Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
“All the parties affected by the decision. Madison wrote that a proper secession required the consent of the states. There is no reason to believe that the approval for a state to leave need be any more than what is required for a state to join - a simple majority in both houses of Congress”

Madison wrote:
On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2.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? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.

“Nonsense. Regardless of Lincoln's position, the Southern acts of secession were illegal. War was the confederacy's decision and their responsibility.”

Hogwash. South Carolina wanted a peaceful separation. It was Lincoln that broke promises and provoked the war.

1,072 posted on 03/23/2010 7:44:32 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1071 | View Replies ]


To: Idabilly
Hogwash. South Carolina wanted a peaceful separation. It was Lincoln that broke promises and provoked the war.

Correct. Lincoln was a political nobody who won the presidency based on promises that he would NOT go to war against the South, promises that he broke almost immediately.

Considering the conditions, attempting to resupply Sumter was nothing less than a hostile act whose sole purpose was to ilicit a defensive response from the Confederacy. The Bay of Tonkin comes to mind.........

How anyone could refute this is inconceivable yet, there they are, the NS's of the world, wallowing in their lies, cowardness and irrational hatred.

End the Occupation!
Free Dixie!!

1,073 posted on 03/23/2010 9:06:58 AM PDT by cowboyway (rockrr - FR's little yapper dog....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1072 | View Replies ]

To: Idabilly
On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2.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? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.

And what does that have to do with secession?

Hogwash. South Carolina wanted a peaceful separation. It was Lincoln that broke promises and provoked the war.

Nonsense. War was what the Davis regime decided to resort to in order to take Sumter. Blame Lincoln all you want, the simple fact is that Davis knew what would happen if he bombarded the fort and he did it anyway.

1,074 posted on 03/23/2010 9:34:52 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1072 | View Replies ]

To: Idabilly; Non-Sequitur
[You, at #79, quoting]

“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

28 nays to 18 yeas

[Non-Sequitur] All the parties affected by the decision. Madison wrote that a proper secession required the consent of the states.

Madison nodded. In the light of his own notes above from the Philadelphia convention, it is seen that the right of secession was explicitly and emphatically not renounced by the compacting States.

The language about secession was nowhere modified, amended, or otherwise grafted into the final Constitution.

Therefore, secession remained among the reserved powers protected against federal invasion (while a member of the Union) by the Tenth Amendment.

Sovereign powers need no "permission" to secede.

[Non-Sequitur] There is no reason to believe that the approval for a state to leave need be any more than what is required for a state to join - a simple majority in both houses of Congress.

And did Congress "admit" the original Thirteen States? No. The People<=>States "admitted" themselves, by sovereign acts.

You elide and confound the status of a Territory, which requires Congressional assent to become a State of the Union, with that of a State, whose powers the former Territory assumes on a basis of complete equality with the original Thirteen as soon as admitted, without let, quibble, or qualification. The former territorial inhabitants at once become the People of a new State.

Texas, to amplify the point, became a State, despite being blockaded out of the Union by John Quincy Adams for ten long years. Texas was not a State of the Union but was a sovereign State nevertheless, a status the Texians achieved on the battlefield.

Likewise, the last two signatories of the Constitution were States even though they were not yet in the Union, the old Union having been dissolved by secession of the other eleven States from the Confederation. Idabilly's Madison quote about the Confederation and the new Union applies here.

1,114 posted on 03/23/2010 11:37:28 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1072 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson