Was secession "legal"?

[nohorse]

I hold to my original opinion, freedom died at Appomattox.

You mean the freedom to own other people as property?

I think he meant the right to exist as a sovereign state in a willing partnership with a centralized government that serves the people rather than rules the people.  Subjugation did not stop after reconstruction - the government that evolved from these divisive policies and the people’s perception of government were forever changed.  Yes, I agree, freedom indeed died at Appomattox – for both the north and the South.

[missouri dave]

Nohorse hit it exactly. I'm sure all of us here will agree that slavery was despicable. The lost freedom I was referring to was the freedom from oppressive tyranny of a totalitarian overlord government.  The civil war set the precident of the government persecuting law abiding citizens. Someone please explain to me how the South seeking to leave the oppressive union was any different than the American colonies leaving the oppressive british empire? The only difference is that during the American revolution the good guys won. During the Confederate revolution, if you will allow me to call it that, the good guys lost.  A number of southern generals were quoted to say the south should have freed the slaves first, then fired on fort sumter.

[lakota]

On a different note did the War set race relations back? Think of the past 140 years of cause and effect, Radical Reconstruction, Sherman's Special Field Order 15-"Forty Acres and a Mule", post Civil War white-on-black violence and the rise of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, the influx of freedmen into the cities of the south, laws excluding certain former Confederates from political privileges, ad nauseum. A lot of these things could only have served to breed hate and resentment. Had slavery just been allowed to run it's course and die a natural death and then the former slaves been integrated into society rather than forcibly inserted by some Federal Government mandates, race relations might have been considerably warmer over the last century and a half.

No offense meant to anyone-just throwing this out for discussion-

Scott.

[ironfoot]

Bushmaster:
You said:
"Despite the quotes that prove Lincoln was the worst sort of racist and started the war to "save the union", not free the slaves, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, you still cling steadfastly to your beliefs."

I said all along that Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the Union.
He also had the goal to stop the spread of slavery in the territories, and to eventually end slavery. He said so many times. How does that make him the "worst sort of racist"?

Lincoln advocated stopping the spread of slavery into the territories, giving union black soldiers the right to vote, and intended the end of slavery over time. That made him a racist in the mid 1800s? What sort of drivel are they teaching as revisionist history in the south these days? At a time when the south thought blacks should be property, Lincoln said they should be free, and at least some of them should be granted the right to vote. So a southerner shot Lincoln.

[biblebeliever]

The right of secession was never doubted in early America. In fact, Virginia would never have entered the union if She did not think she could come out again. Also, check out the information available on the ideas about secession in the north. It wasnt just a southern thing. New England threatened to secede over the Mexican War, (I think; or maybe it was the war of 1812.) Anyway, the north also believed in secession, and no one denied them that right. The south had every right to secede according contemporary doctrine on the Constitution. (States' Rights)

See ya later,

BB

[Telahnay's g'son]

The question of secession (as others have stated earlier) was purposely left somewhat mercurical in order to gain initial ratification of the federal government.

The War of Northern Aggression was necessary in order to secure the industrial NE states' total control of where the country was headed in the future.  AKA: Building an Empire.

The Confederacy was isolated (politically speaking) and therefore left with military action as their only option which is exactly as scripted by the Northern States of America.

What they (north) didn't count on was the passion for defense of their country by the CSA.  The Federal Navy blockade saved the day.  The CSA basically ran out of powder and ball.  

The USMC has retreated from an opposing army only ONCE in it's 200+ year existence.  Guess which army they were facing.

The first race riot, where & when?  1862, NYC

NYC even contemplated secession.

There's a reason they called it "Lincoln's War".

WHO sent black folks back to Africa?

Ever heard of Liberia?

Didn't someone say Appomattox only began the halftime show?  Wonder when the third quarter starts?

[ironfoot]

Telahnay's g'son
I agree with much of what you wrote.
But the fact remains that the southern states seceded in order to preserve slavery where it existed, and in the hopes of expanding it to the territories.
Yes the rebels were good warriors.
Yes, many in the north did not like being drafted in order to free black people...which goes to show that they knew that was the issue in the Rebellion to Preserve Slavery.

And God bless the USMC, and the men and women in the other branches of service for the US.

[Boogeyman]

The Confederate soldier has been said to be second only to the Roman Legionaire in fighting capability.

Probably why much of the military's enlisted personnel (~65% during the height of Vietnam) are rural southerners.

Like Hank sez: "a country boy will survive".

Post 1865 history has vividly illustrated slavery would have naturally dissolved as an agrarian based institution within a few years due to the economics of agricultural based production innovations predicated primarily upon mechanization.

In 1861 the typical market value of a field slave was ~$1500.  Indexing that forward to 2005 at historical inflation rates and the value jumps to ~$48,000.  

It doesn't take an economist to ascertain that advances in farming equipment and practices easily outweigh the cost(s) of maintaining a human being in bondage.

BTW, this is NOT an attempt to validate/justify the institution of slavery.  Rather, a perspective that normal market forces would have eventually obviated the practice w/o gov't intervention and likely much sooner than 2005.

So, the northern states took up the fight on "moral" grounds as the catalyst for military engagement with the real premise being the articles mentioned in T.G.'s previous post.

However, if the north was on such a moral "high ground" WHY did child labor laws and unions come into existence because of labor practices in the north?  Looks like one form of slavery was extinguished in favor of another, eh?

Like a fella once wrote in a certain book: "judge not that ye shall also be judged".  :roll:

[biblebeliever]

Ironfoot,

Pardon me, but I must take issue with your premise that the north fought to free the slaves. It is a documented fact that the people in the north had no more love for the slaves than did those in the south. Northern soldiers were surprised at the relationship between slave and master. Also, roughly ninety-five percent of the south's population owned slaves; most of them were regular, white people without slaves who worked their own farms with the help of their families. Secondly, it is known that Lincoln's hyped-up Emancipation Proclamation didn't emancipate anyone. In fact, this proclamation specifically left out those slaves that were in the territory held by the north. It deliberately excluded those Louisiana parishes and West Virginia counties under federal control. In short, it was nothing more than a propaganda ploy. I might add that there were more antebellum anti-slavery societies in the south than in the north. Lastly, Jefferson Davis, the President of the CSA believed strongly in the education of the slaves to prepare them for freedom.

Sincerely,

Biblebeliever

[BrianMcCandliss]

Hello;
sorry to join this debate so late. However, I think that the sole issue at hand, is whether or not the states ceded their individual supreme soveriegnty by ratifying the Constitution.  Lincoln claimed that they DID.

So the Constitution doesn't provide for secession-- neither does the UN Charter. Sovereign states, by their very definition as "sovereign" as  supremely self-governing, do not require permission of any outside body in order to secede from any engagement-- they simply opt.
In fact, such a requirement would deny said essence of sovereignty, for those who could grant such permission could likewise withhold it.

However, Lincoln stated that "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments", and "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination".

Here, Lincoln presumes that the states intended to form a national government, when Madison makes clear that the Constitution would be a federal document and not a national one.

Lincoln also bases this on the following claim:

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Here, Lincoln conveniently omits the fact that every state seceded unilaterally from the prior "Confederated" union, which required in Article XIII that all changes entail unanimous consent; to whit:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Seriously, the US Constitution itself states in Article VII, that "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
Didn't Lincoln know that 9, is less than 13- even if he was hypothetically ignorant of the historical fact, that every state broke unilaterally from the "union" formed by the Articles of Confederation-- against the express demands of at least four states?
To hear Lincoln tell it, you'd think that the Constitution was formed by mutual consent among the 13 confederated states!

Likewise, Lincoln also conveniently omits Article II of the Articles of Confederation:

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.  

I assume that Lincoln, being the great lawyer that he was, knew the legal meaning of the term "delegated" to mean "authorizin a subordinate representative--" even if one didn't simply derive it from context,  that it does not negate a state's sovereignty, freedom or independence!

Likewise, Lincoln seems to have a problem understanding that the Declaration of Independence, declared the colonies to be "free and independent states-- that little "s" on the end of the word "state," refers to them in the plural. Hence, every state was supremely independent- otherwise they would have declared independence as a single large state.
As the Declaration of Independence clearly writes:

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.

The phrase "free and independent states" and reference to them as "they are," is hardly figurative-- as this soveriegnty, freedom and independence is specifically retained by each state under the Articles of Confederation-- and exercised in order to ratify the Constitution... by unilaterally seceding from said Confederation of states!
I don't know how much more specific one can get, in demonstrating that every state was supremely-- and uniquely-- sovereign.

Simply put, it seems that Lincoln played fast-and-loose with the facts, solely in order to create a legal facade for his acts of imperialism, to give the false appearance of them being in accordance with legal requirement, solely in order to achieve victory-- and knowing that such victory would be so complete, as to obviate any need for legal veracity. As such, Lincoln's legal reasoning, was simply a temporary stop-gap measure in order to overthrow any opposition.
In other words, the Civil War was nothing less than a treasonous coup by Lincoln, to create a Whig-statist empire, out of a free and voluntary republic of sovereign states!

Meanwhile, no evidence has ever been presented which legitimately suggests, that any state has ever intentionally surrendered its supreme sovereignty via ratifying the Constitution (or by anything else).

[BrianMcCandliss]

I am gathering, from the actions taken by the South, they figgered they had the might to do what they thought was right. It was not a peaceful, as in Ghandi's peaceful resistance, that they were planning. They were planning to resist at all cost. Those boys figgered what was coming, as in, not surprised.
If they were running a bluff, it was ill conceived.
If they thought it was going to be a peaceful split it was ill conceived.
If they thought there would be immediate foreign sympathy it was ill conceived.
If they thought the North was afraid to take up arms to preserve the union it was ill conceived.
I am not saying that those boys were "BAD". The way I see it, looking back, and in all honesty, looking forward from their time in space, this war was inevitable, if they made a split.
This thing would have come to a head pretty soon. The South, I believe, would have made a play for several border states and territories as well as some parts of the west. I think the North saw this, realized this and if you had been there so would you. I believe that you, judging from your background that you have revealed, would have suggested to the leadership in the north to take the offensive and put down this rebellion as soon as possible. The North thought it was going to be a walk in the park. War would be over by the end of the summer--and that was a sorry thought on their part.
The South made some terrible errors in judgement. The question that has been avoided IS, who was the South. The South was those people who had the most to gain, The landed, The banks, the rich. They had bigger and greedier plans than just secession.
Just as always, the greed of the rich killed off a generation of fine young boys. Boys that were lured into a war on the basis of pride, spirit, and nationalism--without seeing that they were fighting not for all this but just a few.
Blessings

This is amoral-- as well as anarchist! It's like saying "the Jews' decision to settle in Germany was ill-conceived" in regards to the Holocaust, while saying not a word against Hitler. And technically speaking, Hitler DID have the legal right to act as he did-- which puts him one better than Lincoln, who had NO legal right, and in fact acted expressly against the sworn agreements of the Constitution to defend the states against invasion!
To claim that "this war was inevitable" is also false, since the states had every right to secede.
The only mistake the South made, was giving Lincoln too much credit, and not realizing him as the ruthless dictator that he was; there's no doubt that the South was caught entirely off-guard and ill-prepared to fight such an uncivilized all-out attack, in which the traditional rules of civilized combat were thrown out, and the only rule applied by the enemy was "victory by any means." As such, more people died in a single day of the Civil War, then during the entirel Revolutionary War.
Yes, they actually believed the pretenses of legaly by Washington, which feigned to accept the secession-- and then unleashed all-out aggression in direct treachery of such.

These claims are also factually 100% false; it's insane to suggest that the MAJORITY of Southern voters were all "the rich," since secession required their signatures-- and were duly obtained; meanwhile, it was precisely the Northern moneyed and powerful interests which orchestrated the federal response to prevent secession-- regarding the federal decision to halt secession, no vote was taken in the North beyond Lincoln's election! (And indeed, any attempt to bring sanity to the government, was met with imprisonment-- or death). These special-interests wanted a central bank and ALL the land in the Union-- as well as an end to any means to stop them via state nullification or secession. And guess what: they GOT it! Just look around-- you think this happened on accident?

Likewise, Lincoln's re-election was about as legitimate, as that of Saddam Hussein; anyone who campaigned agianst Lincoln-- or even who failed to publicly praise him, in many instances-- was subject to arrest without trial.

So now, we all live under a central big government which destroys our freedoms, to the point that it has the power to sacrifice all of our lives at the stroke of a pen via the draft, if it had such an inkling. Not that it would, since a king never kills all of his slaves; but the point is, that our freedoms-- and even our lives-- lie at federal mercy.

If it can do this, then it can do anything-- and does, until we've got Big Brother breathing down our neck in every facet of our lives (except, not surprisingly, where we NEED it, like in basic defense against crime and foreign invasion; rather, these are simply used to rationalize more infringements of our liberty).

As such, we live in a society where those empowered by the system, praise it-- and pay tribute (which they exploit from the disenfranchised masses), much as the aristocracy praised feudalism (and likewise paid tribute).
Franklin was right-- those who fail to learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.
So it's one thing to be born and grow up under a dictator's legacy-- but to swallow it hook, line and sinker without analysis, is another thing entirely.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Post 1865 history has vividly illustrated slavery would have naturally dissolved as an agrarian based institution within a few years due to the economics of agricultural based production innovations predicated primarily upon mechanization.

Not to mention the increased security-costs of keeping slaves when the border suddenly became 10 times closer.
I just wonder why every other nation managed to free their slaves without a war, but the United States supposedly couldn't. And they never needed a Civil Rights movement either, since the never had the havoc and racial tension and animosity we did, which resulted solely from the Civil War and its devastating impacts, whereby the Union directly placed blacks in the middle of their battle. If the North really wanted emancipation, it could have simply bought the slaves for a fraction of the cost of the Civil War, as was required under the Fifth Amendment anyway. No, that wasn't it; they didn't hate slavery-- they just couldn't stand the COMPETITION-- or anyone who WASN'T under their rule-- their absolute rule,  i.e. without check via state interference.

[BAGTIC]

Secession was legal. A great many northern leaders supported the right to secede.

Making war on the United States was not legal.

The problem was that some Confederate politicians suffering an acute case of 'the big head' got too big for their britches and launced an unprovoked attack  on a U.S. military installation and troops. The consequences were not so different that what happened after Pearl  Harbor.

[BrianMcCandliss]

The consequences were not so different that what happened after Pearl  Harbor.

Exactly-- but the opposite of the way you think, once the truth is applied (vs. the misinformation you've been led to believe).

The seceding states did nothing but defend their sovereignty against outright and illegal union-aggression; it was Lincoln who first ordered military force into South Carolina territory in the name of denying their supreme sovereignty, ignoring their pleas for peace, while likewise engaging in ruthless treachery by agreeing to their terms-- and then double-crossing them.

The states then had every right to take the initiative to defend against such admitted attempts to invade their sovereign territories and deny their sovereignty.

As for Pearl Harbor, you might want to face similar facts about that one, in that FDR basically cornered the Japanese and attacked them in China, while likewise ignoring their pleas for peace as well-- all long BEFORE Pearl Harbor. As such, FDR's cries of outrage and incredulity, were simply part of his little act to blame the Japanese for giving him the perfect excuse to break his promise to American people, to keep the US out of the war. (He did similar things against Germany as well).

The reasons for the similarity here is obvious: the states became an empire under Lincoln-- at least in the dictionary definition; in doing so, the once-free states fell under centralized rule, against which the individual states then had no final recourse. As such, truth became subject to statist definition, via totalitarian means; Lincoln was the first to employ the "Pravda principle--" and it's been that way ever since, since the media has never once challenged the legitimacy of the empire- or even admitted it to being such.

Rather, the myth is preserved by the media, that secession was illegal, and that Lincoln was correct: i.e. that the states were never sovereign under the Constitution (or even the Declaration of Independence!)

Even the anti-unionists, don't challenge the empire to stand down; I seem to be a lone rebel in that regard.

[ironfoot]

Ironfoot,

Pardon me, but I must take issue with your premise that the north fought to free the slaves. It is a documented fact that the people in the north had no more love for the slaves than did those in the south. Northern soldiers were surprised at the relationship between slave and master. Also, roughly ninety-five percent of the south's population owned slaves; most of them were regular, white people without slaves who worked their own farms with the help of their families. Secondly, it is known that Lincoln's hyped-up Emancipation Proclamation didn't emancipate anyone. In fact, this proclamation specifically left out those slaves that were in the territory held by the north. It deliberately excluded those Louisiana parishes and West Virginia counties under federal control. In short, it was nothing more than a propaganda ploy. I might add that there were more antebellum anti-slavery societies in the south than in the north. Lastly, Jefferson Davis, the President of the CSA believed strongly in the education of the slaves to prepare them for freedom.

Sincerely,

Biblebeliever

I have refuted some of those arguments numerous times in posts in this forum.
Did you read them?

Here is an example:



Slavery was always the issue.

Here is a quote from Lincoln's second inaugural address:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."

Lincoln was against slavery. He argued against it many times. Lincoln's anti-slavery stance was well understood by the southern states, and they complained of it bitterly.

Here is a quote from Lincoln in his Coopers Union speech:

"Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively."

Here is a link to the whole speech:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

It was when Lincoln was elected that the South seceded, not before.
The southern legislatures said said they were seceding because of Lincoln's ant-slavery platform. (A link to their Declarations of Causes of Secession is posted above.)

When Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery platform, the south seceded in an effort to preserve slavery.

http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030822-085758-4689r.htm
_________________
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

[IntrepidWizard]

If you have not been reading as some of us have for over a half a century Bruce Catton whose father wrote a Trilogy first before Shelby Foote has a a book the Coming Fury that will explain the politics quite well.

[ironfoot]

If you have not been reading as some of us have for over a half a century Bruce Catton whose father wrote a Trilogy first before Shelby Foote has a a book the Coming Fury that will explain the politics quite well.

Thanks for the info, IntrepidWizard.
here is a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1842122924/002-6597746-5510435?v=glance&n=283155

Here is a quote from that link:

 Superb Political Narrative, April 27, 2005
Reviewer: K.A.Goldberg (Chicago) - See all my reviews
Author/Historian Bruce Catton (1899-1978) lays the groundwork for why the U.S. Civil War came about in 1861, and then also describes the early months of that horrid conflict.

The narrative starts on the eve of the 1860 Democratic Convention, when Southern firebrands blocked the nomination of moderate Stephen Douglas of Illinois - causing the party to split between North and South. As the author shows, extremists on all sides were too often in control, and this worked to prevent the nation's political system from finding workable compromises. The author describes the pressures behind secession, and shows how slavery was the one bone of contention between North and South that proved most resistant to compromise.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Yes-- nevermind the legal RIGHT of secession... that's one bush that Lincoln-lovers would rather beat around, since they know it's their weakest point.

[ironfoot]

Wrong again. Lincoln squarely dealt with secession in his first inaugural address. You can read it here:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Here is an excerpt:

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15
  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

He also dealt with it in the Gettysburg address.

If state's can 'veto' presidential election results by secession, then a democratic union cannot be maintained. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Bush Master]

Here is an article that concisely deals with the issue of secession, slavery and why Lincoln invaded the south and started his war of northern agression. Now maybe all of you that still cling to the incorrect belief that the war was over slavery will realize how wrong you are:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson6.html

[biblebeliever]

Ironfoot  

Sorry to take so long to reply to your post. I still stand by my statement that the Civil War was not over slavery. Only 5% of  southern whites owned slaves. How crazy is it to assume that that 5% controlled the other 5,700,000 free whites that lived in the south? Most of the people who owned slaves owned only a few and worked WITH them on their farms, NOT plantations. Important southerners such as Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis did not own slaves. DO you really think that 95% of the southern men who DID NOT own slaves would go to war to fight for them? If you check out correspondence from the actual soldiers, you will find that they were fighting for States' rights. John C. Calhoun fought in teh ante-bellum era for states' rights over the issue of tariffs that benefitted the north over the south. If you do the research, you have to be convinced. Check our THe South Was Right! by James and Walter Kennedy.

BB

[Bush Master]

Ironfoot, if stinkin Lincoln was so against secession, why did he allow West Virginia to seceed from Virginia? Are you going to try to claim that this is different or that creating a new state by having some counties seceed from another state is OK?

[ironfoot]

Splitting states, or territories before they become states, is not the same as a state seceding from the country at large. Is this a difficult concept?

[BrianMcCandliss]

Splitting states, or territories before they become states, is not the same as a state seceding from the country at large. Is this a difficult concept?

Nothing is difficult for the erroneous. However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Ironfoot, if stinkin Lincoln was so against secession, why did he allow West Virginia to seceed from Virginia? Are you going to try to claim that this is different or that creating a new state by having some counties seceed from another state is OK?

Lincoln murdered over 600,000 people in his manic-depressive psychosis; illegally splitting a state is small potatoes compared to that.

[ironfoot]

"However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding."

What is it then?
 
"Lincoln murdered over 600,000 people in his manic-depressive psychosis; illegally splitting a state is small potatoes compared to that. "

Actually Lincoln didn't shoot anybody. He was shot by Booth after Booth heard Lincoln state that the election franchise should be granted to at least part of the black population.

[BrianMcCandliss]

"However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding."

What is it then?

A federal document, whereby each state is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Madison, Federalist 39).
 

"Lincoln murdered over 600,000 people in his manic-depressive psychosis; illegally splitting a state is small potatoes compared to that. "

Actually Lincoln didn't shoot anybody.

Neither did Hitler; however he's pegged with the murder of over 10 million people-- and that was perfectly in accordance with German laws.
Meanwhile Lincoln VIOLATED the law in order to kill, imprison and conquer; this, if possible, makes him worse.

[ironfoot]

"However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding."

What is it then?

A federal document, whereby each state is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Madison, Federalist 39).

Exactly when were the Federalist Papers ratified by the states?

"Lincoln murdered over 600,000 people in his manic-depressive psychosis; illegally splitting a state is small potatoes compared to that. "

Actually Lincoln didn't shoot anybody.

Neither did Hitler; however he's pegged with the murder of over 10 million people-- and that was perfectly in accordance with German laws.
Meanwhile Lincoln VIOLATED the law in order to kill, imprison and conquer; this, if possible, makes him worse.

We know you don't like Lincoln or Reagan. Who do you like, besides yourself?

[BrianMcCandliss]

"However, the Constitution is not a national document, and hence can wield no national authority over any state to prevent it from seceding."

What is it then?

A federal document, whereby each state is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Madison, Federalist 39).

Exactly when were the Federalist Papers ratified by the states?

"Lincoln murdered over 600,000 people in his manic-depressive psychosis; illegally splitting a state is small potatoes compared to that. "

Actually Lincoln didn't shoot anybody.

Neither did Hitler; however he's pegged with the murder of over 10 million people-- and that was perfectly in accordance with German laws.
Meanwhile Lincoln VIOLATED the law in order to kill, imprison and conquer; this, if possible, makes him worse.

We know you don't like Lincoln or Reagan. Who do you like, besides yourself?

I like the truth. You?

[williamlayton]

Brian-
Truth is a glazed overkill in the statements you have made.
I believe you would do well to provide some thought on your solutions.
Blessings