Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default Do States Have A Right of Succession?

    http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-of-secession/

    .Do States Have a Right of Secession?
    Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
    Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

    Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “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.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

    At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

    On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-
    Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,760
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    165
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306079

    Default

    States do not have a right to succeed.

    YOU, however, can leave whenever you want to. The sooner the better. I would suggest Saudi Arabia. There are zero liberals there.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks (Given)
    5574
    Thanks (Received)
    6627
    Likes (Given)
    5342
    Likes (Received)
    3966
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558168

    Default

    Wow, very tolerant of you, Gabby. You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing him of.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks (Given)
    5574
    Thanks (Received)
    6627
    Likes (Given)
    5342
    Likes (Received)
    3966
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558168

    Default

    I hear an Indian nation is seceding.
    Last edited by SassyLady; 10-01-2012 at 11:53 PM.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-of-secession/

    .Do States Have a Right of Secession?
    Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
    Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

    Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “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.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

    At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

    On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-
    Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr
    The constitution is pretty ingenious; it prescribes a method of adding states, but not removing them. So it's left, then, to states or to the people pursuant to Amendment X. There was a Scotus case following the civil war that ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, citing the articles of confederation and the preamble as reference. But it left open the possibility for states to do so "through revolution, or through consent of the states."-- The people and the states, respectively. So yes, they have the right, but have they the capability? I have the right to make a billion dollars...
    Last edited by logroller; 10-02-2012 at 01:15 AM.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Sure they/we have a right.
    On a pragmatic level I'm glad Lincoln did what he did though.
    But now, IMO, a greater evil, like slavery, is not at issue.
    The U.S was founded on the idea freedom, I think calling of the Civil War "the last battle of the American Revolution" is appropriate.

    But the original understanding of the union of States was voluntary.
    Does Spain or Great Britain have the right to leave European "Union"?
    Similar here.

    If we become part of a "North American Union" could we leave?
    Can nation "states" leave the U.N.?
    Does an abused woman have right to leave a marriage? In Muslims countries it aint so easy. In a free country she can get out of dodge without being concerned about her neighbors beating back into the house with her husband.
    Some peoples idea of patriotism is that the appearance of union and the flag means more than the gov't's real relationship being based the realities of freedoms promoted in the Constitution.


    I'm not sure secession is the best idea, but it may be the only decent option soon, if not already.
    But is it a right? Sure.
    Last edited by revelarts; 10-02-2012 at 01:29 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515010

    Default

    We used to, until like half the country decided it was gonna go ahead and do just that. I mean, neither side was really at a point where they could survive without the other. Even with slaves, the south would've collapsed somewhat quickly due to their limited industrial capacity (One of the reasons the south lost the war.). The North, meanwhile, didn't have the growing capacity of the South
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Think Solyndra and you have my city. Not far from San Jose and SE of San Francisco.
    Posts
    6,090
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Di Lorenzo hated by Democrats

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-of-secession/

    .Do States Have a Right of Secession?
    Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
    Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

    Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “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.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

    At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

    On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-
    Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr
    If ever you could mention a man that Democrats despise, perhaps more than Grover Norquist, it is Di Lorenzo. His book, HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA, is a classic but despised by Democrats.

    Thomas makes the only correct argument. I have got into lots of trouble with Democrats and some Republicans by calling Abe a thug president.

    Thomas lays out his case very well. I get accused of supporting slavery. That is a vile lie when told. I am pro freedom. We keep ignoring that the flag that flew over slavery far longer than any flag is the flag of 1861 for the USA. That flag was for a republic that supported slavery by law. Actual court cases came out in support of slavery. I maintain that it took the South many decades of being kicked around in DC to finally revolt. But they first voted. That to me showed they did it by rule of law. Had some wild eyed Governor of said states did it on his own, no way jose. But the people got involved. I maintain that slavery was always going to vanish in this country. No need to kill off 630,000 humans to collect back the states. Abe was wrong.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    We used to, until like half the country decided it was gonna go ahead and do just that. I mean, neither side was really at a point where they could survive without the other. Even with slaves, the south would've collapsed somewhat quickly due to their limited industrial capacity (One of the reasons the south lost the war.). The North, meanwhile, didn't have the growing capacity of the South
    I disagree, I believe that states do have that right. My opening posts listed a few famous founders and constitutional experts that state the states do have that right. Im sure I can next post list a few more .
    Rev. was right it may come to that soon . Texas wil be the most likely candidate and I wil move there first week it does so. For I'd rather not live as a slave in th rest of the union. We currently work the first 5+ months to pay all the taxes levied on us, that is those of us that still work. -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Think Solyndra and you have my city. Not far from San Jose and SE of San Francisco.
    Posts
    6,090
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default They live in their state yet deny

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    I disagree, I believe that states do have that right. My opening posts listed a few famous founders and constitutional experts that state the states do have that right. Im sure I can next post list a few more .
    Rev. was right it may come to that soon . Texas wil be the most likely candidate and I wil move there first week it does so. For I'd rather not live as a slave in th rest of the union. We currently work the first 5+ months to pay all the taxes levied on us, that is those of us that still work. -Tyr
    What amazes me is how democrats mostly often refuse to defend their own state. Claiming their state can't leave the union is tantamount to admitting they accept the fate of their state no matter what happens to it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert A Whit View Post
    What amazes me is how democrats mostly often refuse to defend their own state. Claiming their state can't leave the union is tantamount to admitting they accept the fate of their state no matter what happens to it.
    They think that states dont matter, its the Almighty federal government that they seek to make an all powerful ruling Hydra. Trust me on that....--Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert A Whit View Post
    If ever you could mention a man that Democrats despise, perhaps more than Grover Norquist, it is Di Lorenzo. His book, HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA, is a classic but despised by Democrats.

    Thomas makes the only correct argument. I have got into lots of trouble with Democrats and some Republicans by calling Abe a thug president.

    Thomas lays out his case very well. I get accused of supporting slavery. That is a vile lie when told. I am pro freedom. We keep ignoring that the flag that flew over slavery far longer than any flag is the flag of 1861 for the USA. That flag was for a republic that supported slavery by law. Actual court cases came out in support of slavery. I maintain that it took the South many decades of being kicked around in DC to finally revolt. But they first voted. That to me showed they did it by rule of law. Had some wild eyed Governor of said states did it on his own, no way jose. But the people got involved. I maintain that slavery was always going to vanish in this country. No need to kill off 630,000 humans to collect back the states. Abe was wrong.
    You got any evidence to go along with that belief?
    The words and docs of the south say different.

    They wouldn't even vote to donate their slaves to the cause of the war much less think of freeing them anytime soon... never really. No plans AT ALL.

    Have you read the Confederate Constitution RW?
    "....(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
    Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

    Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
    Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

    (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried 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 slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due."
    Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

    (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States....
    Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.


    Look the ONLY significant differences in the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are the provisions on "NEGRO SLAVERY", (not White slavery, or Indian slavery or indentured servitude BTW).

    RW you need to rethink your position, whatever books you've read seemed to have skipped some basic points.

    When Jefferson Davis Left the U.S. congress he gave speech that 1st sets forth the idea that it's LEGAL for states to secede THEN he tells WHY Mississippi and the others are seceding.

    "...it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal,..."

    Horror of horrors they heard that all men might mean ALL men! And Voted all legal and orderly like to make sure the idea didn't infect them.


    Davis makes it PAINFULLY clear that, not only Mississippi but, the south believed that Negro slavery was a right that should be maintained even at the cost of secession.
    No other reasons are given.
    NONE.

    You can maintain what you want but there's no doubt that the fact is slavery was THE issue that the civil war turned on. Other issues notwithstanding. And there were No plans for confederate emancipation on the horizon.
    Last edited by revelarts; 10-02-2012 at 11:09 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

    One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

    Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

    In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.
    Last edited by logroller; 10-03-2012 at 01:42 AM.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

    One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

    Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

    In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.
    And it kept England from joining the war on the side of the confederacy.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,800
    Thanks (Given)
    29
    Thanks (Received)
    199
    Likes (Given)
    107
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1284555

    Default

    Totally off the point, I realize, but secession is a big European issue right now.

    Catalonia is genuinely gearing up to secede from Spain --- tearing the national fabric established by Ferninand and Isabelle back in 1492! (Yes, THAT Ferdinand and Isabelle.) The reason is that Catalonia is rich and the other regions are poor, so like peripheral countries sucking on Germany as much as Germany will let them, the rest of Spain is sucking on Catalonia, which wants oOUT.

    And of course the question of whether it is legal to secede from the European Union or even secede from the Euro monetary union --- is it legal for Greece to just leave, default to all the northern banks, devalue the drachma? "Legal" doesn't matter, of course --- what always matters in international affairs is whether a country can pull something off.

    A more interesting question is can Germany secede from the Euro -- so that other countries can't suck all their money out. Like Catalonia wants to. Would Spain fight to keep Catalonia? I bet they would. Would the rest of the European Union fight to keep and enslave Germany?

    Probably would be a bad idea to fight Germany, if history is any guide.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums