Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
It does, but not nearly the standing of a declaration of secession. This gives authority and weight. A secession of the state of Texas is of a sovereign people and would emanate from the people; it would contain reasons for such secession. A declaration gives cause and therefore a unifying principle. Both a declaration of cause and the weight of a sovereign state are all the difference.
Elsewise, It's just another Ruby Ridge, Waco, a bunch of wackos, that will be named by the whim of the talking heads and ridiculed by all.
Secession WAS a peaceful alternative until the North/Lincoln said it wasn't Davis chose to start a war over Sumter.
There, fixed it for you.
Obviously I'm not following whatever point you're trying to make. What does secession have to do with the Revolutionary war? Secession is connected with the Southern rebellion of 1861.
He was no demon, either. Regardless of the misconceptions of many around here.
For many reasons, it's an option to be pursued. Certainly, we should not envy them for the lost revenue to the Feds who just gave away my children's inheritance to the banksters.
I suppose it's pointless to point out that it was a Texan in the White House who did that?
Who gets to decide if the compact has been violated or abused?
I do.
Louis XVI thought he had sovereign authority too. He based his authority on the divine right of kings. George III thought he had sovereign authority too. I assume you would argue that the state's sovereign authority comes from its citizens. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments can only derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. Unless you argue that actions to extend and perpetuate slavery are justly done you'll have to find another foundation for their sovereign authority.
but they had the power
Appomattox proves otherwise.
The Declaration does come to mind. and, yes, certainly that fostered some hostility. Nevertheless, it was also one of our least bloody wars.
The hostility was the Revolutionary War. The problem is you only half read what I post, and don't understand what I write. You ridicule a sentence and ignore it's context. It's a silly way to argue.
Not you nor I, but the sovereign people of the seceding state, as I stated above.
My point has always been we had better know the Principles upon which this country was founded. They are found in the Declaration of Independence they need to be carefully read and understood. I have quoted at length from that document. No one has pointed out where or how I misunderstand its principles. Make the argument based on the text, I'm all ears.
Louis XIV has nothing to do with this since we both agree that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.
The south had a “natural right” to secede in order to perpetuate and extend the institution of chattel slavery.
Your error is that the South only seceded to perpetuate slavery. Even if you are correct, your other error is that because the South screwed up, therefore the states have no sovereignty and we must all take whatever the feds dish out. However, it's not true. The structure of the US did not fundamentally change, at least in law. The states still are sovereign.
The other post was a bit hasty. Adam's is mistaken, not you. No right to secede? Secession is a form of unbloody revolution which is not governed by the Constitution (nor mentioned except perhaps in Amendment X). Certainly a breech of the Constitution by Federal government requires recourse other than the Courts and yet short of revolution. Moreover, it seems that the most effective kind of revolution can only be carried out through the States in order to maintain order.
You yourself seem to see this in your slip in mentioning the citizens right to secede.
And the people of the non-seceding states? Don't they have a right to say, "No, the compact isn't broken?" If not, why not? Why don't they have a say in the matter?
Thus, if the terms of the contract have been violated and other recourse exhausted, the only recourse is to declare the contract void. The other parties may disagree and continue.
The heart of the problem is agreeing whether a violation has occurred. It is for the sovereign people of each state so to decide. Of course, many violations can be endured, BUT when in the course of human events . . .
In principle, it is for the people of the state to decide since the state is a sovereign power. As the state joined by the consent of people, so may it disjoin.
They do, by not seceding also. They may not force others to stay. The Southern Secession did not change the fundamental political reality; no laws affecting this were changed. The North won by force, not law. They were right in some matters and the Southerners wrong in some.
“If the offenders were given the same standing as the aggrieved, who is to judge?”
A lot of us disagree with the culture of victimization in which the aggrieved party (the alleged victim) gets everything his way but the alleged “offender” (who may be the actual aggrieved party) is allowed little or no recourse.
“It is a legal principle at stake.”
That only weighs heavy in an organized society.
Taking the War Between The States as an example, the Seceding States side took the position that the Union States side had breached the compact and the Union States side declined consent, taking the position that the Seceding States side had breached the compact. Each side thought they had the right, thus there was a conflict of “rights” — the right of one side to leave the Compact and the right of the other side to hold them to the Compact. In an organized society such conflicts may be settled through the Courts, the rule of law, and if necessary the use of force in accordance with the standards of the society on behalf of the aggrieved party. Absent an organized society, such conflicts may be settled by the use of force by the involved parties. (In that situation the answer to “who is to judge?” is “trial by combat”.) At the time of the War Between The States, the society in which the two parties had joined had become less than organized. The States relationship was closer to that in a state of nature than a state of society. The use of force to settle the conflict was almost a default position.
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
One term that is being used on this thread is sovereign. What did the term mean to the Founders? Who is sovereign? The People? The States? In a few places the Founders do use that term with reference to the States, but in what sense are the States sovereign? The Founders also used the word in another sense that seems to indicate that the States are not the ultimate sovereign. For example, when Samuel Adams signed the Declaration he is reported to have said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." Or when British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." the immediate response of Reverend Jonas Clarke was:
"We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."
I posted on another thread:
Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny..."
1773, Marlborough, MA
_____________________"...all assumed power in Rulers, not granted them by the constitution, is without just authority, and so far forth, can claim no submission. "As usurpation," says the great and judicious Mr. LOCKE, "is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to." And again, "Where-ever law ends, Tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm. And whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by law, and makes use of the force, he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate: And acting without authority, may be opposed as any other man, who by force invades the right of another."
...And it must be granted [5] finally, that the people as well as their Rulers, are proper judges of the civil constitution they are under, and of their own rights and privileges; else, how shall they know when these are invaded;-when submission is due to authoritative requisitions, and when not?
An Election Sermon
John Tucker
1771
Perhaps you are right that the most effective kind of revolution can only be carried out through the States in order to maintain order. I suppose if the people of enough states are angry enough at being turned into slaves they could amend the Constitution to undo the present destruction of our liberties. I admit it's far fetched, given the present moral climate, but secession is even more so.
Cordially,
Then do they have the right to expel? Can the other sovereign states say that Oregon has violated the compact and eject the state from the Union against its will?
The Southern Secession did not change the fundamental political reality; no laws affecting this were changed.
But they did walk away from their responsibility for debt and treaty obligation and with every bit of federal property they could get their hands on. And they were in a position to cut off the entire central U.S. from access to the sea via the Mississippi. And according to you there was nothing the remaining states could do about that. Why don't they have any rights or any protections in the situation?
The North won by force, not law. They were right in some matters and the Southerners wrong in some.
Then maybe they shouldn't have started their war?
So your solution is to decide they're guilty under all circumstances and without any chance to defend themselves. They have no rights at all and no protections under the Constitution in your scenario. Where is the justice in that?
If mere majority, then it is tyranny of the majority. In the case of one state against 49, there can be no secession.
In a case of 49 against one then maybe the one is in the wrong?
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.