As I tried pointing out earlier, I believe the Southern states didn't start flying the flag on the state houses until the Brown v. BOE decision and the integration of schools in Little Rock.

The South seceded from the union to protect the institution of slavery.

Morality is not on your side, regardless of what Lincoln did during the context of wartime.

And just what, pray tell, is my side? I have only asked a couple questions here, for the most part, and I do maintain that the states did have a right to secession.

The only "side" I've taken in this fight, for those who have trouble reading for comprehension, is that Licoln was as big or bigger of a scum bag as slick willie the goatf*ck and shrub the moran. People, and politicians never change.

Wasn't it Reagan that said something like "Politics is the second oldest profession. I've come to realize that it bears a very strong resemblance to the first".

of all people to be correcting someone else's posts.

Technically, Major Anderson, the OIC of US forces in South Carolina agreed that the United States military status quo would be maintained in Charleston Harbor after South Carolina suceeded. This meant the US troops would remain in Fort Moultrie (sp?).

Anderson moved his troops from whatever the heck the one fort was named over to Sumtner in December of 1860, in violation of the agreement between the feds and South Carolina. It was seen as an act of aggression immediately (Anderson knew it was, which is why he moved the troops in the middle of the night. It was almost 4 months before confdederate troops removed Anderson from Ft. Sumtner.

Didn't New York and Virginia retain the right of secession when they ratified the Constutition?

And that hooker would know. Until about 100 years ago actors/actresses were considered part of the first profession.

Reagan is an excellent example of your proverbial scumbag politician. Nice work.

And I continue to disagree about the right to secession. I do note that you used the past tense - you think the states no longer have this right.

Did or did not New York and Virginia retain the right of secession as part of their ratification of the Constitution?

And regardless of whether Lincoln was a scumbag or not, and regardless of whether he presided over a "clean" war, he wasn't on the side that was the advocate of institutional slavery.

Just like Jesus and JFK, if you don't kill 'em, people don't revere 'em.

Thank goodness we have the NCAA to address any regional conflict issues that come up nowadays.

Hey, at least you're consistent. Because the first huddler who backs you up on the Lincoln hatin', but has no problem with Bush imprisoning American citizens without due process is being pretty intellectually dishonest.

Does tying up my wife count as slavery? If so, I might just be a Confederate.

I believe they did and given Article IV of the Constitution there would be a legal basis for any state that ratified the Constitution to seceed.

I know, the truth does so get in the way sometimes, doesn't it? Sorry to poke holes in your own little little quasi-eloquent gettysburg :patsonheadthenrunscoveringgonads:

Again - MY ONLY ASSERTION IS THAT THERE WAS A RIGHT TO SECEDE UNTIL THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS RAMTRODDED THROUGH (probably unconstitutionally).

For the record, I think slavery was a big part of the war, but certainly not the only part. I think slavery was like "gun violence" or "old ladies eating cat food". A sop to the masses so they would support the war. Cause even the dirt-poor sustanence (sp?) farmers could look down on them thar negros.

ahh what the hell...

[QUOTE]THE REAL LINCOLN

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | 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. [/quote]

amazing that the sore losers are still churning out this revisionist dreck.

[quote]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.'" [/quote]

ok, i see the part where TJ says, in his personal opinion, the dam federalist yankees should be allowed to leave if they want to. but i'm not seeing the part where he says they have an actual right to do so under the constitution.

[quote]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. [/quote]

uhh, yeah. the states are the sovereign agents of the people, and as such the states all signed on to the constitution. by doing so, they obviously ceded a good deal of that sovereignty to the newly created "supreme law of the land". this portion of federalist 39 does nothing but argue for the democratic legitimacy of the constitutional union, should it be enacted. it certainly does NOT provide a means for dissolving that union through secession.


[quote]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.


Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments. [/quote]

i'm sure a lot of people in the north felt that way. i'm sure a lot of people in the south also thought secession was a bad idea. obviously, the prevailing opinion in both regions was different. what's this supposed to prove, anyway?

[quote]Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves." [quote]

well, as i think lincoln would argue, representative democracy probably would perish from the earth if, in practice, it were so anarchic as to be unable to prevent factions from coming and going as they please, creating "indissoluble uinions" one day, breaking them the next.

i'm still waiting for the part where this guy addresses what he said he was going to address...the supposed "right" of secession.


[quote]In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." [/quote]

right. and the most fundamental power expressly delegated to the federal government in the constitution is to preserve and protect the union which the constitution creates. rebellion is an overt attempt to dissolve the union which the constitution creates. it is in direct violation of the constitution's declaration of itself as the supreme law of the land.

if the southern states felt they had a right to secede under the constitution, they should have sought enforcement on that basis. seek an act of congress, or petition the supreme court. but instead, they just declared that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land anymore. that is rebellion.

umm, you wanna cite something you think implies that right?

What part of Article IV?

Great - we're talking about the war of northern agression and I've now a boner...

Appears to me to be the first sentence of Section 2.

Yes, chimp-boy was only slightly less repulsive to me than the three that have come after him. That is, however, because he truly stood up to a totalitarian evil and set in motion a chain of events that eventuall won freedom for millions on this planet.

As to the past-tense, please see my later post on the 14th amendment.

You know, it boils down to what I said in an earlier post (like page three or four of this thread): This was a case of the woman (the south) wanting to leave, and the redneck, controlling, abusive husband (the north) having an atitude of "If'n I caint hayave her ain't nobuddy gonna hayave her"! and then, as is appropriate here, bends her over and f's her up the azz to show her who's boss.

Sac, thank you for the compliment. As I've said before, I HATE situational ethics. I think having integrity means you have principles to guide you and I endeavor to live always by those principles. Of course, my default position is toward freedom or anarchy, so most sheople think I'm crazy...

And ultimately, that perceived right to secede, whether legitimate or not, got squashed by the Union Army.



As Az posted, the states more or less said uniformally in their secession proclamations that it was about slavery.

We were all told it was inevitable that the South would rise again.

I see you lurking squeegie, agree or disagree that Atricle IV, Section 2 of the Constitution would, arguably, provide the states with the right of secession if New York and Virginia retained thos reights when they ratified the Constitution?

crap

edit: I mean

How so? According the the annotations on findlaw.com, this clause is meant to further national unity:



Link

ok folks, this is real simple. the constitution says that south carolina is part of the united states. and that the laws of the united states shall be the supreme law of the land (including south carolina), notwithstanding any state law to the contrary -- in other words, in a conflict between state law and federal law, federal law always prevails.

so, if the constitution (which south carolina ratified) says south carolina is part of the US, and south carolina passes something saying it's NOT part of the US -- how does the constitution tell us to resolve this conflict? that's right, the federal law trumps the state law. so how do you change the fact that the US constitution regards south carolina as part of its jurisdiction? you would have to take action within the federal system. to do otherwise is an attack on the constitution.

umm, that's just another subjugation of state law to federal law, saying that an individual state can't abrogate the rule of the "several states", i.e., the union. which clearly cuts AGAINST your argument. i'm confused.

Squeegie, thanks for posting that. Let's check this little gem, shall we?

"Section 3.


New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. "

Gee, old "honest" Abe divided Virginia to create my home state. That would seem to fly in the face of the very first sentence of section three.

Squeege, I REALLY hate to say this, but you're acting like moneymakers. Some of that "It's OK to violate the constitution and do things to OTHER people, as long as I agree with it...

well, you see, that law itself provides the means by which a new state would be created. it's right there in black and white. congress and the states involved can deem it so. isnt that what happened?

Even though we are generally on the same side, sometimes you are slower than a Mexican courier getting paid by the hour. Like my testicles, here it is in a nutshell:

New York and Virginia retained the right of secession when they ratified the Constitution. Secession would be voted on by the people of those states if it ever became an issue (I'll agree that I have no idea if it was ever voted on by the citizenry of the southern states). Given the findlaw quote -



Az, if the citizenry of New York and Virginia had the right to determine if their respective states could exercise their rights of secession, then the first sentence of Section 2, Article IV of the constitution would have provided the citizens of South Carolina the same footing with citizens of other states, namely New York and Virginia. Also, I have no doubt you are confused.

Wasn't the Union rather experimental at the time most of these states ratified it?

OK, I know YOU know better. You know *** good and well that VA's legislature wasn't involved and that right after the turn of the 20th century WV had to pay a bunch of reparations to VA.

Geez, and if you actually don't know better then you are actually (gulp) dumber than you look...

June 26, 1862 was when you Union invaders walked across my front lawn. I demand reparations!

They didn't kill you, and gave you back your civil rights you didn't want.

I admit that I am not particularly familiar with the formation of WV. Please provide a source for your statement that Linclon decided to divide the state.

And I do resent the comparison. I have not condoned any violation of the Constitution.



Where in the Constitution does it indicate that states may conditionally ratify it, or that New York and Virginia did so?

yeah, i guess VA wasn't exactly playing by the rules then, was it? didn't a bunch of WV delegates actually show up for congress or whatever (on behalf of virginia) and say, as the lawful representatives of the state of virginia, we hereby consent to the creation of west virgina, blah blah blah.

it would be a pretty interesting constitutional question to delve into.

but just so i'm clear what your argument is...you're saying that virginia had a right under the US constitution to secede from the US constitution, but that west virginia's secession from virginia was an violation of virginia's rights under the constitution, at a time when she was declaring herself exempt from the constitution?

club, where is this right of virginia and new york to secede documented? wouldn't it have to be documented in the constitution itself? where is it?

:coach:YOU KNOW WHAT'S REALLY BEGINNING TO P*SS ME OFF?
That I am pretty sure more thought, more southern pride, more time, more research, better grammar, and spelling (except of course for Yukon, but he's got a note from DMD) has gone into this one 48 hour thread than Jacqueline Duty (who is Jacqueline Duty? The fat neck with the dress that started this whole thing remember?) put into the 4 years it took her to sew her ugly a$$ dress.

We're actually having an interesting discussion* and you're pissed at the catalyst.

Edit to add:
*for a change

I remember a history teacher saying that constitutional amendment was invoked to uphold anti-rape laws. Can any lawyers concur on this?

The 13th Amendment?

Mexican courier. It isn't in the constitution, it is in their Ratifications.

Virginai

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...

New York

We the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.
That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve.
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...

It doesn't have to actually be in the Constitution Az and squeegie. For this I'll fall back on offer and acceptance.

When was the counter-offer accepted, and by whom?


Edited to reflect fact that Club answered my question.

See above you Mexican courier.



I'm going to go grab a smoke and I'll be back.

The northwestern counties of Virginia seceded to form the state of West Virginia.

Little known secession fact since some think the Confederacy was the first to think of it:
5 New England states (that's you Yankees) met at Hartford CT in 1814 to discuss seceding from the Union. It did not result in action.

the offer and acceptance between the union and the states is embodied in the federal constitution, isn't it? what binding effect does one party's post facto recitation of what it thinks its rights are have on the agreement between the parties itself?

As Club has dutifully shown you, VA was EXACTLY playing by the rules. Ol' (not) honest Abe was throwing a war to "protect and defend" the constitution with his right hand, and with his left he was holding his peener and whizzing all over same said document. The bottom line is, Abe can't claim any moral high ground. The abolishionists can, but not Abe. He was a corrupt azzholio politician who was merely looking at his chance of term 2 going down the chitter unless he forced the wayward states to stay. It wasn't VA that was in contravention, it was the US and her president.

As an aside, it was widely accepted at the time that there were conditions in the ratification of the constitution. I think only two states were willing to even ratify the thing without the Bill of Rights. If you do a proper exegesis of the document and compare it to the other writings of the time (as Az, I'm sure you have done a little) you can clearly see that the founding fathers would have wanted nothing to do with the intrusive, nanny-state, big-brother governement we have today. Here's a zinger for ya! That little clause that says (and I'm paraphrasing): Any powers not specifically granted herein this document are reserved for the states, or the people.

Your bait is starting to stink.

There is nothing post facto about the links. New York and Virginia were not states until they ratified the Constitution. Those are their ratification documents which represent the contract between the individual states and the Union or federal government therefore, IMHO, those are the contractually binding documents, not the Constitution. When they did, they said fine but we can bail if we want to. Seeing as how both are still States I'd say we have offer and acceptance, ergo, the terms of both being states are conditional based upon their desire to be so. Given Atricle IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, I've presented my case as to why the Southern states had a right of secession.

playing by its own rules, not the rules it agreed to play under on 9/17/1787. WVA chose to play by the set of rules in the US constitution, and it seems to have chosen wisely.