes. they don't, so i fail to see the problem.

The concept of profit will have to change. For some to acquire wealth, others have to loose out.
Huh? How does the entrepreneur down the street make me poorer? There is no set amount of wealth and the world and the gain of one person is not the loss by another.

Could lincoln have legally emancipated the slaves during peacetime?

Would an amendment abolishing slavery been passed had not the civil war occurred?

This aside, the south is not the best argument for secession because the south's goals were both illegal and morally despicable.

This is what I'm getting at; people in general disagree with the idea of secession as 'wrong', because the idea is so intertwined with slavery and the Confederate States. However, I believe the theory is sound; if the foundation of your nation is built on the idea that the individual states can secede from the previous administration, it would follow that the individual states should be able to do so again.

But I see where you're coming from; it's a point of view I can appreciate.

because one was a just cause and one was an unjust cause. it's simple really.

Really? The American Revolution was just? How about all the people who didn't agree with it, and were run out of Dodge? You know, the people who settled in Canada because they were loyal to King George? A few businessmen don't like paying tax on their tea, and the rebellion is viewed as just?

I think we've already established that the Civil War was not originally fought over slavery, even if slavery was the primary difference between the states.

It's not really that simple.

What exactly did the British Crown do to the colonists that was 'unjust'? It's not like it was Imperial India or something.

The confederate states were obviously seceding so they could uphold slavery as an economic model, or at least to delay the inevitablity of removing it. But it's difficult to say that George Washington was fighting for 'rights' when he was a major slave owner.
There is very little difference like you say. I mean, to claim as such is to take in your own biases. Of course, I still dislike the Confederacy and like the Revolutionary War but that is just because I view America favorably. I also don't like revolutions either but whatever.

Great Britain was still in the practice of the slave trade at that time.

Apples and Oranges.....

Point taken.

This is what I'm getting at; people in general disagree with the idea of secession as 'wrong', because the idea is so intertwined with slavery and the Confederate States. However, I believe the theory is sound; if the foundation of your nation is built on the idea that the individual states can secede from the previous administration, it would follow that the individual states should be able to do so again.

But I see where you're coming from; it's a point of view I can appreciate.


Again, the US constitution seems to preclude secession, and the states ratified the constitution.

The arrangement with britain was not the same as the arrangement between states in the US.

States ratified the constitution and joined the union without coercion, the document was created democratically and ratified democratically. There is a democratic mechanism built into the constitution to change it.

the rich already can all move to one country with no taxes. they don't, so i fail to see the problem.

Say one country said you can put your corporation in their country for no tax, and then all the corporations were moved to this new country, then how would we pay for education, healthcare and childcare?

This is my worry, which I why I feel talk about secession is somewhat racist and sexist.

That the founders didn't believe in a right of secession is clearly scene in the language of the Articles of Confederation, in which each state agreed to enter into a "perpetual union". As in no right of secession.

Advocates of secession quote Thomas Jefferson a lot. He, with his extreme, libertarian views on society, supported the French Revolution, even after he became aware of the bloodshed involved. In response to a letter written to him from a friend in france describing the situation, he responded that he would prefer that the entire inhabitants of the world be slaughtered, leaving on an Adam and Eve in each country, so long as they were free.

Thankfully, most of our founding fathers were much more reasonable people.

Huh? How does the entrepreneur down the street make me poorer? There is no set amount of wealth and the world and the gain of one person is not the loss by another.

How about the corporate CEO that goes into small town USA, builds a factory knowing the project will only go for a year or two and then pulls up stakes and bails?

How about the entrepreneur that has a factory and moves it to China for lower production costs?

Say one country said you can put your corporation in their country for no tax, and then all the corporations were moved to this new country, then how would we pay for education, healthcare and childcare?

This is my worry, which I why I feel talk about secession is somewhat racist and sexist.

this already exists - in many places actually. the other countries just tax the corporations on business done within their countries.

racism and sexism has got nothing to do with it, even under your worry.

I hate when people feel they have to demonize Lincoln and romanticize the Confederacy. Makes me think you got a rebel flag and perhaps a black man hanging in your front yard.



Lincoln was an enemy of States Rights. I however, do not own a rebel flag, as I think it treasonous to even possess one, and I have many "black" friends. To the Confederates credit, however (and yes, many of my relatives fought for the Confederacy, as did they for the Union), they were defending their legitimate right to self rule, which is what a federation is about: General self rule by united provinces (states in our case). The US has bastardized this concept by creating a Federal Government which has more power over the states than it was designed to do.

Any way, yes, Lincoln was an Enemy to States Rights. Thats all the United States Civil War was fought over. Spin it however you want, it all boils down to that.

Again, the US constitution seems to preclude secession, and the states ratified the constitution.

The arrangement with britain was not the same as the arrangement between states in the US.

States ratified the constitution and joined the union without coercion, the document was created democratically and ratified democratically. There is a democratic mechanism built into the constitution to change it.

That makes sense.

Really? The American Revolution was just?

yes. firstly because it is always just to rebel against monarchs, and secondly because they were right about the 'consent of the governed', 'rule by the people', and 'right to abolish any form of government destructive to the ends of life and liberty (and equality, in jefferson's earlier drafts)' things.

How about all the people who didn't agree with it, and were run out of Dodge? You know, the people who settled in Canada because they were loyal to King George?

every revolution has it's counter-revolutionaries, but that doesn't determine the justness or unjustness of the cause.

I think we've already established that the Civil War was not originally fought over slavery

you've done no such thing. mainly because that would be an impossible task; what with the being false and all...

Soviet style

No.

France, Russia, etc.: revolt against established order.

America: Revolt FOR established order which had been violated by the British.

The British were the true revolutionaries. Romantic destructive Marxists don't like to remember that.

yes. firstly because it is always just to rebel against monarchs, and secondly because they were right about the 'consent of the governed', 'rule by the people', and 'right to abolish any form of government destructive to the ends of life and liberty (and equality, in jefferson's earlier drafts)' things.

every revolution has it's counter-revolutionaries, but that doesn't determine the justness or unjustness of the cause.

you've done no such thing. mainly because that would be an impossible task; what with the being false and all...

Oh I'm sure the Southern States gave Lincoln consent to send armed troops to quell the notion of self-government in the South.... or does the life and liberty of Southerners not count into that equation?

The American Revolution was fought over an issue of taxation. Hardly worth tar-and-feathering people and driving them out of the country. Hardly just.

As to the comments of the Civil War and whether or not it being fought over slavery, it's not 'my' assertion. Clearly, the defining difference between the two factions was slavery, but the war was fought long before the Emancipation Proclamation.

They were little more than petty dissidents and insurrectionists. Prove me wrong.

How about the corporate CEO that goes into small town USA, builds a factory knowing the project will only go for a year or two and then pulls up stakes and bails?

How about the entrepreneur that has a factory and moves it to China for lower production costs?
So, nobody has to work for the guy's factory. Anyone who does works for said factory for their own benefit. He is not running some economic aid charity and they are not volunteers, if either side did not find that factory to be beneficial then they would never bother with it.

The entrepreneur who moves to China helps out Chinese people by giving them jobs and he gives us cheaper products. Both us and the Chinese benefit from this and it increases economic efficiency. Trade is not a bad thing, it helps everyone based upon comparative advantage.

They were little more than petty dissidents and insurrectionists. Prove me wrong.


If you mean the Americans, that's easy: They won. They beat the strongest army in the world at that time. They didn't win every battle. But they made King George cry uncle.

Slavery's role in the civil war is a little complicated.

The north did not attack the south with the goal of abolishing slavery in mind, and the north's aim in the war was not to abolish slavery.


The south, however, went to war to preserve slavery pre-emptively.


So to recap, it wasnt "abolistionists attacked slaveowners to free the slaves" - it was "slaveowners attacked abolitionists to keep the slaves."

If you mean the Americans, that's easy: They won. They beat the strongest army in the world at that time. They didn't win every battle. But they made King George cry uncle.
Yeah, they won with the help of France. Without foreign intervention the British would have defeated us.

That the founders didn't believe in a right of secession is clearly scene in the language of the Articles of Confederation, in which each state agreed to enter into a "perpetual union". As in no right of secession.

Advocates of secession quote Thomas Jefferson a lot. He, with his extreme, libertarian views on society, supported the French Revolution, even after he became aware of the bloodshed involved. In response to a letter written to him from a friend in france describing the situation, he responded that he would prefer that the entire inhabitants of the world be slaughtered, leaving on an Adam and Eve in each country, so long as they were free.

Thankfully, most of our founding fathers were much more reasonable people.


And one could argue that life without freedom isnt real life.

Yeah, they won with the help of France. Without foreign intervention the British would have defeated us.


No, it just would've took longer, by the point the french began to help the fire of revolution was already uncontrollable, the French didn't even do that much once they got in the war anyways. Without them it simply would've just taken longer.

They were little more than petty dissidents and insurrectionists. Prove me wrong.


The Confederacy racked up a huge, huge union body count.

They were little more than petty dissidents and insurrectionists. Prove me wrong.

Pretty good for a farmer with a pitchfork, wouldn't you say?

The Confederacy racked up a huge, huge union body count.

Is that because they were better or the fact the Union had more then a few retard generals?

What avenues did the South have to attempt changes in the Union? If the Civil War hadn't broken out and Lincoln had emancipated the slaves, did the South have a legal recourse against it? Or did they have to just accept the decision of the President? Why do you think they fought a war in the first place? For kicks?

If the Civil War hadn't broken out, Lincoln could not have emancipated the slaves at all. The only reason he could do so by executive order was the fact that it was wartime - and the proclamation would not have been permanent.

The slaves were truly, permanently emanciapated by the 14th and 15th Amendments. An act of the legislature and the states to amend the Constitution was necessary - especially considering that the concept of slavery was written into it.

What exactly did the British Crown do to the colonists that was 'unjust'?

Taxation without representation. Arresting anyone who spoke out against the government. Basically ignoring the governments of the colonies and placing random governors in place instead.

It's not like it was Imperial India or something.

It was close. The only difference was that the colonists were, in large part, British citizens to begin with. One might argue that, for that reason, the way they were treated by the British government was even worse.

The confederate states were obviously seceding so they could uphold slavery as an economic model, or at least to delay the inevitablity of removing it.

Indeed. And I don't recognize "OMFG, WE CAN'T ENSLAVE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!" as a necessity for revolution.

But it's difficult to say that George Washington was fighting for 'rights' when he was a major slave owner.

He was. He just wasn't fighting for their rights. One would hardly argue that the founding fathers were saints. But they were fighting for rights that were denied to all colonists - they just didn't recognize the logical extension of those rights to all human beings. In truth, our country still doesn't recognize the fact that all human beings are entitled to equal treatment under the law, despite it being clearly enshrined in the Constitution at this point.

A few businessmen don't like paying tax on their tea, and the rebellion is viewed as just?

The fact that you would try to cast it in this light demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. The Boston Tea Party was an eruption after many injustices. It was not, in and of itself, cause of any war.

I think we've already established that the Civil War was not originally fought over slavery, even if slavery was the primary difference between the states.

It really was, actually. The states with slaves were worried about the fact that they were becoming a minority in the legislature. In order to preserve slavery, they attempted to secede from the union. No matter how you look at it, even under the idea of secession being for "states rights", it boiled down to a bunch of state government that wanted to keep their precious slaves.

You know, if the South is so bitter about the Civil War 140 years later, feel free to leave again. This time, however, we won't let you back. Personally, I favor throwing them out.

Secession is revolt without just cause.

bullshit.

the right of secession is a necessary component of political freedom, because otherwise you cannot claim to have government by the consent of the governed. if the governed no longer consent, and you have to bomb them into submission (as you have proposed), then you have given up on enlightenment ideals of government.

i would go as far as to say that free association forms a foundational pillar of political freedom. it is required for the existence of a free society.

You know, if the South is so bitter about the Civil War 140 years later, feel free to leave again. This time, however, we won't let you back. Personally, I favor throwing them out.

man, fuck the south. only retards, morons, and racists care about the confederacy. but what do you think about free association on general principle?

If the Civil War hadn't broken out, Lincoln could not have emancipated the slaves at all. The only reason he could do so by executive order was the fact that it was wartime - and the proclamation would not have been permanent.

The slaves were truly, permanently emanciapated by the 14th and 15th Amendments. An act of the legislature and the states to amend the Constitution was necessary - especially considering that the concept of slavery was written into it.

Whether he could or not, it isn't likely that he would have. If the Civil War hadn't broken out, announcing Emancipation probably would have tipped it off anyways, and Lincoln said that he'd do what it took to keep the nation together, whether that meant freeing all slaves, freeing some slaves and leaving others enslaved, or not freeing any.

bullshit.

the right of secession is a necessary component of political freedom, because otherwise you cannot claim to have government by the consent of the governed. if the governed no longer consent, and you have to bomb them into submission (as you have proposed), then you have given up on enlightenment ideals of government.

i would go as far as to say that free association forms a foundational pillar of political freedom. it is required for the existence of a free society.


"Consent of the governerned" does not mean the consent of every individual.

A person is not entitled to disregard the law because he does not consent to the government. Nor is a majority of the population of michigan.

Our government goes to sufficient lengths, in most cases, to protect the rights of political minorities. Senators and congressmen are still elected - each person is more or less equally represented by his vote.

"Consent of the governerned" does not mean the consent of every individual.

i wouldn't be quite so hasty there, but letting that go, it certainly would cover a geographically concentrated non-consenting population. i don't see any way that it could mean anything else.

i wouldn't be quite so hasty there, but letting that go, it certainly would cover a geographically concentrated non-consenting population. i don't see any way that it could mean anything else.


The rest of the idea about the 'consent of the governed' has to do with armed overthrow of the offending government.

Sort of like what the south attempted!

As was said above: If people don't like their government, their options are limited.

A) leave

B) overthrow it

C) change it by 'legitimate means' (ie, voting, &c)

Few states are willing to let their citizens disregard the law.

man, fuck the south. only retards, morons, and racists care about the confederacy. but what do you think about free association on general principle?


I'm not really sure. If the CSA had the right to secede, the Union had no right to force them back, and (obviously) if the Union was right then secession is not an inherant right. I'd have to go with the right to secede, because if the CSA hadn't come back, there wouldn't be such a culture war in this country today. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that Southerners are these days the most uber-patriotic people in the nation?

"Consent of the governerned" does not mean the consent of every individual.

So where is your cut-off point?

A majority of those in southern states supported seceding before the Civil War and a significant portion of the population remained loyal to the King in the Revolutionary War.

You can't have it both ways, either both were valid or both were not.


If Bush were to cite national security and the threat from terrorists as an excuse to postpone elections and set himself up as a de facto dictator, would you brand anyone who objected as a traitor?

If Pat Robertson were to coerce congress into passing a law setting him up as a theocratic censor over the government similar to the Iranian system, would you label anyone who objected a traitor who should be shot?

Both are rather absurd eventualities, but I am sure you could find a handful of people who would support the new regime. Would you impinge upon their wishes just because a majority of the rest of us are appalled and do not want to be ruled over by Bush and Robertson? You seem to be suggesting that even though a majority would not want to live under such a regime, we should be forced at gunpoint (for the good of the people?).

A majority of those in southern states supported seceding before the Civil War

not so much, no. a very significant part of the population had no say in the matter. and keeping it that way was the point of their secession. in mississippi and south carolina, for example, slaves formed the majority of the population. in most of the others, they made up about 45%.

not so much, no. a very significant part of the population had no say in the matter. and keeping it that way was the point of their secession. in mississippi and south carolina, for example, slaves formed the majority of the population. in most of the others, they made up about 45%.And Arkansas actually rejected secession the first time it came up for a vote. It took some finagling (and some historians say vote fraud) to get secession passed. It was especially unpopular in the western part of the state, where the vast majority of the armies raised were raised only for state defense, and the soldiers refused to leave the state to fight.

So where is your cut-off point?

A majority of those in southern states supported seceding before the Civil War and a significant portion of the population remained loyal to the King in the Revolutionary War.

You can't have it both ways, either both were valid or both were not.


If Bush were to cite national security and the threat from terrorists as an excuse to postpone elections and set himself up as a de facto dictator, would you brand anyone who objected as a traitor?

If Pat Robertson were to coerce congress into passing a law setting him up as a theocratic censor over the government similar to the Iranian system, would you label anyone who objected a traitor who should be shot?

Both are rather absurd eventualities, but I am sure you could find a handful of people who would support the new regime. Would you impinge upon their wishes just because a majority of the rest of us are appalled and do not want to be ruled over by Bush and Robertson? You seem to be suggesting that even though a majority would not want to live under such a regime, we should be forced at gunpoint (for the good of the people?).


A) A majority of those in the south did, but a majority of those in the country did not. Those local majorities are not entitled under the constitution to secede and revoke the rights of their neighbors without due process. Just like how Britain waged a war against its revolting colonies, the USA waged a war against the revolting citizens in the south.

B) The constitution prohibits this, it is illegal under settled law.

C) The constitution prohibits this, it is illegal under settled law.

In both cases, you're exactly right. The minority of people (be they christian senators, bush, or the southern rebels) have many rights in the US - but not the right to flagrantly break the law.

You have these backwards - the offending officials should be forced 'at gunpoint' by the national majority to cease their attack on the nation.

There is a hugely significant difference between national majorities - which can, as the constitution is written, vote to change the country's most basic laws - and local majorities. Every member of a "local minority" still has every single one of his national-constitutionally guaranteed rights intact. This is why state laws must pass US constitutional muster.

The rest of the idea about the 'consent of the governed' has to do with armed overthrow of the offending government.

if necessary. but why fight if you don't have to?

Sort of like what the south attempted!

mate, you need to get a grip and try thinking rationally about the subject.

As was said above: If people don't like their government, their options are limited.

A) leave

B) overthrow it

C) change it by 'legitimate means' (ie, voting, &c)

Few states are willing to let their citizens disregard the law.

if an area chooses to leave a political union, its former country has limited options. it can either

a) allow it to go peacefully and try to maintain good relations with the new neighbors

or

b) try to coerce it - and give up all pretense of enlightenment principles of governence and liberty in exchange for becoming an inescapable empire of doom.

And Arkansas actually rejected secession the first time it came up for a vote. It took some finagling (and some historians say vote fraud) to get secession passed. It was especially unpopular in the western part of the state, where the vast majority of the armies raised were raised only for state defense, and the soldiers refused to leave the state to fight.

interestingly, arkansas had a comparatively small percentage of its population enslaved. the second smallest in the confederacy, actually.

A) A majority of those in the south did, but a majority of those in the country did not. Those local majorities are not entitled under the constitution to secede and revoke the rights of their neighbors without due process. Just like how Britain waged a war against its revolting colonies, the USA waged a war against the revolting citizens in the south.

My point is that a majority of citizens in the British Empire did not favor American independence - so why is it relevent that only in the seceding territory need to consent for the Revolution where as a majority in the entire nation is needed for the Civil War? You have to use the same standard for both events.



B) The constitution prohibits this, it is illegal under settled law.
C) The constitution prohibits this, it is illegal under settled law.

Not really - presidential term limits are only 55 years old, and I’m sure some quasi-legal reason for manipulating the electoral college could be found - if they can justify the president being able to violate the 4th amendment at will, they could find another way.
I did state that this was a highly unlikely hypothetical anyway – were the “red staters” to pledge themselves to be born-again evangelicals and govern based on their religious principles because they got 51% of the nation, would New Englanders and Californians have the right to secede?


The southern states saw northern states acting in a hostile manner and impinging upon their constitutional rights. Thusly they had the right to secede from the union.


How about if the country imposed a 100% tax on growing pineapples and directed that money into corn subsidies? Most of the states grow corn, where as Hawaii is the only one that grows any substantial amount of pineapples – so they all gang up on Hawaii.

Would the Hawaiians have a legitimate reason to be pissed off? How about a 300% tax on any goods that has to cross more than 100 miles of water domestically? Once again, pretty much screwing over Hawaii (though Alaska catches some of it too). Do we just say ‘aww… tough noogies”?

Now Hawaii claims that this is unfair and cites legal reasons, but they are ignored because the rest of the states decide that they like it this way.

What is your response? They should just roll over and take it?

The southern states were objecting to the tariff barriers which hurt them economically for the benefit of northern states. Additionally, they saw the attempt to outlaw slavery as an attack on their constitutionally protected and perfectly legal institution (the moral standing of this issue is irrelevant here – it was legal).

(the moral standing of this issue is irrelevant here – it was legal).

you do not want to attempt to hang anything about this subject on mere legality

mate, you need to get a grip and try thinking rationally about the subject.

Most people refuse to. Feelings of patriotism or the "need" to belong to a "strong" nation seem to override rational thought. As does the association of secession with the Confederacy.

if necessary. but why fight if you don't have to?



mate, you need to get a grip and try thinking rationally about the subject.



if an area chooses to leave a political union, its former country has limited options. it can either

a) allow it to go peacefully and try to maintain good relations with the new neighbors

or

b) try to coerce it - and give up all pretense of enlightenment principles of governence and liberty in exchange for becoming an inescapable empire of doom.


Think rationally?

Did Britain give up all pretense of enlightenment principles of governence and liberty in exchange for becoming an inescapable empire of doom?

Did the US give up all pretense of enlightenment principles of governence and liberty in exchange for becoming an inescapable empire of doom?

Talk about getting a grip...

Most people refuse to. Feelings of patriotism or the "need" to belong to a "strong" nation seem to override rational thought. As does the association of secession with the Confederacy.

indeed - i find new granada's brand of irrationality on this to be particularly scary. i mean seriously, openly stating that you'd be in favor of bombing american cities and killing american people simply because they no longer wished to participate in the current political union?! if he wasn't so insistently unhinged on the point, i'd swear it was just a bit of ridiculous over-the-top trolling.

My point is that a majority of citizens in the British Empire did not favor American independence - so why is it relevent that only in the seceding territory need to consent for the Revolution where as a majority in the entire nation is needed for the Civil War? You have to use the same standard for both events.



Not really - presidential term limits are only 55 years old, and I’m sure some quasi-legal reason for manipulating the electoral college could be found - if they can justify the president being able to violate the 4th amendment at will, they could find another way.
I did state that this was a highly unlikely hypothetical anyway – were the “red staters” to pledge themselves to be born-again evangelicals and govern based on their religious principles because they got 51% of the nation, would New Englanders and Californians have the right to secede?


The southern states saw northern states acting in a hostile manner and impinging upon their constitutional rights. Thusly they had the right to secede from the union.


How about if the country imposed a 100% tax on growing pineapples and directed that money into corn subsidies? Most of the states grow corn, where as Hawaii is the only one that grows any substantial amount of pineapples – so they all gang up on Hawaii.

Would the Hawaiians have a legitimate reason to be pissed off? How about a 300% tax on any goods that has to cross more than 100 miles of water domestically? Once again, pretty much screwing over Hawaii (though Alaska catches some of it too). Do we just say ‘aww… tough noogies”?

Now Hawaii claims that this is unfair and cites legal reasons, but they are ignored because the rest of the states decide that they like it this way.

What is your response? They should just roll over and take it?

The southern states were objecting to the tariff barriers which hurt them economically for the benefit of northern states. Additionally, they saw the attempt to outlaw slavery as an attack on their constitutionally protected and perfectly legal institution (the moral standing of this issue is irrelevant here – it was legal).

A) The US won its independence in a war, the opinions of the losers of the war became irrelevant after that. Same would be true had the south won: "Tough Noogies America."

B) Presidential term limits are in the constitution, it doesnt matter if they've been there for 55 hours or 55 years, they are the supreme law of the land and violating them is an enormous crime.

C) Which rights in the constitution did the south claim the US was violating, and when? Where in the constitution are provisions made for states to abolish the constitution at whim?

D) Hawaii may or may not have legal recourse in that situation. I assume they would throw a fit- and hope they would do so within the bounds of the law.

Hawaii could easily protest by having its senators take advantage of the unanimous-cloture rules of the senate, by which a vote to end the reading of a bill must be completely unanimous. The senate would ba paralyzed until the injustice was rectified. No civil war. Nothing illegal.

E) Had the south not made war with the country, slavery would have prevailed there for many, many more years.

Think rationally?

Did Britain give up all pretense of enlightenment principles of governence and liberty in exchange for becoming an inescapable empire of doom?

Did the US give up all pretense of enlightenment principles of governence and liberty in exchange for becoming an inescapable empire of doom?

Talk about getting a grip...

britian wasn't exactly running on enlightenment principles of government at the time in the first place. and, of course, they did attempt to continue being an inescapable empire for more than 100 years after being fought off in america. eventually they got sick of it and just started letting things go.

and if you would try paying attention to the actual words i type, you would see that i do not accept the confederacy's secession as morally legitimate.

indeed - i find new granada's brand of irrationality on this to be particularly scary. i mean seriously, openly stating that you'd be in favor of bombing american cities and killing american people simply because they no longer wished to participate in the current political union?! if he wasn't so insistently unhinged on the point, i'd swear it was just a bit of ridiculous over-the-top trolling.


Enough of this ad-hom flaming, FS.

Address the arguments or refrain from posting.

I've stated nothing more irrational or scary than Abraham Lincoln. A war fought today to put down an uprising against the country would be far less costly in terms of lives than the one fought back then.

Maybe you should put "Abraham Lincoln was an irrational, unhinged, american-killing bastard sonofabitch!" in your signature?

So, has anyone mentioned how the war began when the South invaded the North?

britian wasn't exactly running on enlightenment principles of government at the time in the first place. and, of course, they did attempt to continue being an inescapable empire for more than 100 years after being fought off in america. eventually they got sick of it and just started letting things go.

and if you would try paying attention to the actual words i type, you would see that i do not accept the confederacy's secession as morally legitimate.


Where do you get "free soviets thinks the confederacy's secession was morally legitimate" from the above?

??

Where in the constitution are provisions made for states to abolish the constitution at whim?

You are aware that the Constitution does not list the things states can do, it lists what they can't. And leaving the Union isn't one of those things.

Anyway, the constitutionality of secession doesn't matter. The right to self-determination is a natural human right, and to deny people this is monstrous and inhumane. If an identifiable "people" decide that their current government is illegitimate, they have the right to form a new government more amenable to their desires. And, despite what you may think, the country they are leaving is not obligated to invade and subjugate them. This is 2006, and humanity has, I believe, become a bit more civilized than "might makes right". If democracy and self-determination are only kept under the sufferance of those with the guns, what is the point of having them?

You are aware that the Constitution does not list the things states can do, it lists what they can't. And leaving the Union isn't one of those things.

Anyway, the constitutionality of secession doesn't matter. The right to self-determination is a natural human right, and to deny people this is monstrous and inhumane. If an identifiable "people" decide that their current government is illegitimate, they have the right to form a new government more amenable to their desires. And, despite what you may think, the country they are leaving is not obligated to invade and subjugate them. This is 2006, and humanity has, I believe, become a bit more civilized than "might makes right". If democracy and self-determination are only kept under the sufferance of those with the guns, what is the point of having them?


Unless the country agrees to let them go it has the obligation to use force to prevent them.

Also, one of the things states are not permitted to do is take the life, liberty or property of americans without due process of law.

Unilateral secession is not due process.

Unless the country agrees to let them go it has the obligation to use force to prevent them

see? fucking nuts.

ng, i hope that should a secessionist movement ever gain strength, you become the public voice of opposition (but have no role whatsoever in policy making, of course).

see? fucking nuts.

ng, i hope that should a secessionist movement ever gain strength, you become the public voice of opposition (but have no role whatsoever in policy making, of course).
He isn't fucking nuts and you are fucking nuts to think so. What he says is a part of how the process would work, a nation that disagrees with the "right to secession" would beat the offending nation into submission. It is EXACTLY what we did during the Civil War. I mean, come on, Uncle Sam could have let them go away or given them over the fort in question or something, they just believed that it was their God-given right to have slaves and wanted to be free from northern oppression. Those things were not right by our standards but at the time it was not unreasonable.

see? fucking nuts.

ng, i hope that should a secessionist movement ever gain strength, you become the public voice of opposition (but have no role whatsoever in policy making, of course).


I should certainly be outspoken.

My career, however, is to be at State, so I doubt they'd let me make the war-plans ;)


Honestly though: a state's primary role is, in my opinion, to uphold just laws equally in all cases.

An assault on the rule of law, by- say, unilateral secession - is a very severe blow against the most legitimate function of a state.

Only significant oppression justifies the unwilling dissolution of a state- simply "wanting to make a new county" is not sufficient.

I hate when people feel they have to demonize Lincoln and romanticize the Confederacy. Makes me think you got a rebel flag and perhaps a black man hanging in your front yard.

I hate when people feel they have to demonize the Confederacy and romanticize Lincoln. Makes me think you've got a mindless and blind desire to fail to look at the facts objectively. Just 'cause you fought for the South doesn't make you a racist. Go home and do some research.

He isn't fucking nuts and you are fucking nuts to think so. What he says is a part of how the process would work, a nation that disagrees with the "right to secession" would beat the offending nation into submission. It is EXACTLY what we did during the Civil War.

he is making an 'ought' statement. an insane one.

the idea that we ought murder people simply for no longer wishing to be part of the same country anymore and bomb their cities until they surrender is ludicrous on the face of it.

unless you thought the yugoslav wars were a good time had by all...

Unless the country agrees to let them go it has the obligation to use force to prevent them.

You see, this is what I can't understand. I don't understand why it's necessary to use force to make people live under a government they don't want.

Also, one of the things states are not permitted to do is take the life, liberty or property of americans without due process of law.

Unilateral secession is not due process.

Who is saying anything about taking life, liberty, or property? Do you think that a seceding state would suddenly become a brutal dictatorship with no regard for these things? Please note that I'm talking about a current US state, not any of the US states circa 1860, some of whom most certainly did or would have violated these.

Let's examine the idea of due process.

Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.

Is this what you have in mind? If so, a unilateral secession can most certainly be due process. If a referendum is held, with a clear and easily understood question, how is that not fair?

You and I both know that you can never have 100% of the populace agreeing on anything. If a clear majority votes in favor, that's about as fair as it can possibly get. There will be some people inside the seceding state who want to remain part of the former nation, but requiring unanimity would be ridiculous. Stopping an action that a majority of the population wants (assuming civil rights will be protected) just because a minority doesn't want it doesn't make any sense.

edit: Of course, if that's not what you meant by due process, please explain it to me.

I hate when people feel they have to demonize the Confederacy and romanticize Lincoln. Makes me think you've got a mindless and blind desire to fail to look at the facts objectively. Just 'cause you fought for the South doesn't make you a racist. Go home and do some research.


What was the south's aim in the civil war?

What precisely were they fighting for?


See the confederacy's vice president explaining the problem with the USA:

The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used 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 idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral 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 is so even amongst us.

Aside from the issue of its abortive secession, the south was morally despicable.

the south was morally despicable.

Agreed.

he is making an 'ought' statement. an insane one.

the idea that we ought murder people simply for no longer wishing to be part of the same country anymore and bomb their cities until they surrender is ludicrous on the face of it.
The ought statement isn't insane, the "right to secede" is treason. Treason is to be met with force.

Yes, you are right, it is. That is why there are no laws about thought crime, the idea that we kill people (murder means unlawful killing and when nations are involved it is usually sanctioned by their laws) when they commit treason is not ludicrious and many people support killing traitors.

Never said I cared about the yugoslav wars anyway, if their nation breaks apart into all those pieces they can react however they want. This does not change the fact that leaving the main country still constitutes treason and that treason is a crime in most nations.

I must state that, in defiance of the opinions of the others on this forum, I find myself in agreement with the author of this article. Now, I can already hear the cries now - "ooooohhhh, racist, let's flame him". I have yet to understand why people automatically equate state's rights with racism, seeing as the two issues are totally and completely unrelated. The Confederacy may have blatantly abused human rights, but this article is not about whether or not the government of the Confederacy was just - it wasn't. What this article is about is the right to secede, a right which the citizens of the colonies exercised to become the loose assortment of nations that eventually became the United States of America. Like it or not, believe it or not, the people who formed the United States were criminals who committed acts of high treason against their own government. Criticizing the Confederacy just seems a bit hypocritical to me. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid Cherokee.

The ought statement isn't insane, the "right to secede" is treason. Treason is to be met with force.

article 3, section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.


next inane talking point

You see, this is what I can't understand. I don't understand why it's necessary to use force to make people live under a government they don't want.



Who is saying anything about taking life, liberty, or property? Do you think that a seceding state would suddenly become a brutal dictatorship with no regard for these things? Please note that I'm talking about a current US state, not any of the US states circa 1860, some of whom most certainly did or would have violated these.

Let's examine the idea of due process.



Is this what you have in mind? If so, a unilateral secession can most certainly be due process. If a referendum is held, with a clear and easily understood question, how is that not fair?

You and I both know that you can never have 100% of the populace agreeing on anything. If a clear majority votes in favor, that's about as fair as it can possibly get. There will be some people inside the seceding state who want to remain part of the former nation, but requiring unanimity would be ridiculous. Stopping an action that a majority of the population wants (assuming civil rights will be protected) just because a minority doesn't want it doesn't make any sense.

edit: Of course, if that's not what you meant by due process, please explain it to me.


A) It is not necessary to use force- those people can leave and live somewhere else. it is necessary to use force to prevent them from disenfranchising their neighbors, &c.

B) What of those who do not want the noveau regime? should they be forced to choose between remaining american and moving (losing their property, liberty) or losing their rights and staying? This is an outrageous revocation of liberty without due process.

C) A local majority is not constitutional due process. If it were, your town could vote to arrest everyone of a certian religion or refuse drivers' licenses to women.

D) Our constitution is not set up to require unanimity - an amendment can be passed in the face of pretty substantial objection. As in the above example, national rights and government trump states' rights and government in a vast number of cases. This is because every american's ultimate rights are those in the constitution, and every american is a citizen primarily of the country and only secondarily of the state.

A) It is not necessary to use force- those people can leave and live somewhere else. it is necessary to use force to prevent them from disenfranchising their neighbors, &c.

Who is being disenfranchised? Citizens will still be able to vote in the seceding state.

B) What of those who do not want the noveau regime? should they be forced to choose between remaining american and moving (losing their property, liberty) or losing their rights and staying? This is an outrageous revocation of liberty without due process.

The specifics would have to be hammered out in negotiations within the seceding state, and the nation they are leaving. Things like dual citizenship and recompensation for property would be possible.

Also, you say "losing their rights and staying". Who is losing rights? You are aware that state constitutions often have greater civil rights protectionst that the US Constitution, right?


C) A local majority is not constitutional due process. If it were, your town could vote to arrest everyone of a certian religion or refuse drivers' licenses to women.

Apples and oranges. You are talking about a "local majority" revoking the civil rights of people, I am talking about them changing the government they owe their allegience to. Two entirely different things.

You keep saying "local majority" as though it is somehow lesser than a "national majority". For some reason I get the impression that you view the US as something like a unitary state. We are not a unitary state, we are a federation of states. Every way we effect the Federal government in this country is through the states. We elect Representatives and Senators to represent the people of our states and our states respectively. We vote for electors to cast votes for our state for the President. This "national majority" you speak of doesn't exist, because in no way, shape, or form are the American people in aggregate ever consulted on anything. The way things work in this country is that the people of the states are sovereign. There is no higher power than them, not the state government, not the Federal government. No power on earth should be able to force a sovereign people to accept a government they no longer find acceptable, for whatever reason.

and every american is a citizen primarily of the country and only secondarily of the state.

And where is that written? From the 14th Amendment it seems that they're equally citizens of the US and their state.

Demonizing Lincoln =/= romanticizing the Confederacy.

Exactly. Hell, look at Lysander Spooner, for example.

For the record, I do not support the Confederacy. It committed far worse abuses during the Civil War than the Union. And of course, it had slavery. I do, however, believe in the right to secession.

Who is being disenfranchised? Citizens will still be able to vote in the seceding state.

but they won't be able to vote for the president of the united states or something, and thus are being denied the only vote that counts. this is why all people not part of the united states do not really have voting rights, regardless of whether their nations hold elections.

but they won't be able to vote for the president of the united states or something, and thus are being denied the only vote that counts. this is why all people not part of the united states do not really have voting rights, regardless of whether their nations hold elections.

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense. And we can't forget that the only thing that guarantees civil rights anywhere in the world is the US Constitution. Without it, the entire world would soon be a despotic hellhole.

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense. And we can't forget that the only thing that guarantees civil rights anywhere in the world is the US Constitution. Without it, the entire world would soon be a despotic hellhole.

In fact, all of the world that isn't A) part of the US, or B) learning from the wise and benevolent example of George W. Bush (hallowed be his name) is a despotic hellhole.

Who is being disenfranchised? Citizens will still be able to vote in the seceding state.



The specifics would have to be hammered out in negotiations within the seceding state, and the nation they are leaving. Things like dual citizenship and recompensation for property would be possible.

Also, you say "losing their rights and staying". Who is losing rights? You are aware that state constitutions often have greater civil rights protectionst that the US Constitution, right?




Apples and oranges. You are talking about a "local majority" revoking the civil rights of people, I am talking about them changing the government they owe their allegience to. Two entirely different things.

You keep saying "local majority" as though it is somehow lesser than a "national majority". For some reason I get the impression that you view the US as something like a unitary state. We are not a unitary state, we are a federation of states. Every way we effect the Federal government in this country is through the states. We elect Representatives and Senators to represent the people of our states and our states respectively. We vote for electors to cast votes for our state for the President. This "national majority" you speak of doesn't exist, because in no way, shape, or form are the American people in aggregate ever consulted on anything. The way things work in this country is that the people of the states are sovereign. There is no higher power than them, not the state government, not the Federal government. No power on earth should be able to force a sovereign people to accept a government they no longer find acceptable, for whatever reason.



And where is that written? From the 14th Amendment it seems that they're equally citizens of the US and their state.

A) I'm talking about voting in elections like those guaranteed them in the constitution.

B) Those things would be possible, but I do not accept the notion that no rights of liberty or property would be abriged. The whole ordeal is unnacceptable on due process grounds.

C) It is not for a local majority to decide which government their neighbors owe allegiance to. American citizens are citizens until they die or move.

D) This is an outrageous and fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanisms of government.

1) The constitution is the supreme law of the land, it trumps every other law passed anywhere by anyone. It can only be altered by a national majority. The people as a whole must be consulted in aggregate for the supreme laws to change.

2) The chief executive can only be elected by national majority (through representative electors, &c &c). The people as a whole must be consulted in aggregate to elect a president.

3) Federal laws are made only when the people as a nation - the national majority - is consulted in aggregate through their representatives.

4) The constitution is interpreted by the supreme court, the decision of which binds every lower court and every branch of local government. The supreme court justices are selected based on the interests of the national majority, expressed in aggregate through elections for senators and the president.

E) The articles of confederation were dissolved. The fancy of states having sovereignty is an anachronism. Ever since states lost the power to defy the US constitution, the US has been a unitary state.

In fact, all of the world that isn't A) part of the US, or B) learning from the wise and benevolent example of George W. Bush (hallowed be his name) is a despotic hellhole.

I think we're on to something. We don't have the US constitution here, and we're not even allowed to call it a despotic hellhole. It's a 'gosh darn heck pit'. Ah if only we had the same founding fathers...

but they won't be able to vote for the president of the united states or something, and thus are being denied the only vote that counts. this is why all people not part of the united states do not really have voting rights, regardless of whether their nations hold elections.

Garbage post :rolleyes:


They certainly dont have the voting rights guaranteed to americans in the constitution. One of the rights we are given is the right to live in a government set up the way the constitution sets it up.

Deprivation of this can only legally occur by means of due process, &c.

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense. And we can't forget that the only thing that guarantees civil rights anywhere in the world is the US Constitution. Without it, the entire world would soon be a despotic hellhole.


The only argument i can glean from this is:

A) The US Constitution is not necessary for free society.

This is true, but its only application to our discussion is:

B) Because the US constitution is not necessary for free society, it should be disregarded.

Not productive.

The only argument i can glean from this is:

A) The US Constitution is not necessary for free society.

This is true, but its only application to our discussion is:

B) Because the US constitution is not necessary for free society, it should be disregarded.

Not productive.

If we're only talking about the US, then the constitution shouldn't be disregarded. But it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that any seceding state or group of states can create their own constitution. And it certainly doesn't apply outside the US... The US Constitution has nothing on Quebec separation.

If we're only talking about the US, then the constitution shouldn't be disregarded. But it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that any seceding state or group of states can create their own constitution. And it certainly doesn't apply outside the US... The US Constitution has nothing on Quebec separation.


That's just the problem.

Americans are guaranteed their constitutional rights regardless of what local majorities dictate.

Say michigan votes 70/30 to secede, draw up a new constitution, &c.

That 30% is still entitled to 100% of its US constitutional rights, regardless of what the rest of the people think or say.