Do States Have A Right of Succession?

[logroller]

Are you saying that if there isn't an issue, then no problem, no war?

So....if there is no slavery, or people are fine with everyone giving up their guns, then there is no problem?

Well, I guess that's true --- if we didn't care that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, then no war. (That's what the Japanese expected, in fact. That it would be a fait accompli and we'd leave the Pacific Ocean to them.)

So if Britain and France hadn't minded Hitler invading Poland Sept. 1, 1939, there'd have been no WWII?

Well, I guess that's true, but I don't quite see where it gets us. I mean --- there ARE issues, people do care about certain things. Some things that happen do seem to represent crucial national interests.

I guess Lincoln could just have let the South go --- that was certainly what Jefferson Davis hoped for! Or Britain could have just let Germany march through Belgium August 4, 1914 without joining the war and let Germany take France apart like it always does. That nearly happened, in fact: Churchill took exactly the right cabinet members to lunch that weekend and talked them into it.

I'm not sure what you are saying besides that people shouldn't have Issues and then there wouldn't be wars?

You were making sense...until you brought up Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we'd imposed an oil embargo, not because of slavery or secession. Interpreting what I said as people shouldn't have interests/ issues so there'd be no war-- thats asinine. If that was my point I'd just post a music video of Imagine. I was trying to explain there are fundamental reasons for war, not that there shouldn't be. Boiled down-- it's territory & resources. So unless you're prepared to say slaves are just a resource, no different than any other labor, then cut me some slack and quit maligning what I wrote in an attempt to detract from what is, and was, plain for all the world to see as the divisive issue of the American civil war.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/990930.shtml

September 30, 1999 <SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore. Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Even in <CITE>The Federalist,</CITE> the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

[mundame]

You were making sense...until you brought up Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we'd imposed an oil embargo, not because of slavery or secession. Interpreting what I said as people shouldn't have interests/ issues so there'd be no war-- thats asinine. If that was my point I'd just post a music video of Imagine. I was trying to explain there are fundamental reasons for war, not that there shouldn't be. Boiled down-- it's territory & resources. So unless you're prepared to say slaves are just a resource, no different than any other labor, then cut me some slack and quit maligning what I wrote in an attempt to detract from what is, and was, plain for all the world to see as the divisive issue of the American civil war.

I think you are somewhat confused about a number of war issues. You are right that fundamental reasons for war are often control of territory and control of resources (there are some others, like imminent danger of attack). But then you cite issues that were NOT about either territory or resources.

Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor because we had imposed an oil embargo!! How would that help their need for oil? We weren't likely to sell them oil again because they had punished us! Their idea, apparently based on a grossly mistaken idea of the American character, was that if they sunk all our warships, we would leave them to own the Pacific and every country in it (Australia, Philippines, all the European colonies, China, etc.) and all the oil they could conquer locally, from the Dutch colonies they did take, and so on. There were two problems with this. 1) they didn't get our carriers, which were out to sea December 7, 1941. Big, big problem, as the carriers ended up winning the war in the Pacific for us. 2) American policy was moving toward not allowing regional hegemons to develop ANYwhere (we had formally not allowed any regional hegemons in our hemisphere except us since about 1880-- like France trying to take over Mexico, which they did try.) The dramatic evidence of how bad for us it was to let a regional hegemon grow up in Asia --- this concept was termed "the Yellow Peril" --- mobilized the United States into war immediately.

Then you are saying slavery was a resource and therefore a cause of war.....but the North didn't want the South's slaves!

The North wanted the United States to be as big as it used to be, before the Confederacy left. It is true that the South seceded in order to protect the resource of slavery on which their economy was based -- and when they lost that, they were poor for generations, as we all know -- but secession isn't a war. Secession is just secession. Lots of secessions are peaceful, such as when the Soviet Union broke up. It's only a war if armed troops firing weapons cross a border, burning and killing. And that was what the North did, not the South. The North invaded Virginia because they wanted territory. As soon as McClellan's army crossed the Potomac, slavery ceased to be the issue anywhere. Nobody white had another thought about slavery until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation three years later.

Interesting point about Japan, though. Are you saying Japan was justified in strafing Pearl Harbor because we refused to sell them oil for their Rape of Nanking and such in Manchuria? Right now we are refusing to sell or buy or do banking with a LOT of stuff Iran has --- so would you think they would be entitled to bomb New York to force us to stop putting sanctions on them against their nuclear bomb program?

There are a number of strong actions states can take that are not war: sanctions are one, secession is another. If those are always to be treated as war, I don't know, it doesn't leave much scope for actions short of war.

[logroller]

I think you are somewhat confused about a number of war issues. You are right that fundamental reasons for war are often control of territory and control of resources (there are some others, like imminent danger of attack). But then you cite issues that were NOT about either territory or resources.

i.e. loss of territory and resources.

Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor because we had imposed an oil embargo!! How would that help their need for oil? We weren't likely to sell them oil again because they had punished us! Their idea, apparently based on a grossly mistaken idea of the American character, was that if they sunk all our warships, we would leave them to own the Pacific and every country in it (Australia, Philippines, all the European colonies, China, etc.) and all the oil they could conquer locally, from the Dutch colonies they did take, and so on.

You just answered your own question... If they were to sink all our warships.

There were two problems with this. 1) they didn't ...

Noted.

2) American policy was moving toward not allowing regional hegemons to develop ANYwhere (we had formally not allowed any regional hegemons in our hemisphere except us since about 1880-- like France trying to take over Mexico, which they did try.) ((logroller:during our perceived weakness during our civil war))
Then you are saying slavery was a resource and therefore a cause of war.....but the North didn't want the South's slaves!

No they didn't; nor did they want the South using the slave labor in the expanding US territory. AGAIN, I note, territory.

The North wanted the United States to be as big as it used to be, before the Confederacy left. It is true that the South seceded in order to protect the resource of slavery on which their economy was based -- and when they lost that, they were poor for generations, as we all know -- but secession isn't a war. Secession is just secession. Lots of secessions are peaceful, such as when the Soviet Union broke up. It's only a war if armed troops firing weapons cross a border, burning and killing. And that was what the North did, not the South.

Fort Sumpter was the first military action of the civil war; commenced by the Confederate South.

The North invaded Virginia because they wanted territory(BACK). As soon as McClellan's army crossed the Potomac, slavery ceased to be the issue anywhere. Nobody white had another thought about slavery until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation three years later.

Well, war is war-- once waged, victory ~ unconditional surrender of your opponent becomes the objective. The emancipation proclamation was invoked for military purposes IMO-- the Union needed soldiers, freemen served. I'd mentioned this earlier, but newly freed blacks of the confederate south were the only slaves freed. Union states' slaves would have to wait until after the war to become free.

Interesting point about Japan, though. Are you saying Japan was justified in strafing Pearl Harbor because we refused to sell them oil for their Rape of Nanking and such in Manchuria? Right now we are refusing to sell or buy or do banking with a LOT of stuff Iran has --- so would you think they would be entitled to bomb New York to force us to stop putting sanctions on them against their nuclear bomb program?

Entitled-- as in, they have the right? NO. Besides, it'd be a suicide mission. But they've a history of instigating bloodshed over trivial matters, so I wouldn't put it past them.

There are a number of strong actions states can take that are not war: sanctions are one, secession is another. If those are always to be treated as war, I don't know, it doesn't leave much scope for actions short of war.

Well the SCOTUS case after the war left state political action and war as the means of leaving the Union, not unilateral diplomatic secession. It all hinges on what makes a more perfect union IMHO. Is it more perfect to have a state unilaterally secede, or require them to have the remaining states endorse/capitulate upon the disenfranchised states' demands?

[mundame]

Whole lot of secession going on --- Scotland will vote on seceding in 2013, IIRC, and now Venice is trying to separate from Italy.

Mass rally in Venice to call for independence from Italy

Two centuries after Napoleonic forces snuffed out the 1,000-year Venetian
Republic, Venetians are once again aspiring to become an independent state.

Recent surveys show widespread support for independence among Venetians, who
speak a distinct dialect and feel geographically and culturally distant from
Rome.
A poll conducted by Corriere della Sera in September found that 80 per cent
were in favour of independence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rom-Italy.html

[mundame]

Fort Sumpter was the first military action of the civil war; commenced by the Confederate South.

True. I went out to Fort Sumter on a boat once. It wasn't a significant military action, of course; more a signal that the big move was starting.

Well, war is war-- once waged, victory ~ unconditional surrender of your opponent becomes the objective.

Yes, theoretically, which rather leads to the question of what we have been doing with the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan "wars," since none of them were wars with the objective you describe. I've decided to consider it "security colonization" -- it certainly isn't war.

Well the SCOTUS case after the war left state political action and war as the means of leaving the Union, not unilateral diplomatic secession. It all hinges on what makes a more perfect union IMHO. Is it more perfect to have a state unilaterally secede, or require them to have the remaining states endorse/capitulate upon the disenfranchised states' demands?

I'm no fan of the concept that rules and treaties and "international law" has anything at all to do with such matters as war and secession. There are always, always rules against peoples doing what some other power doesn't want them to. It's probably against 73 international laws for Iran to build nukes, but that hardly matters. It was against all sorts of treaties and agreements for Germany to invade Belgium, but they goosestepped across the border by the hundreds of thousands and millions all the same, because they could. If people want to do something and CAN do it, they do, that's all. The Hutu genocide of the Tutsis; the Armenian genocide; the American Revolution; the splitting off of all the Soviet provinces as soon as they realized Russia could no longer do anything to stop them.

It's against at least two important treaties for Greece to leave the Euro or the EU; however, if it goes, it will go all in one weekend.

People on forums are suddenly very interested in Southern secession in 1860. I suppose that's because the current national split is so serious and we're gearing up for another. I don't think the feds could stop it this time; after all, most American soldiers come from Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, so where would they get the manpower? And it might well be like the Soviet Union split, when it blew apart in all directions, and the West coast states break off and form the California Republic, and the northwestern states combine in their own separate country. We could easily have four or five countries from U.S. territory within a few days. Big things happen in a few days or not at all, I think.

[Robert A Whit]

You were making sense...until you brought up Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we'd imposed an oil embargo, not because of slavery or secession. Interpreting what I said as people shouldn't have interests/ issues so there'd be no war-- thats asinine. If that was my point I'd just post a music video of Imagine. I was trying to explain there are fundamental reasons for war, not that there shouldn't be. Boiled down-- it's territory & resources. So unless you're prepared to say slaves are just a resource, no different than any other labor, then cut me some slack and quit maligning what I wrote in an attempt to detract from what is, and was, plain for all the world to see as the divisive issue of the American civil war.

You are cominging again. Acting as if the reason why Abe invaded was due to Slavery. No, Abe himself stated his invasion was not due to slavery.

First, had Abe refused to invade, we would not mention such a thing as a Civil War.

Abe had it all in his hands.

Stated left the union due to slavery as one of many issues, but that did not mean there had to be war.

Abe provoked the South.

Having not yet read Di Lorenzos book, I expect he made that same argument.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

True. I went out to Fort Sumter on a boat once. It wasn't a significant military action, of course; more a signal that the big move was starting.




Yes, theoretically, which rather leads to the question of what we have been doing with the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan "wars," since none of them were wars with the objective you describe. I've decided to consider it "security colonization" -- it certainly isn't war.




I'm no fan of the concept that rules and treaties and "international law" has anything at all to do with such matters as war and secession. There are always, always rules against peoples doing what some other power doesn't want them to. It's probably against 73 international laws for Iran to build nukes, but that hardly matters. It was against all sorts of treaties and agreements for Germany to invade Belgium, but they goosestepped across the border by the hundreds of thousands and millions all the same, because they could. If people want to do something and CAN do it, they do, that's all. The Hutu genocide of the Tutsis; the Armenian genocide; the American Revolution; the splitting off of all the Soviet provinces as soon as they realized Russia could no longer do anything to stop them.

It's against at least two important treaties for Greece to leave the Euro or the EU; however, if it goes, it will go all in one weekend.


People on forums are suddenly very interested in Southern secession in 1860. I suppose that's because the current national split is so serious and we're gearing up for another. I don't think the feds could stop it this time; after all, most American soldiers come from Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, so where would they get the manpower? And it might well be like the Soviet Union split, when it blew apart in all directions, and the West coast states break off and form the California Republic, and the northwestern states combine in their own separate country. We could easily have four or five countries from U.S. territory within a few days. Big things happen in a few days or not at all, I think.

^^^ Very interesting observations on a possible split should the Federal government proceed further in its Unconstitutional power grabbing , desire to illegally target tax certain groups out of existence and ever growing dictatorial Presidential decrees! If Texas goes , Im going there within a week or two, as fast as I can get my things together. Im not at all for a split but have plans made should one occur.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are cominging again. Acting as if the reason why Abe invaded was due to Slavery. No, Abe himself stated his invasion was not due to slavery.

First, had Abe refused to invade, we would not mention such a thing as a Civil War.

Abe had it all in his hands.

Stated left the union due to slavery as one of many issues, but that did not mean there had to be war.

Abe provoked the South.

Having not yet read Di Lorenzos book, I expect he made that same argument.

You are dead on accurate. The North drove the South to leave the Union , then decided to invade to stop it..
I suspect that obama would love to see a split too. -Tyr

[logroller]

You are cominging again. Acting as if the reason why Abe invaded was due to Slavery. No, Abe himself stated his invasion was not due to slavery.

First, had Abe refused to invade, we would not mention such a thing as a Civil War.
Had the southern states not seceded; Abe wouldn't have had to.
Abe had it all in his hands.

Stated left the union due to slavery as one of many issues, but that did not mean there had to be war.
Right up until the south fired on fort Sumter, I suppose there was a chance of peaceful resolution. Just how many nations have divided peaceably?

Abe provoked the South.
The south seized federal forts before Lincoln was inaugurated-- then attacked fort Sumter -- the south provoked Lincoln.
Having not yet read Di Lorenzos book, I expect he made that same argument.

The facts don't support your arguments.

[Kathianne]

Yes. The secessionist thought maintaining slavery was a crucial national interests; the north didn't think maintaining slavery was crucial to the national interest. North wins...but its still about slavery.

Take you gun control war, take away the gun issue, no gun bans take effect-- do those states secede?

No, it was about secession, at least at first. Certainly slavery was the catalyst that brought forth secession, but Lincoln really tried to mitigate that. He was more than willing to let slavery die a 'natural death' by forbidding any more importation, but letting it proceed from where it was.

Ft. Sumter began the change for the Union, but not all at once. While the abolitionists were mostly in the North, nowhere near a majority of Northerners believed that slavery should just be 'ended' here and now. They were more like Lincoln.

It was the Southerners who recognized that without expansion into territories and without new importations of slaves, that institution would die.

[aboutime]

The facts don't support your arguments.

logroller. Why don't they? Could it be....because you say so? And only you are permitted to interpret actual Historical facts that satisfy your personal agenda?

NEWSFLASH logroller. You, despite how much you insist otherwise. Are not the final answer here. As for the argument. Give us some facts TO SUPPORT yours!

[logroller]

logroller. Why don't they? Could it be....because you say so? And only you are permitted to interpret actual Historical facts that satisfy your personal agenda?

NEWSFLASH logroller. You, despite how much you insist otherwise. Are not the final answer here. As for the argument. Give us some facts TO SUPPORT yours!

I have given facts. Read my posts. The confederate south surrounded union forts before Lincoln's inauguration, and shortly thereafter the South Carolina militia fired the first shots despite Lincoln saying in his inaugural address he wanted no bloodshed and wished to find a peaceful resolution. So unless being elected is provocative, and advocating diplomacy are fighting words; then Abe provoking the war is patently false. Furthermore, I've introduced case law defining the constitutionality of secession. The reality is the South lost; had they won, things would be different. There's a lesson in this in that when you start a war you're fighting not only for what you can gain, but what you get to keep. in a winner take all scenario, you damn well better win-- Wage war wisely.

[Kathianne]

I have given facts. Read my posts. The confederate south surrounded union forts before Lincoln's inauguration, and shortly thereafter the South Carolina militia fired the first shots despite Lincoln saying in his inaugural address he wanted no bloodshed and wished to find a peaceful resolution. So unless being elected is provocative, and advocating diplomacy are fighting words; then Abe provoking the war is patently false. Furthermore, I've introduced case law defining the constitutionality of secession. The reality is the South lost; had they won, things would be different. There's a lesson in this in that when you start a war you're fighting not only for what you can gain, but what you get to keep. in a winner take all scenario, you damn well better win-- Wage war wisely.

I've not read the entire thread, nor all your posts. The fact that the South was ready from the election, was more a reflection on no needed votes from the South to have Lincoln elected. The South knew that within the Union, they were an insignificant electoral minority. That wouldn't do, not for their way or life, more importantly, their livelihood via slavery. While the South got that, the North didn't, including Lincoln, they had a different vision.

The eradication of slavery was a long term goal, but the holding together of the Union was paramount. Thus Lincoln was able to say in 1862,

http://www.carrothers.com/lincoln.htm

"August 22, 1862
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

[logroller]

I've not read the entire thread, nor all your posts. The fact that the South was ready from the election, was more a reflection on no needed votes from the South to have Lincoln elected. The South knew that within the Union, they were an insignificant electoral minority. That wouldn't do, not for their way or life, more importantly, their livelihood via slavery. While the South got that, the North didn't, including Lincoln, they had a different vision.

The eradication of slavery was a long term goal, but the holding together of the Union was paramount. Thus Lincoln was able to say in 1862,

Neither were you saying I've given no facts.
I'm thankful that those whose livelihood amd way of life was dependent on slavery were an insignificant electoral minority. Human servitude is not a vision worthy of promotion IMO. I do think state's rights took a hit though.