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.
It’s something like the Hotel California . . . you can check in but you can’t check out.
It’s something like the Hotel California . . . you can check in but you can’t check out.
February 4, 1861 - Delegates are elected to the Virginia Convention, to convene in Richmond, to consider the constitutional crisis triggered by the election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. president and the secession of Deep South states.
February 13, 1861 - The Virginia Convention convenes in the Mechanics Institute at the foot of Capitol Hill in Richmond.
April 4, 1861 - A motion for secession is defeated, 45 to 90, in the Virginia Convention meeting in Richmond.
April 8, 1861 - After the General Assembly adjourns, the Virginia Convention moves its deliberations from the Mechanics Institute to the Capitol in Richmond.
April 15, 1861 - A three-man delegation sent by the Virginia Convention sitting in Richmond meets with Abraham Lincoln at the White House. It is the same day his proclamation calling for volunteers to put down the Confederate rebellion is published in newspapers.
April 16, 1861 - The Virginia Convention meeting in Richmond goes into secret session so that its deeply divided delegates may speak more frankly. A proposal by Unionist delegate Robert Eden Scott is defeated 64 to 77. It offered to give voters a referendum to choose between immediate secession and consultation with the other slave states of the Upper South.
April 17, 1861 - Delegates at the Virginia Convention in Richmond pass an Ordinance of Secession by a vote of 88 to 55. Thirty-two of the "no" votes come from trans-Allegheny delegates, who are more firmly Unionist than representatives from other parts of the state.
April 27, 1861 - Virginia offers to join the Confederate States of America and make Richmond its capital.
May 1, 1861 - The Virginia Convention, meeting in Richmond, adjourns, completing its substantive work. There will be a so-called Adjourned Session (June 12 through July 1) and a Second Adjourned Session (November 13 through December 6), but they do little work of note.
May 23, 1861 - The Ordinance of Secession is approved by Virginia voters by a vote of 125,950 to 20,373, with many western Virginia votes being discarded from the tally.
One more thought if I may....
The destructive Boll weevil beetle entered the U.S. about 30 years after the Civil War ended. The South’s cotton crops were eventually devastated by this infestation. Perhaps this economic deprivation might have caused the South to re-think its relationship to the North. Who knows?
Every state survives on its own now. Every state would flourish without the yoke of the Feds hanging around it's neck.
There are tiny countries all over the world, smaller the RI that survive just fine.
All could, they do now. Without paying tribute to DC they would thrive economically.
That s petulance on your part
If Texas were to secede why couldn’t AR, OK and LA come along too?
It seems that our “leaders” never want to talk about, or explain the need for, foreign spending. There’s never any serious attempt to justify it. There’s no transparency whatsoever. They just do it under cover of darkness. They’re hiding something that the American people need to know.
Way more than OK! Do it! Without those 30 million kooks the US might survive.
Another POS comparing my South with Japan. F U.
Not completely worthless. At the time of Lee's invasion of PA in 1863 the exchange rate was $0.25 CSD to $1.00 USD.
LIncoln had no intention except to force the South into War. LIncoln instituted the income tax, that was illegal. LIncoln suspended habeus corpus that was illegal. One can find over ten actions he took that were illegal under the laws and struck down by the courts. He further condoned the pillaging and rape by Sherman of property and person on Sherman’s March through GA and SC. If there are two people who should never have a monument or honor it is Lincoln and Sherman.
________
Agree. Well said
-- President Davis.
Amazing how everybody’s against the Federal Government and for states’ rights until a state wants to leave, isn’t it?
davis was a lying duplicitous skunk.
I wonder if Obama/blacks ever knew this about their ‘hero’?
But what about his personal attitude toward the blacks? Alas, he left no doubt as to his disdain for the slaves and his firm belief in the inferiority of the black race. Here is his famous quote from a debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, from “The National Park Service website’s “Lincoln Home Historical Site’s Page,” entitled “Fourth Debate Charleston Illinois”:
‘
‘I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.’
Sounds pretty unambiguous to me. And so it did to Lerone Bennett, Jr., executive editor of Ebony and author of several books on African-American history. He scathingly criticized Lincoln in 1968 in an article he published in his magazine titled ‘’Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?’’ “His answer was a resounding Yes,” ruefully writes The New York Times.
Lincoln believed blacks inferior to whites, Bennett insisted; he supported segregation in the North, told darky jokes, and used the N-word in public and private. He reluctantly embraced Emancipation halfway through the Civil War only after Congress enacted it and slaves voted with their feet for freedom by escaping to Union lines, and he persisted to the end of his life in the belief that ‘’deportation’’ of blacks was the best solution to the race problems that would follow.
To sum it up, Lincoln was an out-and-out racist. Actually, as the flagship mouthpiece of the liberal left put it, quite correctly, he “did share the racial prejudices of his time and place.” But so did the Founding Fathers, didn’t they? And if liberals view them as bigoted miscreants and want to put them on trial for the crime of racism, Lincoln definitely merits a prominent place in the dock. Otherwise, the accusers would be guilty of another grave sin in their own playbook: disparate treatment.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/that_dirty_rotten_racistabraham_lincoln.html#ixzz48doJqIJP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Thanks.
The states weren't readmitted to the union because the U.S. position was that they'd never left. However, after walking out of Congress, their congressional delegations had to be readmitted to the House and Senate. Look it up.
Lincoln’s racial attitudes were mainstream for his time. Lincoln was no more a racist than any American of his era and considerably less a racist than any of the southron slavers.
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.