Posted on 06/13/2005 6:08:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
So, basically what you're saying is that once you become a state you have no right to leave the union under any circumstances? No matter how the people of a state may feel?
Lol!
Hey Rusty, your PING list reads like a who's who of permenently banned kooky confederate freepers. Keep up the good work...
So, what you're saying is that once a state joins the union it has no right to leave? Under any circumstances? Even if the people of that state no long wish to be a part of the union?
Didn't say that at all. There are a number of circumstances that could make secession constitutional. For instance, an act of congress (the Constitutional body that votes to admit states upon their request) could conversely vote to end statehood at request. Specifically, in 1860, the Southern States could have petitioned Congress to relieve them from their Constitutional obligations. They may well have been successful. But they chose to act unilaterally instead and shirk both their duty and debts to their fellow states.
Unilateral secession, or as Madison termed it, secession without cause, is only another name for Revolution. Revolution is, of course, justified when faced with oppression. But I have asked many times on these threads, exactly what intolerable oppression were the Slave States facing in 1861? I have yet to receive an answer.
And just use a little logic. IS a contract worth anything if any party to it can simply ignore their obligations when it is convient to them? If unilateral secession for any reason were Constitutional, the Constitution is meaningless since states could ignore it at will.
Well, I certainly don't think they had the right to seize weapons....I don't approve of everything the Confederates did. But I do understand their thinking at the time.
That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard. Even Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. He fought for his home. A much more basic reason. I can approve of the Confederacy, without agreeing with slavery. There were more reasons for the war than that.
Maryland didn't secede, because Lincoln threw virtually the entire Legislature in jail. That is the ONLY reason. Missouri would have seceded, but for Lyons and his Army, running the legislature and Governor out of town.
Welcome Back Mac.....
By the way, I hope you don't include me as a "kooky Confederate Freeper" LOL :)
That is a stretch of the truth. Some folks ended up being "delayed", but they weren't exactly in dungeons. As to the sentiments, the majority of Marylanders were definitely pro-Union, but as in most Southern States, the Slave Powers called a lot of shots due to their Gerrymandering of legislative districts.
Lincoln, and his men did what they had to do to keep Washington from being cut off from the rest of the Union. All in all, I'd say they were remarkable restrained considering the seriousness of the threat they faced in the Spring of 61. There were surly no mass hangings of secessionists as happened to Unionists in your home state at the same time.
There is no reason why a state cannot leave the Union in the same manner as it enters the Union. With the consent of a majority of the people of the United States, as expressed through a vote in both Houses of Congress.
"That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard."
Theory, my a$$. The election of Lincoln and the mere THREAT of closing off the expansion of slavery was sufficient to cause secession. Mind you, the notion of "states' rights" was invented out of whole cloth pretty much at that moment--Senator Jefferson Davis was quite adamant that any NORTHERN state that seceded over the Fugitive Slave Law would brought back into the Union at the point of a Southron bayonet.
"I can approve of the Confederacy, without agreeing with slavery."
From Alexander H. Stephens' speech of March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Mr. Stephens was the Vice-President of the Confederacy.
If not for southron myth you people would have nothing to post, would you? Five minutes, five minutes on the web showed your post to be the lie that it is. Maryland didn't secede because the legislature, which met in May, refused to consider an ordinance of secession or call a secession convention to consider one. Winfield Scott proposed steps to prevent the Maryland legislature from voting on the matter, prompting this letter from Lincoln:
Washington
April 25, 1861
Lieutenant General Scott:
My dear Sir:
The Maryland Legislature assembles tomorrow and Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think that it would not be justifiable, nor, efficient for the desired object.
First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we cannot know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their actions.
Secondly, we cannot permanently precent their action. If we arrest them, we can not for long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. The will immediately re-assemble in some other place.
I therefore conclude that is is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities - and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
Your obedient servant,
Abraham Lincoln
The arrest of members of the Maryland legislature did not come until September, when members proposed joining those in armed rebellion against the United States, and who were, in fact, proposing treason. Under those circumstances what response did you expect?
Missouri would have seceded, but for Lyons and his Army, running the legislature and Governor out of town.
More nonsense. The people of the state of Missouri, assembled in convention, voted against secession in Feburary-March, 1861. The governor and a minority of the legislature had no authority to take the state out of the Union once the people had spoken. Their actions were contrary to the will of the people of Missouri, and actions taken to keep the state in the Union were justified.
Did you notice the source of this article? The original website lists such notable arch neo-confederates as 'Thomas DiLorenzo', who wrote the following on an interlinked website:
"Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified...in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command..."
Lee R. Shelton IV also states:"The latest pro-war propaganda posters, obviously designed to guilt people into supporting the "war on terror," can be found here. I think the government is getting desperate.
(The Islamic terrorists operating in Iraq & Afghanistan supported by Iran, Syria, & the Wahhabists are not mentioned as getting desperate but the American government is? Absolutely incredible!
The article in this thread is also posted here.
Guess what? The web-site in question is a proud partner with the ............
"..Ronnie and Donnie Kennedy were right on target with the title of their book The South Was Right!" (By Jeff Adams)
Jeff Adams is a regular contributor to The States' Rights Journal, and occasionally his material is posted on Dixie Daily News. Source
Sponsored by the continuing neo-confederate agenda :)
"Some folks ended up being "delayed", but they weren't exactly in dungeons."
LOL. Look who's an apologist for Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. What were those folks in then, exactly?
"There were surly no mass hangings of secessionists"
But there were mass hangings, lynchings would be more accurate, of blacks during draft riots in Union territory.
When Governments are threatened, they react --- it's as simple as that. I lived through martial law for a week, (the suspension of HC) back in the 60s when their were riots in the wake of King's murder. It wasn't nice to see armed troops on the streets, to have curfues, and to know you could be thrown in the pokey for looking funny, but order was restored, the city was not burned to the ground, HC was restored, and no one, other than the rioters and arsonists, was the worse for the wear.
AGAIN: Robert E. Lee didn't believe in slavery, nor did Stonewall Jackson. I am familiar with Stephens Speech. He was ONE man, even if he was Vice-President. Not even the majority of people in the South believed in, or fought for slavery. "Senator Jefferson Davis was quite adamant that any NORTHERN state that seceded over the Fugitive Slave Law would brought back into the Union at the point of a Southron bayonet." DOCUMENTATION please!
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.