Do States Have A Right of Succession?

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by aboutime
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.

Conventional story told only from the point view of the north.

Matter of fact, the North suffered zero losses at Ft. Sumpter due to said firing of the cannons of the South.

One more thing, back in those days, the range of cannons was very short. Perhaps that explains some damage done the fort yet no injuries to any troops there.

As to surrounding forts, well, why not?

As to citing the law of the constitution, don't you get it? They had left the union and said law no longer mattered.

[logroller]

Conventional story told only from the point view of the north.

Matter of fact, the North suffered zero losses at Ft. Sumpter due to said firing of the cannons of the South.

One more thing, back in those days, the range of cannons was very short. Perhaps that explains some damage done the fort yet no injuries to any troops there.

As to surrounding forts, well, why not?

As to citing the law of the constitution, don't you get it? They had left the union and said law no longer mattered.

I get that the South provoked the war, and lost. The ruling came after the war, not before it; besides that, it said revolution was a means of gaining secession-- but one would need to acheive victory-- the south failed to do so. As for convention-- to the victor go the spoils-- indeed, I think Churchill said it best; when asked about whether history would regard him well he answered, "yes-- because I intend to write it." The South lost; they don't get to write history in their favor. Look at the last words in the Dec of Ind,they pledged their sacred honor; if they'd have lost they'd not be honored as brilliant statesmen; just rebellious colonists.

[Robert A Whit]

I get that the South provoked the war, and lost. The ruling came after the war, not before it; besides that, it said revolution was a means of gaining secession-- but one would need to acheive victory-- the south failed to do so. As for convention-- to the victor go the spoils-- indeed, I think Churchill said it best; when asked about whether history would regard him well he answered, "yes-- because I intend to write it." The South lost; they don't get to write history in their favor.

No, they were provoked. And yes, they lost.

For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.

While the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.

Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.

[logroller]

No, they were provoked.

How so?

For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.

I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.

The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note

...the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.

The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.

Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.

Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

[Kathianne]

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.

I agree. However the main issue through the first thee years of the war was 'The Union' with slavery being the catalyst that brought it forth. Yes, in time through the efforts of the abolitionists and the horror of a grinding Civil War, the people of the North recognized that slavery had to die, now. Piecemeal wasn't going to suffice. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation, which 'freed the slaves' only in the Confederate States. It was the principle.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How so?


I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.

The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note

The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.

Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

There is no getting around how wrong slavery was! The South was locked in a system that was wrong. Yet there are other factors at play here. The way the Federal government sought to handle the problem was wrong as well IMHO. Had they exercised more patience slavery would have been stopped because of its prohibitive costs , low return on the investment and the industrialization of nation. The North attempted to force change too fast and was arrogant as hell about it. People do not make such great changes that quickly without there being a big pushback. Southern people most of all in that regards. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

There is no getting around how wrong slavery was! The South was locked in a system that was wrong. Yet there are other factors at play here. The way the Federal government sought to handle the problem was wrong as well IMHO. Had they exercised more patience slavery would have been stopped because of its prohibitive costs , low return on the investment and the industrialization of nation. The North attempted to force change too fast and was arrogant as hell about it. People do not make such great changes that quickly without there being a big pushback. Southern people most of all in that regards. -Tyr

The South wanted secession, at the time they had a political reason to leave. They didn't have enough white men to make the region politically relevant. That was clear with the election of Lincoln. Indeed, before that with the push to keep slavery only where it existed. Problem with that? Cotton and tobacco deplete the soil, there were reasons for the desire for more lands and that was being denied.

Whoever brought up Japan did make a point: the refusal of expansion of slavery was very much a threat to the South's livelihood, as denying oil to the Japanese. Japan may have settled for being a 'Pacific Power' and left US interests alone, but not with the embargo.

[tailfins]

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.

Every state should strive to succeed. If they want to secede, that is a different conversation.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
No, they were provoked.

How so?

Ans: The invasion by Abe Lincoln! As to seceeding, as a free person, they have the right to remain or abandon a form of government.

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.

I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.

Ans: You are introducing bogus arguments. Will you please stick to the things Abe Lincoln gave as his reason for his invasion. Thank you.

The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note

Ans: Do you have any record of Abe Lincoln making those arguments when he planned to invade VA?

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
...the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.

The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.

Ans: So why did you wait so long to get to the real reason Abe invaded VA? Actually they were a separate nation. No doubt at all.

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.

Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

Ans. Where have you seen me be bitter? This took place so long ago. i don't live in the South. Time for you to brush up on the declaration of independence.

We can't have it both ways. Fine to bail out on England, not fine to bail out on some form of government you no longer can abide. This nation was founded on the very idea people can choose a form of government and of course may have to shed blood to obtain it.

You are all wound up about slaves for some strange reason.

Why strange?

The Negro was complicit in his own slavery. When one is complicit, one does not reward them for that.

Believe it or not, at that time, slavery was quite common and acceptable.

[Robert A Whit]

There is no getting around how wrong slavery was! The South was locked in a system that was wrong. Yet there are other factors at play here. The way the Federal government sought to handle the problem was wrong as well IMHO. Had they exercised more patience slavery would have been stopped because of its prohibitive costs , low return on the investment and the industrialization of nation. The North attempted to force change too fast and was arrogant as hell about it. People do not make such great changes that quickly without there being a big pushback. Southern people most of all in that regards. -Tyr

Yet look at today how much we are all bossed around by government at many levels! Where are those who work for our freedom?

There is no difference in you making me a slave, or a gang of you, or indeed a government. This government has so many rules....

let me give you one example.

Prior to Bush (43) being president, I got an offer.

I would pay X dollars for a box of the rules by the Feds, nevermind the state, that I had to abide to do home loans.

I wish I had weighed the box or kept notes of the weight. But it was very heavy. And the box was large. I think in fact there were over 1 box of rules.

That amounts to me being a slave to the Feds. As I said, then you had other boxes of state rules.

[Robert A Whit]

A very intelligent black from Africa, with a doctors degree was speaking to a group. He was asked about reparations over slavery.

He said something important.

The negro was complicit in slavery. Bought and sold as a normal part of daily life in Africa, we hardly can base the arguments on the right or wrong on today's arguments over morality and so forth.

Today we would never tolerage slavery.

Back then, not only was it acceptable, a dozen presidents owned slaves.

The flag of the USA flew over slavery. It was built into law.

I dunno why the South has to be the scape goat.

[ConHog]

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

I'm not reading this entire thread, but yes states have the right to succeed. No state has to fail.