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.
I believe that South Carolina suffered under that same misconception.
Where in the Constitution is secession prohibited? And why would it be if our country's founders fully believed in and exercised said right with regard to British rule, and believed strongly in popular sovereignty?
So if the vote came out 50 for 49 against you think it is ok to make those 49 percent move or accept no longer having the protection of our constitution. Shouldn't those who have the problem be the ones who should move, rather than forcing everyone else in the state. It just seems very childish to me. Like a temper tantrum. I didnt get what I want so I dont want to play.
Childish? But it's not, that's how our country was founded: the government did not represent the people here so we said we no longer wish to live under your (British) rule, and we went to war to do so when they refused to allow it to happen peacefully. Loyalty to a government that does not represent you and in fact tramples on your rights is very misplaced. If a portion of the residents did not wish to secede but to remain under the U.S. government and therefore move to U.S. controlled land, a fair compensation could be worked out for them, or if a portion of the state overwhelmingly opposes secession but the rest does not, the state could be split along those lines (thinking here how some states are very divided with an urban area leaning one way the rest of the state another).
Quote:
What about your new America will be so much better? convince me that it's a good idea.
Compare state laws of a state like VT, ME, NH, AK, MT, ID, WY, etc., with federal laws and regulations. You will see there would be a much higher level of freedom. Furthermore, and most importantly, the closer a government is to the governed, the more responsive and representative of them it will be. It's relatively easy for citizens in VT to effect change when desired, for instance, because the government is more representative of the people, and closer to the people, but changing a federal law or regulation is very difficult. This is actually why the federal government was intended to remain very small (see Amendment 10), so that local and state governments, closer to the people and more easily controlled, would have most of the power, and the federal government, far from most of the people and difficult to control, would have little; only what was needed for purposes of defense, postal service, etc.
Ditto. It would have been perfectly peaceful if Lincoln hadnt sent soldiers and supplies to Ft Sumter.
I love my ornery state. lol
Bingo. President Buchanan is mocked today by anti-secessionists for not doing anything to stop the secessionists, but he knew full well it would have been illegal to use force to stop them. Lincoln didn't have any issues with killing 600,000 people though, nor did he mind throwing in prison and even executing people who were critical of him in the North. The whole thing could have been resolved peacefully, but unfortunately, a hot head war mongerer got elected president in the North.
Where in the Constitution is secession prohibited? And why would it be if our country's founders fully believed in and exercised said right with regard to British rule, and believed strongly in popular sovereignty?
Without devolving into a long a protracted argument over succession, suffice it to say, based upon Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869), the US is like the mafia, once you're in. But that is crude approximation, as a result I will defer to Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase writing for the majority;
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that "the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence," and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [Footnote 12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
One last thing, right makes right? Damned straight it does, unless of course you think that the US gained its independence from Great Britain through moral and rational persuasion.
PS - for an even more enlightening discussion on the insolubility of the Union, you should read Daniel Webster's remarks on the subject made during the famous Hayne-Webster Debate January 19th to the 26th 1830.
Ovcatto....you might remember that you believe 'might makes right' when discussing other issues...
The concept of might makes right is never far from my consciousness.
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.
