The Gettysburg Address

[sloughfoot]

It had to be by force. There was no legal process of secession. There is one for marriage, it's called divorce. By "separating" and having an armed rebellion against your own country, you are effectively turning your back on the constitution that YOU ratified and swore to uphold. When the confederates shot first, we had every right to put down the unlawful rebellion. They technically never left the union IMO, so that was always our soil to take back from the traitors.

An armed rebellion against your own country? It seems you disregard loyalty to your state. My loyalty to this day lies with my state. Not to that federal government created by the States.

The south sought to remove itself from under purview of that Federal government. It did not seek to overthrow or usurp that federal government. A true rebellion would have been for the southern states to march on Washington DC and overthrow that federal government. This never happened.

The states simply withdrew their consent to be ruled by the Federal government. They did not try to overthrow that government. This is where your arguments fall short.

 

[MisterChester]

An armed rebellion against your own country? It seems you disregard loyalty to your state. My loyalty to this day lies with my state. Not to that federal government created by the States.

The south sought to remove itself from under purview of that Federal government. It did not seek to overthrow or usurp that federal government. A true rebellion would have been for the southern states to march on Washington DC and overthrow that federal government. This never happened.

The states simply withdrew their consent to be ruled by the Federal government. They did not try to overthrow that government. This is where your arguments fall short.

I'll buy your theory if you can show me the confederates never attempted to march on DC.

Like I said, they betrayed the constitution they ratified and swore to uphold.

 

[jamil]

An armed rebellion against your own country? It seems you disregard loyalty to your state. My loyalty to this day lies with my state. Not to that federal government created by the States.

The south sought to remove itself from under purview of that Federal government. It did not seek to overthrow or usurp that federal government. A true rebellion would have been for the southern states to march on Washington DC and overthrow that federal government. This never happened.

The states simply withdrew their consent to be ruled by the Federal government. They did not try to overthrow that government. This is where your arguments fall short.

My loyalty lies with my sense of right and wrong. I'd have a hard time defending hypocritical leaders who cry states' rights when it benefits them, but have no problem imposing their goals on other states. I certainly wouldn't die for that.

As to MisterChester's argument. What process but taking up arms was there to legally succeed from the union? They did that. They fired the first shot on a federal facility. They eventually lost their campaign for independence.

 

[rambone]

I'd have a hard time defending hypocritical leaders who cry states' rights when it benefits them, but have no problem imposing their goals on other states. I certainly wouldn't die for that.

Both sides had flawed, hypocritical leaders, both were dead wrong in some aspects. This cannot be avoided on either side.

To point Lincoln's mistakes is not to strap on a CSA uniform, no matter how much people try to make it into that.

As to MisterChester's argument. What process but taking up arms was there to legally succeed from the union?

When a state congress gathers and declares that it is leaving the union, that is all the process that is morally or constitutionally required. The people's representatives spoke and voted accordingly. To deny them the ability to leave the union is to deny them the power of self-government.

 

[rambone]

Like I said, they betrayed the constitution they ratified and swore to uphold.

There is no amendment that says that states cannot leave the union. The southern states have an inherent right to "alter or abolish" government as their people saw fit. As per the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


The USA lost the consent of the southern states. They created a new government. They were no longer subject to Lincoln's rule or the constitution of the USA. They left.

The real violations of the US Constitution came from the people who remained in the USA and acting on behalf of the USA. Like Lincoln, when he had newspapers forcibly shut down and civilians rounded up into military prison camps just for speaking out against the war. Like Lincoln, when he confiscated guns and property from civilians. Like Lincoln, when he unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and held civilians without charges or trial. The list goes on: torture, quartering troops, searches and seizures, and so on. Every aspect of the Bill of Rights was utterly trashed under Lincoln. Which is why we are taught that he was the best president ever.

 

[Henry]

There is no amendment that says that states cannot leave the union. The southern states have an inherent right to "alter or abolish" government as their people saw fit. As per the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


The USA lost the consent of the southern states. They created a new government. They were no longer subject to Lincoln's rule or the constitution of the USA. They left.

The real violations of the US Constitution came from the people who remained in the USA and acting on behalf of the USA. Like Lincoln, when he had newspapers forcibly shut down and civilians rounded up into military prison camps just for speaking out against the war. Like Lincoln, when he confiscated guns and property from civilians. Like Lincoln, when he unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and held civilians without charges or trial. The list goes on: torture, quartering troops, searches and seizures, and so on. Every aspect of the Bill of Rights was utterly trashed under Lincoln. Which is why we are taught that he was the best president ever.

Well said. Lincoln was a tyrant much in the same vein as King George.


That it is so difficult for some to understand this and hold him up as "one of the greatest presidents ever" is a testament to the effectiveness of the state's propaganda and it's system of public indoctrination, er...education.

 

[dross]

Madison disagrees with you. Madison believed that secession required the approval of the state and the existing union.

 

[indiucky]

Madison disagrees with you. Madison believed that secession required the approval of the state and the existing union.

And another founder fails the INGO Libertarian Purity Test.....

Overheard behind the ramparts, Breeds Hill, Boston 1775....

Patriot-"So what are you fighting for?"

INGO Libertarian-"Weed, Gay Marriage, and Conspiarcy Theories..."

 

[lj98]

Madison disagrees with you. Madison believed that secession required the approval of the state and the existing union.

Deaf ears...
Most of the framers of the Constitution would disagree with secession the way the CSA attempted it. Otherwise, states would continually leave and rejoin at a later date when it suited their interests, thus ensuring a weak nation. Precisely the opposite of what the framers were trying to achieve with the new government.

BTW, does the "consent of the governed" include those in the South who were deprived of their political voice? Or, like the Southern plutocracy, do you also not consider them people?

 

[dross]

There are some other considerations and issues if a state could just leave at will. What would keep a state with some power - resources, a railroad section that runs through it, an important harbor, or maybe just lots of wealth - from constantly threatening to secede in order to get concessions from the rest of the states?

Another, smaller question, is that if you have a right to secede by just a vote of your legislature, why couldn't you influence any law you didn't like? Just pass a law that says that you refuse to recognize this or that federal law and should the government try to enforce it, you just secede? What about contracts between your citizens and other states citizens that affect interstate commerce that now the federal government would enforce? Do those just become null and void by one vote of the legislature.

Secession by a simple vote of the legislature is unworkable.

 

[jamil]

Deaf ears...
Most of the framers of the Constitution would disagree with secession the way the CSA attempted it. Otherwise, states would continually leave and rejoin at a later date when it suited their interests, thus ensuring a weak nation. Precisely the opposite of what the framers were trying to achieve with the new government.

BTW, does the "consent of the governed" include those in the South who were deprived of their political voice? Or, like the Southern plutocracy, do you also not consider them people?

Especially for the reason they left! It should be harder to leave the union than just because you didn't like the guy who got elected. And I think it should be up to more than just elected Aristocracy who have a personal vested interest in "the cause".

 

[rambone]

Madison disagrees with you. Madison believed that secession required the approval of the state and the existing union.

1. Madison said this at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, regarding the use of federal force to suppress a delinquent state:

“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” (Source)

2. No hint of a prohibition on secession ever made it into the constitution.

3. The moral side of the argument clearly resides on the right to secede. It is the same principle the USA was formed on.

 

[rambone]

It should be harder to leave the union than just because you didn't like the guy who got elected.

I disagree. What if your country just elected a bona fide dictator? (I will refrain from breaking Godwin's Law here, but just use your imagination.) Congress and the President are wholly oppressive and the state is a minority. What then? You expect the state to wait for the dictator to give permission to leave?

There are some other considerations and issues if a state could just leave at will. What would keep a state with some power - resources, a railroad section that runs through it, an important harbor, or maybe just lots of wealth - from constantly threatening to secede in order to get concessions from the rest of the states?

Another, smaller question, is that if you have a right to secede by just a vote of your legislature, why couldn't you influence any law you didn't like? Just pass a law that says that you refuse to recognize this or that federal law and should the government try to enforce it, you just secede? What about contracts between your citizens and other states citizens that affect interstate commerce that now the federal government would enforce? Do those just become null and void by one vote of the legislature.

Divorce is always messy. Sometimes, in hindsight, it turns out to be an economic loss. Maybe the parties can work out their property issues in court. Maybe not. No cause to kill each other.

The harbors and train tracks don't outweigh the states' sovereignty and inherent right to self-govern.

Secession by a simple vote of the legislature is unworkable.

The "workable" alternative was the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. 1 out of every 50.

I think you should reconsider.

 

[dross]

I don't disagree that a right to secession seems implied. I think it's a matter of how. While nothing in the Constitution prohibits it, neither does a process for secession. There is a process to join, however.

This is why these absolutist arguments don't make sense to me, and they don't reflect credit on those who make them. This is far from a settled question philosophically, though it is settled in practice now.

It must be rewarding to always be so certain about your arguments. I think you would have more credibility, however, to occasionally discover a subject that wasn't certain, obvious, and only opposed by statists.

 

[jamil]

I don't disagree that a right to secession seems implied. I think it's a matter of how. While nothing in the Constitution prohibits it, neither does a process for secession. There is a process to join, however.

This is why these absolutist arguments don't make sense to me, and they don't reflect credit on those who make them. This is far from a settled question philosophically, though it is settled in practice now.

It must be rewarding to always be so certain about your arguments. I think you would have more credibility, however, to occasionally discover a subject that wasn't certain, obvious, and only opposed by statists.

Virtual rep will have to do.

This is the best post I've read all day.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It seems to me the template for succession was laid out in 1776. Whatever the colonies had to do to become independent from England should be all that's required for any of the existing states...if we truly believe in underpinnings of our country's founding.

 

[dross]

It seems to me the template for succession was laid out in 1776. Whatever the colonies had to do to become independent from England should be all that's required for any of the existing states...if we truly believe in underpinnings of our country's founding.

Yes, but they laid out their case very well. They weren't represented, their wishes didn't matter, promises were not kept. They even explain that if you're going to take such a radical step you should have very good reasons, one of which is that it's unbearable and there's no other way to fix it. They also felt you owed the rest of the world a good argument.

The Southern states were represented politically, had a say, were part of the process. They just didn't like the outcome of the process - that Lincoln, an anti-slavery President, had been elected.

So, even if I agree with your premise, I'd argue that the outline the founders laid out in the Declaration wasn't even in the ballpark to be applied to the South's reasoning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, but they laid out their case very well. They weren't represented, their wishes didn't matter, promises were not kept. They even explain that if you're going to take such a radical step you should have very good reasons, one of which is that it's unbearable and there's no other way to fix it. They also felt you owed the rest of the world a good argument.

The Southern states were represented politically, had a say, were part of the process. They just didn't like the outcome of the process - that Lincoln, an anti-slavery President, had been elected.

So, even if I agree with your premise, I'd argue that the outline the founders laid out in the Declaration wasn't even in the ballpark to be applied to the South's reasoning.

I wasn't necessarily addressing the succession of the southern states but more to the point that there is not an established process for it; that the rest of the union must agree to it/them succeeding; that there is not unanimous consent among the state(s)' population; etc. We should remember that our nation is a union states, each of whom agreed to donate a limited portion of their power to the federal government and not a country divided up into convenient governing subdivisions to do the central government's bidding.

 

[Henry]

The States have only lent power to the central government.
They have not donated it.
They have no authority to give what is simply lent to them by the individual citizen.

 

[poptab]

Do the ends justify the means?