Replies

Sorry for the long post;

No worries. I'm always willing to read and discuss. Others may be put off by length but it doesn't bother me. Hopefully you won't mind any length in my response... I'll try to address each of your points.

"I get it; like a tax imposed in this bill is not to be considered a tax."

You didn't actually respond to the argument or the example here. How about this: Were we the agressor against Japan in WWII when they attacked Pearl Harbor? Japan is certainly a conquered state. I believe that defensive wars by a victorious nation can result in conquered states and I've provided examples. Pithy responses aren't refutations.

It’s in there, next to the section on taking over the banking industry and the auto manufacturers.

Your sarcasm belabors the obvious - there isn't a provision for legal secession. There could be but nobody has successfully put one in there.

Read your history. It was the Yankee states who first proposed secession in 1820. And then there is something called the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment. But don’t let that old piece of paper worry you.

Does it matter who SPOKE or PROPOSED it first who or who took .. you know .. actual steps and actions? Remind me which northern state seceeded first? The tenth amendment certainly doesn't provide a legal basis for secession

That argument is as worn out as saying there are 47 million people here who don’t have insurance. The facts (troublesome things, heh?) are that only 5% of Southerners owned any slaves. And it was Yankee traders who introduced slavery into the South. And the first black slave was owned by ... a black man.

Again - you don't actually address the point I made. The point I made doesn't hinge on who owned slaves, who sold the slaves, what color of skin buyer or seller had, or what percentage of the population they were. I believe the southern states would have violently resisted overturning the long-established institution of chattel slavery for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with any of that.

Try reading the ratification documents of the colonies sometime. They are very informative. Especially the parts about the government derives its power FROM the states and that when government becomes oppressive, it is our duty to overthrow said government.

You are quite correct about the typo. 9 states and not 7. I've read ratification documents - and the federalists papers - and anti-federalist letters. There are a lot of good ideas in all of those. A lot of crap ones too. There was a variety of opinion as to secession rather than concensus in those documents. If I asked you to cite and demonstrate concensus on the matter I'd be willing to bet I could cite a contrary opinion from somebody just as involved in the process easily enough.

The impression I got from wide reading was that people felt a legal secession could be established if needed but if things ever went that far it was likely there would be armed rebellion. I also got the impression that they felt that rebellion would, if successful, restore the prior state of union & whatever liberty was lost. I suppose one could claim that the southern states attempted to do that but I think that would be highly contestable. I don't feel that was their intent.

By all means, like suspending writ of habeas corpus, instituting a draft, creating an income tax and demanding feality to a federal government by the new states is preserving the rule of law.

I'll try to go from the general to the specific here...

Generally speaking, terrible things are sometimes done in the effort to achieve a goal that is considered good. That doesn't make the goal a bad thing - it just makes the efforts undertaken to achieve the goal bad or morally tainted. I would have contested these steps even while opposing secession.

In the specific... I don't consider habeas corpus to be optional - even in war time or under extreme threat. The fact that an uncosntitutional law was passed or action taken does not invalidate the entire effort however as there are and were means of legal redress. Habeas Corpus, in particular, returns to the courts again and again which is the way the legal process works. The income tax was also challenged not long after and found unconstitutional. This is why we have an amendment permitting it now. The legal process worked in this case also. As far as demanding fealty ... I would consider that a sound practice for conquored states that had previously been in armed rebellion. Besides ... I've read that oath. It seems no worse to me than the current pledge we announce to the flag on a regular basis.

Your casual use of the term “conquered” is what separates us. I no more consider Japan a conquered nation than I do the Confederacy. Conquered,to me, is what Communist Russia did to East European countries. And try as they might, the Yankee government wants to treat the Confederacy as a conquered nation, but they won’t give in.

You are right in that there is no written provision in the Constitution. There is, however, ample room for secession in the Declaration of Independence. There is absolutely no difference between what was done in 1776 and what was done in 1861.

Most bothersome is your comment: “Generally speaking, terrible things are sometimes done in the effort to achieve a goal that is considered good. That doesn’t make the goal a bad thing - it just makes the efforts undertaken to achieve the goal bad or morally tainted.”

That is simply the end justifies the means and goes hand-in-glove with the situation ethics so prevalent since the 1960’s.