Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion. Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.
Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede. The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No. As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.
This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it. After all, who has the power to say otherwise?
Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.
This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico). The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing. In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada. The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query. I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")
He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action. Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.
What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration? This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.
If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, if the South had been victorious in defeating the ruthless, arrogant & blood thirsty North, that would have made them right? Vindication? Since you consider the "Lost Cause" as nothing but a bunch of slave owning fascists duping their redneck citizens in an unjust war, I ask you the following; Does it follow then, in your distorted and dictatorial style, if the Third Reich had conquered Europe and won WWII that would have been vindication for them, also?
Can somebody photo shop a stove pipe hat on the “Dad” figure?
So what do you attribute your pathalogical hatred of the North to? Were you picked on by a Yankee as a child or something?
Secession didn't cause the war. From the time South Carolina began their rebellion to the early morning of April 13th, 1861 not a single hostile act had been taken by either Buchanan or Lincoln to force an end to secession. Every act of aggression was committed by the South. It was the South that chose war. They decided Sumter was worth the conflict. They thought they could initiate a war and win it. They were wrong. All the warlike, animalistic behavior, all the ruthlessness and arrogance lay in Montgomery. And considering the constant Lost Cause refusal to take responsibility for their actions, it's clear that such behavior continues to this day.
End the occupation....
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Considering all the damage done by the last 5 Southern presidents I think that the real question is haven't be paid enough for Sherman's march?
The first daunting task for you would be to prove your allegations and then establish your credibility; a virtually impossible task for you, the master of myths, lies and spin.
OK. I am not an atheist. Happy?
Then accept my apology.
Hence the puzzlement over why all y'all are so fascinated with either subject.
The fascinating part is how easy it is to yank your chain with it.
Lost Cause hyperbole aside, it would have meant that they wouldn't need to care what the losing side thought.
Since you consider the "Lost Cause" as nothing but a bunch of slave owning fascists duping their redneck citizens in an unjust war, I ask you the following; Does it follow then, in your distorted and dictatorial style, if the Third Reich had conquered Europe and won WWII that would have been vindication for them, also?
You're a funny, funny guy.
And nowhere near as good as your revisionist history books have snookered millions of children, and, unfortunately, adults (like yourself), into believing.
Pot, meet kettle.
Then accept my apology.
I will accept it in the spirit in which I'm sure it was intended.
The fascinating part is how easy it is to yank your chain with it.
Whatever chain you're yanking on must be attacked to a tree limb because it hasn't bothered me at all.
Oh there's a lot of myth out there about Lincoln, make no mistake. But if millions have been snookered into believing myths about Lincoln then millions of Southerners have also been bamboozled into believing the myths about the Lost Cause. As evident by the Southron posters here.
Being systematically lied about and demonized for 150+ years, for starters.
Secondly, a traditional distrust and loathing by the Scots/Irish South for the englis northron.
Third, the abhorrence of homosexuality and atheism.
Nice flanking move, cva!
So....myth and bigotry are you reasons for hating? Well, whatever floats your boat.
Stop the presses!!!!
Up until this very moment, non-sense has been in a complete state of denial about secession even going as far as unequivocally stating that the South never seceded.
Glad to see that you're finally starting to admit certain truths, non-sense.
Among others.
Why do you hate Southerners?
.
‘.’ Back at ya.
I don't, not as a group.
I also used the term 'rebellion'. Illegal acts of secession and rebellion are synonymous.
So that's somehow supposed to be more righteous?
Hate is hate, hoss.
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.