Posted on 01/19/2021 4:38:09 PM PST by rfreedom4u
Many people have stated that secession is illegal and not allowed as determined by the American Civil War. But is it really? Throughout the history of the United States our government has supported the independence/secession of states/territories/colonies from various other nations.
Haiti seceded from the French empire through a slave revolt. South Sudan broke from Sudan. Yugoslavia broke into several countries and later Kosovo seceded from Serbia. Czechoslovakia split into two countries. The Soviet split into quite a few countries. The UK left the European Union. And many others….
So why do people say secession is illegal in the United States? There’s nothing in the US Constitution that mentions secession. The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Using my logic this means that since the issue of secession is not given to the federal government it is reserved to the states or the people themselves to determine. I’ve read the constitution of my own state (Texas) and secession is not mentioned at all. This even furthers my belief that is should be determined by the people.
If I were to join a club and did not like what the club became, I would be well within my rights to quit that club. If I go to see a movie and don’t like it, I can walk out. So why would anyone believe that the United States is a “once you’re in you can’t leave” type of deal? When someone doesn’t like the state in which they live they are free to move to another state or even another country.
If secession/independence/splitting up is supported for other people in the world why is it not ok for citizens of the United States? And yes, I know that politicians are garbage and want to maintain their power and control. So please give me your opinion on whether it is legal or not and why you think that way? But please spare me the “if it’s broke, we don’t run away, we fix it” argument. At this point I am fairly certain that it is not repairable.
Totally irrelevant.
Secession is probably going to happen at some point.
At least a civil war and massive chaos as blues and reds sock it to each other leading up to efforts for a peaceful solution.
Think Czechoslovakia’s peaceful divorce.
That Confederation turned out to be so inadequate that a new Constitution was deemed necessary. But even under the Articles of Confederation we still had one army and one set of diplomatic representatives. We were, so far as the outside world was concerned, one union and one nation.
Davis would have had to have been tried in the South. In Richmond (or maybe Montgomery). It could have been hard to find a fair jury or guarantee the trial court’s safety, so the government decided not to bother.
Lincoln wasn't born until 1809.
Don’t even ask for permission. Just do it!
There are many things that the Constitution is silent on, but lawmakers have created law to govern and courts have ruled upon and affirmed. Reducing the argument down to bumper sticker slogans only serves to fog the truth. Here is a link to the Texas v. White case should you care to read about the ruing in its entirety: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700
As with all lawsuits there are predicates and contexts that need to be observed and considered if one wants to understand why a case was adjudicated the was it was.
As I’m sure you know, the case wasn’t about Texas’s right of secession - at least not initially. But Standing, Authority, and Sovereignty became elements. Here’s what the court said about the formation of the republic:
99
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Jumping ahead, the ruling states:
101
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
That last sentence is the money quote. SCOTUS doesn’t recognize secession as a constitutional act unless done with mutual consent.
Remove the port of New Orleans from the Mississippi River, as well as all of the offshore drilling and rethink your stupidity. There is nothing in Texas, or any other state that comes close to providing the economic benefits of having a major river system served close to the Gulf of Mexico by an international port. Two-thirds of the interior of this country DEPEND on being able to cheaply ship and receive goods from the rest of the world. in addition, Louisiana has sacrificed it's coast lands so unappreciative folks like you can drive a car to work and live in a modern world.
Exactly right. If you’re strong enough to succeed then it’s legal.
I though so, but I googled it, it’s a different A. Lincoln.
“During the American Revolutionary War, Abraham served as a captain of the Augusta County militia, and with the organization of Rockingham County in 1778, he served as a captain for that county. He was in command of sixty of his neighbors, ready to be called out by the governor of Virginia and marched where needed.
Abraham Lincoln (captain) - Wikipedia”
Still it has little to do with the point I was making.
You honestly think Washington fought for Unity over Freedom?
Then that’s the statement right there. If the guvmint is extended too far to bother... that’s where freedom lives.
Of course you are good, thanks. That is the typical, the usual, the traditional selfish I don’t GAFF about you response.
Then you won’t mind when the time comes for us to not GAFF about you.
BTW, notice this exercise in doublethink:
"By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ "
LOL. This constitution must be perpetual, even though it doesn't say it is, because the last constitution said it was perpetual, even though it wasn't.
Look all you've done is demonstrate that SCOTUS ruled secession unconstitutional. That was not in dispute. The point is that the court ruled something unconstitutional that the constitution is silent about. That remains a contradiction.
Seriously? With the Grand Army of the Republicans occupying the entire South they were afraid they couldn't protect a court?
So... according to you Davis committed Treason, launched a devastating war, was responsible for the death of the better part of a million people; but they didn't put him on trial for logistical reasons?
And what makes you so sure they would they have tried Davis in the South anyway? They tried Henry Wirz in Washington. They didn't let the Constitution stand in the way of that.
Legal scholars at the time successfully argued that the government might lose on the merits. Most people understood secession to be legal before the war.
No it isn't. The constitution says absolutely nothing on the subject because the constitution was written only 11 years after the declaration, which says everything that needs to be said on the subject.
Yes, Lincoln was for it before he was against it.
That it was contrary to his will. He did not show us it was illegal. All the evidence shows that it is not.
Most people are unaware that Lincoln struck at them first, and that's because they don't teach that in history, because it makes Lincoln look like the aggressor, which he was.
Were you aware that Lincoln sent warships with orders to attack them if they did not cooperate? Most people are unaware that Lincoln committed the first belligerent act.
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” — Abraham Lincoln”
Yeah. But he said this in the preceding paragraph.....
“Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. “
The “institutions” alluded to in your quote was slavery. Apparently telegraphing that states could choose to end the practice since he was clearly against its spread.
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.