The Late Great Walter Williams said the South had a right to secede.

YouTube ^ | June 19,2023 | DiogenesLamp

[DiogenesLamp]

The late Great Walter Williams makes it quite clear that he believed the South had a right to secede.

[DiogenesLamp]

What is the Constitutional process for secession? There is none given in the Constitution.

It's given in the Declaration of Independence, and i'm pretty sure everyone involved in the Constitutional convention was familiar with the process. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

It was always possibly to dissolve the union through mutual consent of federal and state governments. It still is. It could be done by an act of Congress or a Constitutional Amendment. It can't be done by a state acting on its own. There is no right in the Constitution for a state or locality to break with the Constitution and declare itself independent and free from federal laws.

The Declaration of Independence says there is such a right, and it stems from God and Natural law. In their understanding, this overrides anything written by man. The right is inherent in human nature, and we recognize it's application in nations like Ukraine despite Putin's efforts to "preserve the Union." (Soviet Union.)

... but says that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." In other words, it doesn't say that you can throw over membership in a nation whenever you feel like it.

Phrased as a suggestion, not as a requirement. Don't put it forth as a requirement because that is deceptive.

[DiogenesLamp]

Prime example: the second amendment in New Jersey, New York and numerous other states. Permission from the almighty state required to exercise it. A right which can be denied is no right; it is a privilege

Exactly. A right is not a right if others have veto power.

[Wuli]

“It’s given in the Declaration of Independence”

1. The Declaration of Independence is not the U.S. Constitution and it is not cited in the Constitution as the authority for the Constitution.

2. Philosophical arguments are insufficient constiutional arguments when they are not placed into a constitution in plane unambigous language.

[cowboyusa]

Article 1. Section 10. 1

[devere]

Jeff Davis should have taken the advice of Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs who told him not to attack Fort Sumter: “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.” It was a very accurate analysis by Mr. Toombs.

Davis should instead have sued Lincoln to acknowledge secession (and for possession of the forts), and the 1861 US Supreme Court, the same court that had recently issued the Dred Scott decision, would have given it to him.

80 years later the Japanese copied Jeff Davis’ mistake when they attacked Pearl Harbor. If they had instead ignored the US and occupied the rest of Asia (except the Philippines) what could Roosevelt have done about it? Nothing!

[DiogenesLamp]

1. The Declaration of Independence is not the U.S. Constitution ...

No it isn't. It's authority descends from a much higher power, and the constitution derives the only legitimacy it has from the Declaration.

... and it is not cited in the Constitution as the authority for the Constitution.

Earlier this year I saw someone mention that they had seen a Polish dictionary from the 1890s. Under the definition of "Horse", it said: "Everyone knows what a horse is."

The fact that people had a right to independence was so glaringly obvious to the people of 1787 that the thought of mentioning it in the constitution would have been regarded as obtuse.

2. Philosophical arguments are insufficient constiutional arguments when they are not placed into a constitution in plane unambigous language.

Trying to force a ban on secession *INTO* the US Constitution should remain in the philosophical realm because the evidence of which I am aware shows that it didn't exist in reality.

[linMcHlp]

“A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”

[Albion Wilde]

He was so brilliant and clear-minded. sigh

[DiogenesLamp]

Jeff Davis should have taken the advice of Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs who told him not to attack Fort Sumter:

And Lincoln should have taken the advice of his entire cabinet who told him not to attack the confederates with his war fleet. They *TOLD* him it would trigger a war.

He did it anyway. Jeff Davis could only respond in kind, which is what he did.

80 years later the Japanese copied Jeff Davis’ mistake when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Well except for the fact that Pearl Harbor was completely located in US territory, was of vital national interest, they killed 2000 men or so and did many billions of dollars worth of damage while presenting a threat to all American interests in the Pacific.

At Sumter, no one was killed, it served absolutely no US interest before or after the Civil War, it was at the entrance of a very important port city of South Carolina, and the Union forces started it by seizing the place in the dead of night.

The difference between Pearl Harbor and Fort Sumter is the Difference between lighting and a lightning bug.

[DiogenesLamp]

He was so brilliant and clear-minded. sigh

He was. His articles were a joy to read. I always got a chuckle because he often used humor to make his points.

[Wuli]

“and the constitution derives the only legitimacy it has from the Declaration”

No. One is a document announcing the colonies separation from Britain. The other draws its authority directly from the people in the manner of their elected representatives assembled in the Continental Cpngress.

[BroJoeK]

x: "...There is no right in the Constitution for a state or locality to break with the Constitution and declare itself independent and free from federal laws."

DiogenesLamp: "The Declaration of Independence says there is such a right, and it stems from God and Natural law.
In their understanding, this overrides anything written by man."

As always, DiogenesLamp is just lying about this, and he knows it, but thinks the lie is OK, because that's exactly what DiogenesLamp believes, and if he repeats his lies often enough, maybe, somehow, they will magically become true.

They won't, ever.

The truth is our Founders' natural "right of revolution" or "right of secession" lives in exactly the same sense as our natural "right to kill" -- meaning, we have a natural right to kill someone, but only in self-defense.
There has to be a clear and present danger that any reasonable person would agree on, making killing in self-defense necessary.
Unnecessary murder, without a clear and present danger, is a capital crime and could get you hanged, just as unjustified treason can.

So, "necessity" is key to understanding the Declaration of Independence, and why our Founders went to such great efforts to spell out a long parade of horribles, that justified their actions, in self defense.

1. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

2. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate...
   But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
   --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity..."

3. "...such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
   The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
   To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

4. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

No Founder ever suggested or supported what DiogenesLamp so fervently believes, that anyone can at any time, for any reason, or for no reasons at all, can by natural right, simply declare themselves independent of whichever government they might wish to be free of -- be that their township, their city, their state or their nation, they can simply declare themselves a new country subject to only their own laws and nobody else's authority.

Instead, our Founders considered a "right to secede" or "right to revolution" as applying only under conditions which could also justify a right to "murder", meaning, killing in self defense.

No Founder ever advocated or supported a unilateral, unapproved "right to secession" at pleasure, regardless of how often DiogenesLamp now declares otherwise.

DiogenesLamp: "The right is inherent in human nature, and we recognize it's application in nations like Ukraine despite Putin's efforts to "preserve the Union." (Soviet Union.)"

As for Ukraine, nothing remotely resembling 1861 is happening there.
Unlike the Confederacy, which was never recognized internationally, Ukraine has been a recognized sovereign country for over 30 years, Ukraine including Crimea.
Those international recognitions (including Crimea in Ukraine) include many by Russia itself:

1. 1954 Soviet transfer of Crimea to Ukraine

2. 1991 Belovezha Accords

3. 1994 Budapest Memorandum

4. 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty

5. 2003 Russia Ukraine border treaty

So Russia today, or rather one man, Vlad the Invader, is trying to unilaterally abrogate Russia's frequent legal recognitions of Ukraine with Crimea and unilaterally impose Russian rule over Ukrainian territories and people who never legitimately voted or otherwise agreed to it.

[DiogenesLamp]

No. One is a document announcing the colonies separation from Britain.

Hardly. The Declaration asserts that the right of independence is given by God. It lays the legal and moral foundation for separating from a government that has ruled it's subjects for over a thousand years.

It is the rock upon which everything else is built. Without it, the Constitution has no legitimacy because the United Kingdom is still the rightful ruler of the land.

The other draws its authority directly from the people in the manner of their elected representatives assembled in the Continental Cpngress.

I like where you are going with this. Deriving authority from the people is exactly what the Confederates did. *THEIR PEOPLE* voted to secede.

The Declaration specifies that the only legitimate rule is by "consent of the governed." You appear to agree with that.

So what is wrong with allowing "the people" to rule themselves in the case of the Southern states who wanted out from under corrupt, despicable, lying Washington DC government?

[Wuli]

“The Declaration asserts that the right of independence is given by God. It lays the legal and moral foundation for separating from a government that has ruled it’s subjects for over a thousand years.”

Yes, that is the moral and philosophical argument the declaration makes, but it is not the declaration that designs and forms the union, it is the Constitution that does that, and it declares its authority as “We the people”, not “based on the declaration of independence”,

[A strike]

BroJoeK has got it all wrong as is usual with less intel people.
Requiring “necessity” to demand separate self governance is total bullSchiff, and the Declaration acknowledges this.
That the Founders only considered the right to secede as in the same catagory as ‘the right to murder’ in self defense is nowhere in evidence and likewise total bullShiite.

Let’s be strict constructionalists here and acknowledge that there is NO Constitutional prohibition on leaving the Republic. Show me wrong

[Locomotive Breath]

I have only listened to the audiobook and am going from memory. As a recovering academician, I keep meaning to be diligent by checking sources. That means getting a print copy of Flood’s book for his exact quote and then checking Flood’s citation to exactly what Chase said and then looking that up for Chase’s original words. Until then, I’ll go with your version. Thanks!

[Wuli]

“Let’s be strict constructionalists here and acknowledge that there is NO Constitutional prohibition on leaving the Republic”

Like abortion, the Constitution is silent om secession, and spells out no Constitutional procedure for it. Some, like yourself assume that no mention of it in the Constitution means there is no Costitutional provision against it, and others disagree.

[x]

Phrased as a suggestion, not as a requirement. Don't put it forth as a requirement because that is deceptive.

Not a suggestion. Not quite a requirement. It's advice and a warning. If I say "Diogenes, you shouldn't stick that fork in the electrical socket," it's more than just advice.

If the colonies had lost the war, they would have lost their heads, as generations of Irishmen and Scotsmen had. They were deathly serious about their revolution in a way that you aren't.

[A strike]

“Some, like yourself assume that no mention of it in the Constitution means there is no Constitutional provision against it, and others disagree.”
Given the U.S.Constitution’s inherent bias toward freedom and self determination, which side is TOTALLY wrong in their position?