Was Secession Treason?

you really should learn to read.

what i said was that i value the LEARNED OPINIONS of Professor Williams over your UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.

Dr Williams is an expert in several academic disciplines (not just in economics);you seem to be lacking in that regard, but are really good at propaganda.

SADLY for you, people here are catching on to your act and that of the dumb-bunnies of the walt brigade.

free dixie,sw

DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

Do you see the words injured or oppressed? Please tell me how they were being injured or oppressed by the Federal Government.

All that clause means is that they were "declaring and making known" that the Constitution did not supersede their Natural Law right to Rebellion In the Face of Intolerable Oppression. No one ever suggested that the constitution, written by men, did supersede that right, granted by God.

Do you see the words injured or oppressed? Please tell me how they were being injured or oppressed by the Federal Government.

I suppose you are talking about the South in 1860? As I have stated a few times. I am talking about the generic right of secession in the face of oppression. The specific case of whether the South was actually opressed is a whole nother debate.

All that clause means is that they were "declaring and making known" that the Constitution did not supersede their Natural Law right to Rebellion In the Face of Intolerable Oppression.

It says that they can resume the powers delegated at any time. Since the delegation of the power was a peaceful process, where you get the idea that they are referring to the opposite process of a rebel war I don't know.

No one ever suggested that the constitution, written by men, did supersede that right, granted by God.

If the text said that they had a natural right to rebel then you would be right. Instead it said that they had a right to resume the powers delegated. If you rebelled, and lost, would your right to resume the powers delegated be exercised? Uh...no. Your explanation that they were making known a right, that (in your words) nobody ever suggested was superseded, is a stretch for this text.

I am talking about the generic right of secession in the face of oppression.

There is a right to revolution given us by God. The Constitution gives no right to unilateral secession and it never did. It has other remedies for dissatisfaction as I mentioned in my earlier post.

Do you really think men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton and Jay spent those months in Philadelphia, spending their own money, risking their reputations and even their health (Philadelphia in the summer then was a hot bed of Yellow Fever --- men of means always left the city in the summer months) birthing that document, to see it destroyed at the first political controversy or left to the tender mercies of a skillful and self-serving demogog? Those men were not fools. They understood people and understood government.

I am talking about the generic right of secession in the face of oppression.

There is a right to revolution given us by God. The Constitution gives no right to unilateral secession and it never did. It has other remedies for dissatisfaction as I mentioned in my earlier post.

Thats your opinion. The Constitution says NOTHING about secession being prohibited and when the Constitution says nothing about a power being prohibited then that power is reserved to the States or the people respectively. You simply stating the opposite in no way convinces me of your position.

Do you really think men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton and Jay spent those months in Philadelphia.........They understood people and understood government.

Do you really think that they just spent years fighting for their right of self-determination and explaining consent of the governed to the world just to deny it to their own descendants? I think not.

Do you really think that they just spent years fighting for their right of self-determination and explaining consent of the governed to the world just to deny it to their own descendants? I think not.

BTW. That is a total oxymoron. Why on earth do you think that any government that would willingly violate your other rights to the point of intolerable oppression would respect any "generic right of secession" that you think exists? It’s not even logical.

Ah. So if a government does not recognize a right and withholds it from you, then it is not logical to think you have it, so it must not exist.

The Soviet Union in regard to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania comes to mind. They were indeed oppressed, but the Soviets were finally forced to accept the right of peaceful self determination of these peoples.

Taiwan is another people that have a RIGHT to withdraw from the political entity that is China. They have a RIGHT to self-determination (or would you deny it?). Just because China refuses to recognize their right to self-determination, does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means its being illegitimately withheld.

what i said was that i value the LEARNED OPINIONS of Professor Williams over your UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.

On the contrary I at least provide verifiable evidence to support my position, unlike others on this forum who make up information and sources as they go along. And Dr. Williams' 'LEARNED OPINIONS' are still opinions and not necessarily fact, and his opinions tend to be as poorly supported as your's.

So if a government does not recognize a right and withholds it from you, then it is not logical to think you have it, so it must not exist.

Rights that cannot be claimed are not really rights. They are a fiction.

”If men were angles, there would be no need for government” -- J. Madison

And how does unilateral secession lead to anything but anarchy, which is what those men were trying to prevent with the Constitution. It provided all the framework for self-determination and to assure that the 'governed" had the final say.

Secession leads to anarchy? Well, if they said "we are seceding and have decided to have no government whatsoever" then it might lead to anarchy in the seceding State. But actually the seceding State is most likely to say that "we are seceding in order to be governed by a government that has our consent". Which of course, depending on the government they form might or might not be anarchy.

But in either case, it would not lead to anarchy in States that did not secede and remained where they were.

The anarchy argument is not a serious one.

Well, if they said "we are seceding and have decided to have no government whatsoever" then it might lead to anarchy in the seceding State.

you get the point. How far does this unilateral right extend?

That is not what I said. You are twisting. I said that any government that would oppress either your legal and/or natural rights to the point of being intolerable would surely not respect a legal right to peaceful secession. In practical terms, you are only left with your natural right to revolution, which is why the very concept of a legal right to unilateral secession is an oxymoron.

If the government came into your house and took all of your guns and imprisoned you without telling you charges and quartered troops in your house then you really don't have those rights because you can't exercise them and the only right you would have at that point is the right to revolution?

I beg to differ. These are God-given rights. They are not dependent on whether or not the government grants them, respects them, or illegitimately withholds them or prevents their exercise.

Rights that cannot be claimed are not really rights. They are a fiction.

No, our rights are God-given. They cannot be destroyed by a government preventing their exercise. The Tibetans have the right of self-determination and the right to be governed by a government of their choosing. The Chinese merely illegitimately prevent the exercise of those universal rights.

What if counties in that state disagreed. As legal political entities, do they have a legal right to secession from the state government. And then say townships in those counties disagreed with the counties. As legal political entities, do they have the right to seceed from their counties? And then...............

you get the point. How far does this unilateral right extend?

I don't know? Did "The Valley" have a right to secede from the rest of Los Angeles because they felt they were being oppressed in the form of taxes and were forever a minority? I think they did have the right. They got to vote and thats how it should be.

Here in Arkansas we have a school district that wants OUT of the Pulaski County School District. Do they have the right to decide whether they run their own school district or whether they are forever bound to metropolitan Little Rock School District and all of its well known problems? I think they have that right.

Did neighborhoods in Miami have a right to secede from that city because they paid and paid and received few services in return? I think so.

How far does this go? Not sure, but I do know that people have the right to self-determination and to consent to the makeup and form of their government.

how about comparing YOUR OPINIONS to the OPINIONS of Dr. Williams?

do you think readers on FR should believe you over him?

do you only discount his opinions, because you disagree with those opinions?

would you care to compare your academic credentials with his?

inquiring minds want to know.

free dixie,sw

would you care to compare your academic credentials with his?

Hell, I'll compare my academic credentials to you, him, or anyone else. Bachelor of Science from the University of Illinois and an MBA from Northwestern. The fact that he has a doctorate and you have...whatever it is that you have doesn't mean that you are incapable of error. And as we have seen time and time again that is particularly true with you.

frankly, i don't care what you think of me.

your posts are frequently the most obvious of damnyankee propaganda & people here are catching on to your act.

free dixie,sw

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.