WIJG:
"Actually, BloJo""...capricious & completely arbitrary crap""You pulled it out of your @ss...""you’re a liar and a world-class hypocrite ""and no better than any D@mocrat politician,""Even though you pulled it out of your @ss, "" you pulled a 'double standard' out of your @ss, and tried to smear us with it""Go pound sand, you lying hypocrite..." Real high-class arguments, that's for sure. :-)
For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend: Bruce Catton c1961 "The Coming Fury" Volume One of the American Civil War Trilogy.
I'd count "Coming Fury" as "fair and balanced," since some of Catton's arguments I disagree with. From my perspective, he's slightly biased toward the Confederacy. But it is well-written -- history at it's best, imho.
We have seen here, ad infinitum, the arguments FOR secession, i.e.:
- that it is allowed by the 10th Amendment
- that it was provided for in the Virginia signing statement (also NY and Rhode Island),
- that Madison's Federalist 43 uses it as his argument against excessive Federal power
- that some Founding Fathers (notably Jefferson) wrote later favoring it.
- and besides all that, those D*amn Yankees are just as despicable as WIJG's comments claim.
The legal arguments AGAINST unilateral, unapproved secession are probably best expressed in Lincoln's First Inaugural and his address to Congress on July 4, 1861.
The crux of the question was: is unilateral, unapproved secession "rebellion," "insurrection," "treason" or "domestic violence," as provided for in the Constitution?
Well -- is the Constitution a contract? If it is, then why would the following not apply:
Article 1, section 10: "No state shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."
Many in 1860 understood that secession meant breaking the Constitutional contract, for a few examples:
Robert E. Lee, January 1861:
"Secession is nothing but revolution."The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will.
"It was intended for perpetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4& for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution.
"In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
Future Confederate VP, Alexander Stephens, addressing the Georgia legislature, January 1861:
quoting Catton (p113): "The election of Lincoln [Stephens] liked no better than the next man but it was not by itself sufficient reason for fracturing the Constitution."Do not let us break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, then is the time to strike." "
In short, the future Confederate VP understood that secession constituted breaking the Constitution's contract.
So did the Maryland legislature, on April 26, 1861 (p353):
"After some debate the legislature agreed with the governor. It passed a resolution asserting that it lacked the constitutional power to adopt an ordinance of secession..."
Among Democrats, Lincoln's chief rival and southern sympathizer, Stephen Douglas said (p197):
"...he could never agree "that any State can secede and separate from us without our consent..."
Of course, my personal favorite, as a Pennsylvanian is the Pennsylvania legislature's resolution (p202):
"the right of the people of a single state to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of other states, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this union, cannot be acknowledged."
Even Jefferson Davis himself understood from Day One that secession could require the Confederacy:
"to appeal to arms and invoke the blessing of Providence on our just cause."
And so the South made its "appeal to arms," and invoked "the blessing of Providence."
But the South's "appeals" and "invocations" were all rejected.
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - I was out of town.
Where were we?
Real high-class arguments, that's for sure. :-)
That's quite humorous, coming from someone who considers Wikipedia to be a 'reference' deserving multiple links (BloJo Post #2241), who accuses those who disagree with him of being modern-day slave owners (BloJo Post #2247), and who's fovorite argument in support of his opinion is "Yeeeeeee Haaaaaaaw!!!" (BloJo, too many idiotic posts to count). But thanks for proving another of my points - you're a complete hypocrite.
;>)
For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend: Bruce Catton c1961 "The Coming Fury" Volume One of the American Civil War Trilogy.
Sorry, BloJo, but that doesn't satisfy your Post #2233 requirement for documentation dating from "1788." As noted above, you're a hypocrite, who pushes double standards - just like any D@mocrat politician.
I'd count "Coming Fury" as "fair and balanced," since some of Catton's arguments I disagree with. From my perspective, he's slightly biased toward the Confederacy. But it is well-written -- history at it's best, imho.
Funny - many consider Catton to be a leftist, who is blatantly biased towards the 'statist' (as defined by Mark Levin) end of the spectrum.
We have seen here, ad infinitum, the arguments FOR secession, i.e.:
* that it is allowed by the 10th Amendment
* that it was provided for in the Virginia signing statement (also NY and Rhode Island),
* that Madison's Federalist 43 uses it as his argument against excessive Federal power
* that some Founding Fathers (notably Jefferson) wrote later favoring it.
None of which you have refuted, even with multiple links to irrelevant Wikipedia 'references.'
* and besides all that, those D*amn Yankees are just as despicable as WIJG's comments claim.
Just can't resist throwing in yet another blatant lie, can you, BloJo? But thanks for proving another one of my points - you're a liar (repeatedly, in print).
The legal arguments AGAINST unilateral, unapproved secession are probably best expressed in Lincoln's First Inaugural and his address to Congress on July 4, 1861.
Yes, let's look at a few portions of Mr. Lincoln's address, which you excerpted in Post #2241:
"It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."
FALSE - The federal government is a creature of the States, and can be 'terminated' by the States under the specific written terms of Article V of the Constitution.
"One party to a [constitutional] contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all [parties] to lawfully rescind it?"
FALSE - again, as Article V notes, only "three fourths" of the States would be required to rescind the Constitution completely, via the amendment process specified.
Obviously, your understanding of the Constitution is just as flawed as was Mr. Lincoln's.
Well -- is the Constitution a contract? ... Many in 1860 understood that secession meant breaking the Constitutional contract...
Sorry, BloJo, but that (once again) fails to satisfy your Post #2233 requirement for documentation dating from "1788." As noted above, you're a 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' hypocrite.
Robert E. Lee... Alexander Stephens... the Maryland legislature, on April 26, 1861... Stephen Douglas... Jefferson Davis himself...
So, in your Post #2233 you advise us that the public comments of Jefferson and Madison (and the entire Bill of Rights, for that matter), published within three years of ratification, are irrelevant because "any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' 'original intent.' " (Gosh, you must believe that Madison & Jefferson were complete scoundrels, or subject to dementia, to make such a claim! ;>)
But here, in your Post #2249, you quote multiple sources from SEVEN DECADES OR MORE AFTER ratification - while still discounting Jefferson and Madison.
Hypocrite.
And so the South made its "appeal to arms," and invoked "the blessing of Providence."
But the South's "appeals" and "invocations" were all rejected.
In other words, you suggest that 'might makes right' - a suitable epitaph to your irrational, revisionist 'argument,' if there ever was one...