Replies

"However, there is no right to state unilateral secession under U.S. law."

You guys can mouth this mantra till your tongues fall out. It doesn't really matter. Constitutionally, neither should unilateral secession have been forbidden. But more important is the question: what purpose was served, or whose interests were served, by coercively preventing unilateral secession - any purpose which the federal government was ostensibly supposed to serve? I think not. It did serve the kind of interests that Charles Beard suggests were really behind the Federalist's constitution, which they somewhat fraudulently foisted on the country.

The main point I wanted to make concerns the lesson that was apparently universally learned from our war of secession. No one contemplating entrance into a federation appears to be willing to do so without an unambiguous guarantee of a right to unilateral withdrawel. The lack of such was a major reason (among numerous others) why the U.S. Senate refused to approve joining the League of Nations in 1919. Even the EU, socialist creation though it is, is apparently including such a provision in its proposed constitution.

But more important is the question: what purpose was served, or whose interests were served, by coercively preventing unilateral secession - any purpose which the federal government was ostensibly supposed to serve?

"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?

Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...

If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."

A. Lincoln, 7/4/61

The government has the right and responsibility to maintain itself against its domestic foes.

Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Walt

"It did serve the kind of interests that Charles Beard suggests were really behind the Federalist's constitution, which they somewhat fraudulently foisted on the country.

After being constantly called a socialist by the neo-rebs on this board for no greater sin than agreeing with James Madison that unilateral secession is not constitutional, I find it very amusing that you use Socialist historian Charles Beard and his totally discredited "economic determinism" as support for your arguments.

But in a way it makes sense. Beard, like the neo-rebs, also felt that the job of a historian was not to accurately and dispassionately document history but to manipulate historical interpretation to achieve contemporary objectives. His objective was a socialist America. I'm not sure what the objectives of the neo-rebs are, and I'm not even sure they know what they are.

I see now that you have written off Walt from future discussions and I noticed earlier that you informed LS that he/she was no longer worth debating. My question is how does someone get on your 'do-not-disturb' list and, more importantly, how does one STAY on it? I had thought on several past occasions that I had been written off by you, never more to be disturbed by you and your asinine comments. And lo and behold there you are again, sending me unwanted posts, and bothering me with your idiotic opinions. We established some time ago that we don't like each other, we have zero respect for each other's opinions, so why are you trying to drum up a debate with me? Are you that desperate for someone to communicate with? Sorry, but I'm not interested so why not leave me on you written-off list and save your opinions for someone who cares about them?