Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mofford...you need to provide clear evidence that the Constitutional designers anticipated the break up of the nation by individual state declaration. Otherwise you are just at sea making noise. Clearly there is no such language in the 10th amendment, it does not address national disolution, it addresses internal legislative powers for the states, not some sort of super nationalistic substitution power which permits any state to exit at will.
Does it not occur to you that if the Constitution designers wanted the nation to be subject to unilateral withdrawal by states, they would have included language and process for this?
They did not. And you are grasping at straws when interpreting the 10th amendment, designed to address one thing, as being some all purpose permission to do anything.
So...you have the goods or you do not.
You keep up with the same arguments when they've been answered OVER AND OVER again....
Let's start with crying bull about the "designers" and the "intent" and all.... We ALL are well aware that specific issues were avoided such as slavery. Did that the fact that anything about slavery was omitted from the Constitution mean that obviously the Federal Government wanted nothing to do with the question and summarily avoided it??? YES!!!!
And what, pray tell, was thus the ultimate determining body on the legality of slavery??? INDIVIDUAL STATE GOVERNMENTS.
So now suddenly you're trying to claim that "Had the US Government intended states to be allowed to leave that a process would have been included"??? No, there was no process included because it wasn't up to the Federal Government to decide and FURTHER MORE they knew DAMNED well that any clause effectively stating that states had to "Ask permission" from the federal government to leave the Union would have rendered the Constitution unsigned by many parties.
No, they avoided THAT question JUST like they avoided the question of slavery. You're trying to write rules in that aren't there. My position is that there's a CLEAR implication.....
Again I'd remind you that the North CLEARLY knew that secession was a real possibility.... They were the first to discuss the possibility in 1812 and they didn't decide not to because they felt it "illegal"....
Irrelevant. The Constitution says no such thing. Imaginary arguments are imaginary arguments.
You are stretching further and further in an attempt to justify that which was never intended.
I asked for the specific language which sanctions individual state departures. There isn't any, is there? And because there isn't any, any rights associated with such a concept, would have to be won by force of arms. The attempt to do this resulted in defeat.
There is little point in your staying on the line of attack that you are taking. Obviously I reject esoteric interpretations and that is what you keep doing. Esoteric, long stretches, maybe it meant this, if you squint it could be seen to mean that....none of that counters any of my arguments. THere is no specific sanctioning of secession in the Constitution....will you finally admit that?
Fine.... Show where you see ANYTHING mentioning or even implying that once signed a state becomes a PERMANENT part of the United States....
Once again it ISN'T THERE..... You can squint as hard as you want but you won't find anything that remotely approaches saying this...
It isn't a guess. It's a FACT that at least half the states don't sign the Constitution if a clause stating that there is either A) No way out, or B) That you have to seek permission from the Federal Government.....
You are aware that State's Rights were an issue LONG before the 1850s, right??? They had been since the beginning of our nation. You're trying to claim that these states would have given up their ultimate sovereignty with no way out and that simply isn't the truth and it doesn't come close to reflecting the political climate when the Constitution was signed....
The only means available to resolve the issue of secession was going to be bloodshed. The only way to have avoided that bloodshed was for the South to have avoided secession.
No, the other way was for Lincoln to let the South go.... It's been stated that if Lincoln had felt he couldn't win the war he would have... So where are the principles???
It is widely noted that had Kentucky seceded that Lincoln would have considered the fight lost before it began from a strategic standpoint and probably wouldn't have attempted to suppress it (Shelby Foote being the most notable period historian that firmly believes this)...
This implies that Lincoln HAD A CHOICE does it not???
Based on YOUR VERY ARGUMENTS this suddenly makes secession legal.... No???
Now do you wish to continue with the argument that there was "No other way"???
Lincoln had the decision forced upon him, as any honorable president would have. He had stood before the nation and sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and execute its laws,
You're talking about the same Lincoln that defied a VERY SPECIFIC RIGHT granted by the Constitution of Habeus Corpus and imprisoned the state legislators of Maryland so they could not peaceably convene (Oh, right to peaceful assembly... ANOTHER one!!) , right???
Just making sure we're talking about the same "Defender of the Constitution" here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
And please, let us move away from this attitude that it was Lincoln alone. It was the entire government, it was millions of supporters of the Constitution in the North. As soon as Lincoln called for volunteers, the recruiting centers were instantly swamped by more men then had been requested. When Congress reconvened, they sanctioned all of Lincoln's actions.
Bull.... The Constitution had ZERO to do with support in the North...... In fact you'll find that a vast population in the North were all for letting the south go, including Lincoln's very own Secretary of State who incorrectly assumed that Lincoln WOULD let them go...
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 10-27-2008 at 07:14 AM..
I certainly believe that many presidents may have done what Lincoln did, and many honorable presidents may not have. It's not beyond possibility that those that would take it to war, might have negotiated for peace later. There was alot of pressure on Lincoln to break it off later in the war. When the bodies started coming home and the bloodbath was upon the nation, not all would of been as stubborn as Lincoln.
Perhaps when the CSA brought the war into Pennsylvania, a different man may have negotiated peace. Im particularly curious what Buchanan would of done in Lincoln's place, or some of the other politicians of that time frame might of done. What if Booth had shot Lincoln at the beginning of the war, and Johnson was in charge ? I know it's a stretch to speculate on some of these things, but history is a crap shoot and can change by the thinnest of margins.
BTW, I still don't want to be drafted and have to shoot a relative in another succeeding state.....by order of a hawk president that has a real option for peace instead.
In fact Lincoln's very own FORMER commander of the Union Army George McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 with the intent of ending the war through a negotiated peace....
The same right the colonists had to disengage from a government that had become injurious to their interests! Revolution! The same right we all have today!
Actually MORE of a right than the colonists had....
The colonists came FROM England mostly with the intent of founding colonies FOR England and did so and were subjects of ENGLAND...
This is why the uprising of the colonies is a "Rebellion".
The US Civil War was matter in which states had voluntarily entered into a mutually agreed upon form of central government and then at a later time some of those states determined that it was no longer in their best interest to be a part of that central government.....
That is secession and it is only labelled "Rebellion" by those who were victorious in forcibly subduing the break-away states and coercing them into remaining in the aforementioned government....
Once again it ISN'T THERE..... You can squint as hard as you want but you won't find anything that remotely approaches saying this...
The above suggests to me that you are not making an attempt to understand my point because I have stated exactly that numerous times...that the Constitution neither sanctioned nor prohibited secession. Go back and read.
I also note that you have resorted to using CAPS to try and make points and I regard that as the typing equivalent of someone shouting or screaming at someone else. If you have to shriek your points, then you will have to find someone else to pay attention to them.
Finally, that you would write :
Quote:
You keep up with the same arguments when they've been answered OVER AND OVER again....
and:
Quote:
The Constitution had ZERO to do with support in the North
..suggests to me that you are not going to allow truth to interfere with your prejudices.
You are a partisan, Rhett, a fact that your screen name reveals before one even reads your posts. A partisan is like an attorney or a political spin doctor, or a salesman...someone for whom truth is a necessary casualty when it conflicts with the actual goal.
Last edited by Grandstander; 10-27-2008 at 07:47 AM..
The War ended on April 18,1856...This Thread will end on October 27,2008 if everyone does not calm down and debate the issues in a more civil manner (no pun intended!)
The War ended on April 18,1856...This Thread will end on October 27,2008 if everyone does not calm down and debate the issues in a more civil manner (no pun intended!)
Would I be viewed as uncivil if I pointed out that you have the war ending five years before it began?
Not at all....but I got everyone's attention...didn't I
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
