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.
He also said "Secession is not treason."
see #180
“Sending warships” is no more an act of war than embargoing oil supplies to Japan in 1940.
Firing artillershells onto a Fort Sumter.... that’s an act of war.
For that you have to start with the founding documents.
Your analogy would fit if the embargo included instructions to go fire cannon shells at the men on the ground of a major Japanese port city.
You do understand these ships had orders to use "force" to make them comply?
Firing artillershells onto a Fort Sumter.... that’s an act of war.
It's a response to an act of war already engaged upon.
So if the embargo did NOT include those instructions, would you concede the point? I doubt it.
“The attack on Ft. Sumter would not have happened had Lincoln not sent a fleet of warships to attack the Confederates around Sumter. It was the arrival of the first of the warships that triggered the attack.”
That’s nonsense. Lincoln sent ships to resupply the Fort with food only, and notified the confederates that was his plan.
The attack on Fort Sumter was the stupidest act of statecraft until December 7, 1941 was even stupider. Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs warned Jeff Davis just how disastrous his planned attack would be, but to no avail.
So you’re on both sides of this issue. Seems appropriate for someone naming himself after Diogeneses.
You don’t realize it , but that is YOUR bias. Heavily strong bias to fall into the middle.
They did in fact do everything of which they could think to avoid firing on Sumter.
General Beauregard sent word to Major Anderson that Union warships would be arriving soon, and that they might possibly attack Beauregard's forces, and if Anderson would refrain from firing at Beauregard's forces, He would refrain from firing on Anderson.
Anderson responded that if the Confederates fired at any ship bearing the Union flag, he would use all the force at his disposal against them.
So Beauregard was informed that he would have to face enemy fire from the Fort and from the Ships simultaneously.
His choice was to neutralize the fort immediately before the rest of the ships arrived, or face both the ships and the fort with a likely subsequent greater loss of his men.
What would you have done?
The tragedy is that Anderson had already written up the evacuation order and that if those ships hadn't arrived, Anderson and his men were going to leave the fort in another day or so.
And by the way, Anderson himself wrote that it was a nasty dirty deed the way Lincoln sent those ships to attack them after everyone had been led to believe such a thing would not be done.
I was just countering the quote from Alberta’s Child from the same speech.
“For that you have to start with the founding documents.”
Well, yes. But their actions spoke louder than any words. Looking for legal permission to secede? The founders didn’t. They did justify it and I’d say we are pretty close in the justification department.
+1
I’ll read that later.
The Powhatan, The Pocahontas, The Pawnee, The Harriet Lane, The Yankee, and even the Thomas Freeborn has a big cannon on it. The "Baltic" was being used as a troop carrier and had troops and munitions on it.
Let me show you a picture of some of these "supply" ships.
The Powhatan and the Pocahontas were even more formidable.
Do those look like "Supply" ships?
By today’s standards, hell yes.
By their concurrent standards, maybe. The determination of who started a fight is ... who started the fight... by firing first.
The south fired first. They coulda sent out some kind of surrender monkey whiteflag shipe to “negotiate”. And so could have the North. Failure on both sides.
I’m just proceeding on the basis of your posts.
Feel free to establish your narrative. Perhaps even start your own vanity post.
What would I have done?
I woulda sent a nasty dirty telegram to Lincoln and others saying that they broke their word but I refuse to fire on this fort.
Of course, that’s with hindsight being 20/20. Nowadays, quite a bit of that kind of required restraint is in the training manuals, but probably not nearly enough, because shiite happens.
You are advocating that States remain enslaved because some misguided fools value the Union more than freedom.
Come on you know there is nothing in the USC making secession unconstitutional. You know better.
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.