Posted on 05/13/2016 1:18:26 PM PDT by GraceG
I have been reading about the periodical votes the Texas legislature makes about secession and pondered on it a while and thought a bit about it and came up with a few things.
1. We have a set of procedures for adding a state to the union in the Constitution.
2. We don't have any set of procedures if a majority of a state's population want to no longer be part of a union.
3. If the formation of the country was the voluntary gathering of states to form the union in the first place, then wouldn't forcing a state to stay against the majority of it's inhabitant's will essentially by tyranny?
4. If you added a process for a state to leave you would by default make that process be somewhat harder than if a territory wanted to become a state. Say for instance Saskatchewan was able to leave Canada peacefully, but then after a while wanted to become a state of the United States, if they wanted to leave later you would want an ever greater majority to on the vote to leave than the vote to join.
5. The civil was was caused by the illegal actions and military actions of the southern states ganging up, forming their own country illegally and then attacking the north. (though there is still some debate who fired first). If there had been a legal process and procedure for states to leave and then later form the confederacy, would the civil war had been averted if they had in that case "stuck to procedure" ?
6. Does a government body that has a process for admittance of smaller entities, but doesn't have any process for them leaving. Does that make that government a Tyranny by default? Does this make the United States a Tyranny by definition? What about the European Union? What about NATO, or the UN even?
Just some pondering about the very nature of "Unions" in the Nation-State sense.
In reference to my comment in post 51, I apologize for it. It has bothered me since I posted it this afternoon. I should have stuck to the issues on this thread and not take a cheap shot by bringing up our other disagreements.
Not at all. Every entity that files Articles of Incorporation establishing the LLC/LP/whatever, must also include details on how the entity will be dissolved.
Thank you for your kind reply.
Excellent point; thank you for making my argument. The fact that the Constitutuion DOESN'T have that provision is proof it was intended to be an indissoluable union.
You just start by firing on Fort Sumter.
That’s a depressing list of outright waste and squandering of taxpayer dollars on a massive scale. Every present and future Social Security recipient should read it.
Unfortunately this kind of reckless and self destructive foreign spending has been going on for a long time under multiple administrations. Of course its far worse under Obama but other presidents paved the path for this senseless largesse. The really aggravating thing is that it comes at the expense of needed assistance to American citizens and other critical domestic needs. Not to mention the fact that it helps our enemies abroad.
This is why we need to boot out the GOPe “leadership” in the House and Senate. Needless to say, the spending will only get worse under a Democrat so electing a businessman as president at least gives us a small chance of righting the ship.
We have discussed this subject ad nauseum on Free Republic. Basically secession of a state is not unconstitutional because the US Constitution is silent on the subject. There has been agreement among many historians had the founders put a secession clause in the Constitution then it would not have been ratified. Conversely a roach motel clause ( states and join but they can never leave ) would have been a show stopper too.
Session does not mean war. The pussies that run the Federal Government wouldn’t do a thing to stop a state from leaving. No political will and the standing Army is to small anyway.
That’s an interesting thought. But given that our court system seems to operate at glacial speeds, how long do you think that process would have taken?
I suppose an argument could be made that this would have bought time for the North to use its industrial might to better prepare for war against the South.
I think the North harbored increasing resentment for the growing wealth of the South and its lucrative cotton exporting business. Maybe even felt some fear over its growing independence. Perhaps not the main cause of the war, but a motivating factor nonetheless. It was inevitable that the North wasn’t going to let go.
Ridiculous thinking .
A good thing.
Very well stated.
The SC militia attacked that fort. 6 others states were in the Confederacy at the time but did not participate directly in the bombardment.
Thanks. Well said.
After the federal government goes bankrupt the US will split into about 6 different countries.
Every Southern state had a referendum on secession. Many had a direct referendum vote. Others had a delegate selected referendum. The people of the South chose secession.
‘The only issue resolved by the Civil War was: Can the North crush the South by burning, razing, and murdering? The answer was Yes.’
_____________________________
Agree. Excellent reply
Now that is funny. Those LGBTs would be more than happy to see Texas secede.
Ok once again you reduce the Civil War down to a fight over a pile of rocks in the Cooper River. Bravo.
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.