Posted on 12/03/2010 4:39:40 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
The secession movement in South Carolina was a demonstration of treason. There is no right to unilaterally secede. The Confederate democrats were traitors and tyrants.
Technically speaking, a significant majority, close to 60% of "the people of SC" were not allowed to vote on the issue, they being chattel and all that.
TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm ____________________________________________________________
se·ces·sion noun \si-ˈse-shən\
Definition of SECESSION
1: withdrawal into privacy or solitude : retirement
2: formal withdrawal from an organization
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secession?show=0&t=1291395804 ____________________________________________________________
Why was Jefferson Davis never tried for treason?
There is no right to unilaterally secede.(TBI)
This is stated in the U S Constitution, where?
The Confederate democrats were traitors and tyrants. (TBI)
How so?
“The secession movement in South Carolina was a demonstration of treason. There is no right to unilaterally secede. The Confederate democrats were traitors and tyrants.”
Your post is a demonstration of a typical liberal dumbass!
“The secession movement in South Carolina was a demonstration of treason. There is no right to unilaterally secede. The Confederate democrats were traitors and tyrants.”
Your post is a demonstration of a typical liberal dumbass!
—Make that a typical liberal damyankee dumbass.
The revolution takes place in the hearts and minds of the population before the war. The war happens after the revolution and the secession.
The founders and the colonies seceded from the crown after the revolution of heart and mind turned the population against their former loyalties. The war that followed was entirely the doing of the British in their attempt to keep what they judged was theirs.
Secession happened because a significant percentage of the population had a change of heart and loyalties that were brought about by abuses and the people getting a taste of what real freedom was like.
Secession... They no longer wanted their lives and future to be influenced by those they had been previously associated with, so they proclaimed themselves sovereign nations and then created a loose federation of those nations and called it the united states.
It was a secession because they did not sail over to England and sack the king and the parliament, and whomever else they could get their hands on. They simply stated their independence from those that had previously controlled them then sought about governing themselves.
Secession is the moral way to end an association with folks you would be just as happy to bury.
Yet it was the Confederate democrats who first formed the socialist ‘Peoples Party’ which then went on to merge with the democrat party. It was the Confederate democrats who also went on to become the Progressive democrats as well. All of these different democrat party configurations shared the common elements of support for the KKK, and for pushing perverted tyrannical views of the Constitution.
It is myth that the Confederate democrats were conservative at all. They were more alike today’s libertarians. Even today though we see libertarians marching side by side with the Marxists and Progressives on a whole host of issues.
So I would say it is you who are the liberal in the sense of being anti-freedom.
The Constitution prohibits unilateral secession with the 10th Amendment alone being that it defines certain powers to be powers of the United States. It is treasonous to usurp such powers and to hold citizens of the United States under a illegal tyrannical rule. The Confederate democrats were traitors to the United States.
A legal secession may be the best way to end an association but the Confederate democrats did not care about legality but were instead tyrants who usurped such power and were ruling tyrannically over citizens of the United States.
So what you’re saying is that those other States and Territories didn’t have the right to decide for themselves which path to follow? Am I understanding you correctly?
What, then, did the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution mean then? Rights are rights, whether they’re popular or not. Those States and Territories had the right under the US Constitution to decide for themselves which path they would choose, even if one path was morally bankrupt.
After all, if what you say is true, and the States do not have a right to determine their own future, then which is worse; the States determining that chattal slavery was acceptable or the Federal Government determining that Infanticide was acceptable? Both have, at their heart, the debate of what is considered human life and what role the Federal and State Governments have in protecting or destroying that life.
You are exactly on target here but should also point out that there were several secession movements in the United States prior to 1860 and NONE of them occurred in the south. In fact, the right of a state to seceded was UNIVERSALLY accepted in the U.S. prior to about 1850.
You want a serious answer? It's because the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure issued under Lincoln's authority as commander in chief and applying only to those areas in rebellion. Ending slavery in the states not in rebellion would require a Constitutional amendment, and while Lincoln continually pushed for such, the Democrats remaining in Congress blocked such an amendment until after the election of 1864. The one place not in rebellion where Lincoln could end slavery without an amendment was the District of Columbia. Slavery there ended in April, 1862.
Oh, and the Emancipation Proclamation was issued after Antietam, not Gettysburg.
Running out of Mic's the Butcher needed new meat.
So I guess the part in the 10th Amendment where it delegates powers to the United States means nothing to you? Any mere majority in a state could just usurp those powers?
That is ridiculous. You only want to see the part of the 10th that talks of States rights and ignore the powers delegated to the United States. You want to use the 10th Amendment in order to destroy the 10th Amendment.
Unilateral secession is not a right.
If it was so universally accepted then please show me the part of the US Constitution that describes the process for secession.
Calling you a fascist is my right, which I choose to exercise right now.
You should see a priest and get King George III spirit exorcised form your body.
Sounds reasonable, but I do have a question. Why the delay until April of ‘62 to free the slaves in D.C.? Why not immediately after SC left the Union.
One other point that I would like to make. If Lincoln didn’t have the authority to free the slaves in the North because it would require a Constitutional Amendment, then he likewise didn’t have that authority to free the slaves in the South because either they were still a part of the Union and therefore a Constitutional Amendment was required (nothing in the Constitution states that the process for amending the Constitution can be changed due to war or rebellion) or they were actually a seperate, soverign nation who were no longer under the authority of the Federal Government. Either way, what Lincoln did was just political.
Also, thanks for the note about Antietam versus Gettysburg. I was thinking Antietam but typed Gettysburg for whatever reason.
The Constitution is, as you WELL know, completely silent on the issue and, because that is the case, secession is a RIGHT retained by the States.
Being your speech comes from one who defends the Confederate KKK coven makes your words a joke when speaking of fascism. You reek of fascism.
The Constitution though is not silent on ‘powers delegated to the United States’. Considering that you can not secede without disregarding the Constitution and usurping such powers proves that unilateral secession is not a right retained by the States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.