Replies

I can't find where you actually quoted Madison

It was my #417, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2009537/posts?page=417#417

You don't need a link, btw, to get to it. Just go into the navigation window of your browser and, at the end of the URL, substitute for the current post number, ....[post number]#[post number], as for example "....page=417#417" to pull up a referenced post #417.

[You, quoting me] On the matter of secession, the controlling document is the Constitution. Black letters on white paper. And you have YET to show anyone the passage you think ought to be there, the one that confirms your own opinion.

[You] I have. Several times. Scroll back to 434.

762 posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:49:36 PM by Non-Sequitur

I replied to your #434 about secession later on, as part of a three-way conversation with our friend TexConfederate1861, in my post #451, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2009537/posts?q=1&;page=451#451

I pointed out that secession is by definition unilateral, since it would be something else if it were decided by all the States, as shown by Madison's reductio ad absurdum that you quoted above -- which I will come back to; his Nullification-era letter quotes are interesting. Do you have a link, by the way? I found one of the quotes in a John Fielding tract against secession at x's linked reformist (and also Unionist and Declarationist) website, www.natreformassn.org.

I also addressed your argument that the seceding States committed "theft" and trampled the "rights" of the Union government and remaining members, in my post #447.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I replied to your #434 about secession later on, as part of a three-way conversation with our friend TexConfederate1861, in my post #451, here:

Yes, you posted your opinion on why I was incorrect. You've posted those same opinions time and again, and amazingly enough I didn't suddenly grab my head this time and shout, "My God! I've been wrong all along!" I do not subscribe to your position that some people have more rights than others, or that the Constitution will protect some states and not protect other's. I believe that the Constitutions meaning is clear; secession without the consent of all the parties involved is not permitted. I'm not alone in this belief, as I've shown from the quotes I've posted.

I pointed out that secession is by definition unilateral, since it would be something else if it were decided by all the States...

You've posted your opinion on that, yes.

Do you have a link, by the way?

I'm not sure which one you mean.

Here's the William Rives letter.
Here's the Alexander Rives letter
Here's the Webster letter

I also addressed your argument that the seceding States committed "theft" and trampled the "rights" of the Union government and remaining members, in my post #447.

Yes, your "Mine 'cause I say it's mine" arguement. The South took what they wanted, without compensation and without discussion. Your claim that Davis coulda, woulda paid for everything if only Lincoln had given in to his ultimatum does not alter that fact. Nor, I believe, did you ever answer the question that had Davis not made an offer to pay, as you claim he did, would that have meant the Southern secssion was illegal? Care to tackle that one?

I pointed out that secession is by definition unilateral, since it would be something else if it were decided by all the States ...

I believe the answer to that goes: "Yes, it would have been constitutional ..."

Just because you have a word or phrase for something -- "constitutional unilateral secession" -- doesn't mean the thing it represents actually exists in the real world.