A Question on Secession

[Ga.windbreak]

I voted "Yes" and for several reasons.

1. It was Massachusetts that first asserted the right of states to secede and they threatened to do so four different times.
2. Thomas Jefferson clearly acknowledged the right of secession when there was talk of the newly formed territories following the Louisiana Purchase. Mass. being the main state to do so, it was their third time to do so.
3. Lincoln, himself, in his 1848 speech
and
4. Several states, most notably Virginia, had in their original Constitution the right to secede.

the people of Virginia declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of these people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression;

I wanted to come back and add this quick history; quote:

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; 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."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "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."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

It should also be noted that while operating under the Articles of Confederation we had no President. That Title and Position was filled first by George Washington on April 30, 1789. After the US Constitution was ratifed

[bilmac]

In the eyes of the Confederates they were just doing what the founding fathers had done. Revolution is a hard thing. The Bible says don't do it, but our founding fathers were religeous men, and they finally said enough. and started the greatest country the would has ever known. I just finished a book "Against All Enimies" by Harold Coyle which looks at the idea from another perspective. Recommended reading, besides the morality issue it spins a pretty good story.

[ironfoot]

The Union was founded by the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was enacted to form a more perfect Union. If the results of an election can be overtunrned by secession, then democracy cannot exist. Benjamin Franklin stated that we had a republic, if we can keep it. Lincoln made sure we kept it.

[Ga.windbreak]

The Union was founded by the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was enacted to form a more perfect Union. If the results of an election can be overturned by secession, then democracy cannot exist. Benjamin Franklin stated that we had a republic, if we can keep it. Lincoln made sure we kept it.

Ben was talking about our type of Government only and nothing else. As far as Lincoln keeping a republican form of government, he made sure to kill it not keep it.

Well the King of England, at that time and he (of all people) should know, doesn't agree with you and I quote:

"ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

I'm quoting the last paragraph below, the only place that the word united is used at all.

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.


You will notice that the only two times the word united is used it is used in the context of being an adjective in describing each State rather than being capitalized to indicate being the United States and it goes on to name those things that only a Government can do; Power to levy War, contract Alliances, and all other things Which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. If they were United rather than united they could not be Independent now could they. Also if they were United as you claim then we should call ourselves the UNITED COLONIES of AMERICA. They also, as way of clarification, used the word STATE (capitalized) to describe Great Britain and not all of its other colonies. 

The truth is there for you to see and just because you say it’s not true doesn’t make it any less so. Your Prof. Jaffa needs to go back to school and learn English grammar.

* Made bold by me to point out that the word is used in the way I've described; I did NOT change the way the word was written. It is not capitalized in it's proper text.

[ironfoot]

In the Declaration the word "united" is also used in the heading. The Declaration was followed by the Articles of Confederation, and then by the Constitution. The Declaration includes a list of greivances against the king. One of those greivances is:

"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."

"Country" is singular, not plural.

 "An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

The Constitution begins with the words:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...."

You will notice that "Union" is capitalized.
If the union did not preexist the Consitution, how could the Constitution create a "more perfect Union"?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

[Ga.windbreak]

In the Declaration the word "united" is also used in the heading. The Declaration was followed by the Articles of Confederation, and then by the Constitution. The Declaration includes a list of greivances against the king. One of those greivances is:

"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."

"Country" is singular, not plural.

 "An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

The Constitution begins with the words:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...."

You will notice that "Union" is capitalized.
If the union did not preexist the Consitution, how could the Constitution create a "more perfect Union"?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

You really do like to mislead and twist things around, don't you. Well I will say one thing you've had a good teacher, ole Abe himself, I give you that.

First you Quote The DOI and then you Quote the AOC to support the DOI and then you Quote the COUS to say a more perfect union.

Well first off the States of the United States don't have the right to do the things that the King of Britain relinquished to the States of the American Colonies. The DOI was a treaty between the 13 colonies as well as a declaration to the King that they were in secession from him. Just like the UN is a treaty between all of the States within it and I don't think that the UN would go to war with the US if we pulled out, do you? Then again they my have a Lincoln within their ranks so anything is possible.

The AOC was our first stab at a central government, which by the way, the CSA went back to with its Constitution. The Articles also had a way to properly secede from the Union, which made it legal to secede from the Union. The major signers of the AOC were not happy with their results as it made the central government to weak and the States to strong, they tended to argue to much among themselves. So they desided to try again and wrote the Constitution which gave to the central government many of the powers that, up until then, were the privey of the States themselves; vis. to form "a more perfect union." Also the United States were to be formed even if only 9 States ratifed the Constitution. the other 4 would go about their business just as they had done before, making treaties, declaring war, and all the other things that States are legally able to do.

You really might want to read "The Federalist Papers" because it explains all of this in detail. Its only some 87 pages long and goes into great detail on everything we are talking about. You also "Get It" from the horses mouth, so to speak. Much better that some prof. who reallydoesnt know what he is talking about; both from a historical point as well as not having lived in the time frame he seems so bent on judging. Hes not very good you know.

Your right and its also not capitalized there either is it. 

[ironfoot]

"Well first off the States of the United States don't have the right to do the things that the King of Britain relinquished to the States of the American Colonies."

Are you serious? Do you really believe that Americans only have the rights relinquished by the King of Britain? America claimed rights that were "self evident". America won its freedom by force of arms.

Union is capitalized in the preamble to the Constitution. Here is the quote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

Your arguments would sound more credible if they were without personal attack. You may not agree with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I twist things around.

The issue of whether secession was legal or not has been argued ad nauseum for well over 100 years. People could not agree, so it was settled by force of arms, just like in the Revolutionary War.

Arguing still today that states can legally secede is dangerous. There are those who want to break off the part of the southwestern US that was formally part of Mexico, and form a new nation.

The question now is, why do you continue to defend a rebellion to preserve slavery?

[Ga.windbreak]

"Well first off the States of the United States don't have the right to do the things that the King of Britain relinquished to the States of the American Colonies."

Are you serious? Do you really believe that Americans only have the rights relinquished by the King of Britain? America claimed rights that were "self evident". America won its freedom by force of arms.

Union is capitalized in the preamble to the Constitution. Here is the quote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

Your arguments would sound more credible if they were without personal attack. You may not agree with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I twist things around.

The issue of whether secession was legal or not has been argued ad nauseum for well over 100 years. People could not agree, so it was settled by force of arms, just like in the Revolutionary War.

Arguing still today that states can legally secede is dangerous. There are those who want to break off the part of the southwestern US that was formally part of Mexico, and form a new nation.

The question now is, why do you continue to defend a rebellion to preserve slavery?

Can your state, today, declare war on another State by itself? No, of course not, the Federal government can only do that. After the war of Independence each and every State had that right along with every other right that now only the Federal Government has. The same goes for making coins and printing money, having a State run bank all of these things that now only the Feds can do; at the time of the treaty with England each State (Colony) had all these rights. So yes I'm very serious.

As for your statement about this being personal; it's not on my part but I could say the very same thing about you and your continued refusal to answer my questions with the same respect that I've tried to answer yours.

I have on several occasions apologised for a mistake when you've pointed one out while you've never shown me the same courtesy when you've made one and/or quoted something that was false and I took the time to show you where you were wrong. Showing respect is a two way street in my part of the country, what about in your part?

I'm more than willing to continue this debate because I enjoy it and am learning things I never knew before about OUR country. What we (you and I) were taught in school is wrong, believe it or not, and in my mind we will NEVER get passed this time frame until or unless we view history as it really happened. Because unless we do; the thing that Jefferson said will, I believe in fact, come true.

We can only be defeated from within if we are already divided (which we are going by this thread and I'm sorry you can't see that). My only desire is for the truth not some made up story about how Lincoln is the greatest President we ever had. Comparing him to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or any of the Presidents who tried to build on what was started rather than tear it down by a civil war is the height of arrogance. Did he save the Union or just change it to something it was NEVER meant to be. There were other ways but he never tried them and by the way I hold Jefferson Davis to the same standard because he was just as wrong. To accuse me of wanting to preserve slavery is, in my book, way out of line. I only want the truth, slavery was a bad institution and needed to go but there were better ways to accomplish that job than the killing of almost 700,000 men women and children plus living with the divide that it has brought about. Not only between North and South but also Black and White. I'm sorry you don't feel the same because your ONLY answer seems to be that Slavery was and is the only and overriding problem. I've found that even the staunchest Lincoln defender, but you, is more than willing to concede that fact. My question to you is; why are you so afraid of the truth about the man? The facts are there for you to see yet you, without fail, fall back on the issue of slavery. Why is that?

There are so many other points that could be brought up that was wrong on both sides but you always come back to slavery. There is so much more to that era (1820-1870) than slavery good and bad but it seems not so, at least, from your point of view. I would give you much more credit but you won't acknowledge anything but slavery. So I will leave the field to you until or unless you come up with something more than what I see coming from you. I am not your enemy but I tell you sincerly that your unwillingness to see the truth for what it is is your enemy and the country's unless it wakes up to the things which divide us as you yourself pointed out; but can't see or are unwilling to admit.

[PaulS]

The federal government has no rights. They only have the power to do what the constitution spells out in black and white.
The powers of the federal government is further limited by the tenth ammendment:
10th Amendment
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
    nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People attempted to limit the federal government to retain the State's rights. The Federalists were wrong and the anti-federalists have been proven right.

[Ga.windbreak]

The federal government has no rights. They only have the power to do what the constitution spells out in black and white.
The powers of the federal government is further limited by the tenth ammendment:
10th Amendment
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
    nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People attempted to limit the federal government to retain the State's rights. The Federalists were wrong and the anti-federalists have been proven right.

Thats a two thumbs up PaulS I sure hope WC drops in and reads your post here cause he thinks like the Feds. that we are all subservent ot the Fed which, of course now we are.

[williamlayton]

Under the constitution it is illegal and has been argued before the high court and in lengthy and heated debates only too fail under law.
No one has ever denied the right too rebel--but--if you lose--well, you know--you lose.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Under the constitution it is illegal and has been argued before the high court and in lengthy and heated debates only too fail under law.
No one has ever denied the right too rebel--but--if you lose--well, you know--you lose.
Blessings

WL, cuse me, illegal? Please show me where in the Constitution that it is and Its NEVER been argued before the High Court, to my knowledge. If I'm wrong please show me; chapter and verse??

Secession and rebellion are two different things. I do agree that it was settled by the sword but that doesn't make it right does it. If, on the other hand, you believe it does you just might want to tell that to the Georgians who have been overrun by the Reds. I don't think that they will be in agreement with you though.

And to you too.