If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Force was used to reverse secession; no law was being enforced.

The Supreme Court said otherwise.

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, [this is the Militia Act] and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

-- from the Prize Cases ruling in the December 1862 term.

Walt

[Aurelius]

This is pointless. You keep harping on the Militia Act and the Prize Cases decision although you have been shown again and again why they do not apply in the case of secession. The matter has been settled.

[Poohbah]

Or are we not supposed to compare Southerners to the all but out in the open northern secessionist states of 1814?

And how did the Southron states answer the calls for secession? Calhoun and company made it quite clear that any attempt at secession would be put down by force.

Oops. Looks like I let the cat out of the bag.

[billbears]

And did I say I agreed with them? The north should have been allowed to leave in 1814.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As early as before the first Continental Congress the enlightened colonists considered themselves Americans, a distinct people.

Washington's horror of disUnion caused him to write the Farewell Address. Typically it is presented (falsely) as a plea for isolationism. It is nothing of the sort and the main reason it calls for standing aside from Europe's quarrels is the fear that becoming involved on France's side would bring about the destruction of the Union through Civil War.

This is also a big factor in his turning away from Jefferson who forfeited the Great Man's friendship through duplicity, malice and lies about him and his administration.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You are spreading falsehoods. None of the founders supported disUnion. Not one and you can't show one comment which means that they did. Jefferson started to flirt with the idea of secession in the 1820s and after a pack of brainless baying yahoos who supported him started howling about actually leaving the Union, Madison wrote him and warned him about the use of such language. Jefferson then backtracked and re-affirmed his opposition to such an idea.

Washington's Farewell address is primarily directed against the idea of disunion. Hamilton abhorred the idea with every fiber of his being and was one of the reasons he was opposed to Burr becoming governor of NY in 1804. His fear of disunion was a factor in his death at the hands of Burr a few months later.

The Declaration of Independence was a rhetorical device to justify what had ALREADY happened and had no application to a Free and Independent government. It was addressed to ENGLAND and has no relevence to 1860 or the constitution. There was NO Union until 1788 just a Confederation and prior to that colonies controlled by the King.

You have to make proper distinctions. Painting everything with the same brush merely obscures and does not illuminate.
It leads to great confusion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So that slice of crap was worth posting twice?

No matter how many times you post it the ridiculous article which started this thread will not be less ridiculous. Nor will it automatically become worth reading or attain any greater accuracy.

It is drivel filled with error and contradiction. Truly a post not worthy of any school of thought. I have seen better written and more sensible articles in Lyndon LaRouche's paper. However, junk like this is the best that the D.S.s can come up with to support their intellectually, morally and factually bankrupt contentions. That, at least, is a pleasant thought.

Lies about the meaning of the constitution, lies about the founding fathers beliefs, lies about the start of the War, lies about the intentions of Lincolns, lies about the intentions of the Slavers makes for tiresome reading. Lies about me in comparision are inconsequential. Weak attempts to insult me merely shows the other readers the lack of ability you have. Keep it up.

[justshutupandtakeit]

By the time the constitution was written the government of the Articles was moribund and without power. There was no secession from a dead body. Any more than there is a secession when a butterfly emerges from the chrysalis. America emerged from its dead cocoon of the Articles and flew away on its unparalleled flight into the light of Freedom.

In point of fact, the TRUE Union prior to the Constitution was the the Army of George Washington. Its survival allowed the Union to survive. Its destruction would have meant the end of the Union. Those who served in that Army understood that the Confederation was weak to the point of contempt and utterly incapable of doing anything effectual.

No changes were made in the Articles and for good reason. Hamilton and Madison understood that the veto power of each state made any changes impossible. Therefore, it was necessary for the survival of the nation that the ARticles be scrapped entirely and a fresh start begun. Their wisdom blessed the world with this great nation.

There was no violation of the Articles and the Union was made more perfect. All was done legally and consistent with the concept of republicanism.

Needs of the nation had outgrown the Articles and to keep them would have meant national suicide just as a butterfly which cannot get out of the chrysalis dies. Washington, Hamilton and Madison would have none of that. All the great patriots would have none of that.

Who dares oppose himself to such men and expects to be taken seriously?

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Aurelius]

Thank you for your opinion. Everyone has a right to his opinion, even an ignorant jackass like you.

[RenegadeNC]

"No state has ever been out of the Union for single second."

Are you sure about that? Each of the former Confederate states had to be readmitted into the Union during the 1866 - 1870 timeframe...well after the war had ended.
How and why would you readmit someone who hasn't left?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the Union had already been declared to be perpetual and the Constitution explicitly stated that it was adopted to make the Union MORE PERFECT it does not take a lot of brain power to understand that it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect.

Jackson certainly doesn't agree with your belief. Nor does ANY other founder. Not one. Hmmmm....

Secession could have been perfectly legal had the Constitution been amended to allow it.

Our Union is not the political equivalent of an Islamic divorce. Saying "I secede" three times or a hundred times doesn't do it.

[Aurelius]

"...it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect."

An obvious non sequitur.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Being called an ignorant jackass by a pompous fool is high praise. Seeing the evidence of brain-rot instituted through slavish devotion to the lying tyrants of the Slaverocracy is a sobering thing.

Posting your comments is a great service to the medical community and a clear warning of the biological degradation caused by historical error. Hopefully your tragedy will turn future generations away from the Dark side and back to the light of Patriotism.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't understand the phrase? Others can help.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I never said YOU were a liar. Just that the mythology/propaganda you inherited was most likely a lie. The probability of that story of the gang-rape being true is as close to zero as anything can be.

People who knowingly spread untruths are liars. People who spread lies not knowing they are lies are not liars. Since there is no way you can verify that this tall tale is true I don't call you a liar.

I am specific in the use of words and don't confuse the definitions of lie and liar.

[Aurelius]

Keep it up, jackass, the more you post your lame insults and totally unsubstantiated allegations, the more of a fool you look.

[billbears]

Since the Union had already been declared to be perpetual and the Constitution explicitly stated that it was adopted to make the Union MORE PERFECT it does not take a lot of brain power to understand that it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect.

Sorry not going to fly. The Constitution replaced the Articles, it didn't amend the Articles. If this all blasted perpetual union was doing so well under the old document, why didn't the Founders just amend what they had instead of tossing it out?

Jackson certainly doesn't agree with your belief. Nor does ANY other founder. Not one. Hmmmm

Well that's a lie and you know it. Jefferson's Inaugural Address comes to mind just in itself. And surely you're not suggesting that none of the Founders or their peers were in Hartford in 1814? They got the idea of secession from someone. Hmmmm.....

Secession could have been perfectly legal had the Constitution been amended to allow it.

It was amended.

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

Do you see secession explicitly covered in the Constitution, either through outlawing or condoning? No? Then it is a right reserved to the states

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sorry doofuss but you are the one who started with the insults. As you always do when unable to dispute civilly or rationally.

Clean up your own act before blatthering on about others.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"No state has ever been out of the Union for single second."

Are you sure about that? Each of the former Confederate states had to be readmitted into the Union during the 1866 - 1870 timeframe...well after the war had ended. How and why would you readmit someone who hasn't left?

What was involved was allowing congressmen and senators to take their seats, not readmitting the states themselves.

Walt