Was Secession Treason?

Daveblack ^ | June 30, 2003 | DaveBlack

[Blood of Tyrants]

Oh, you are just making those things up! (/sarcasm)

[Cultural Jihad]

Gore lost. Get over it already. ;-)

[TheDon]

Too bad they didn't, it would have removed the need for the slave owners to rebel. Of course, that is the reason they didn't free their slaves before they attempted to leave the Union.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"To begin with a State is a political entity by definition, and in forming the Confederacy, the states were violating the Constitution. "

Really? Show precisely where in the United State's Constitution that is true.

In forming the Confederacy, the State's where dissolving their participation with the Union, not creating a separate entity within the Union.

The State's willingly entered the Union, they have the right to leave it, unless you can show in the United States Constitution where entering the voluntary Union means losing State's rights to leave it.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Fully half of the states that seceded were Created by the Union.(in the Louisiana Purchase)... "

Negative. I don't know where you got that, but each State was a vote by the people to create it. The United States Congress did not create by their mandate any state, nor does it have the power to do so.

[hobbes1]

Do you honestly mean to allege, that without The Louisiana Purchase, the people of said French Province would have been free to Vote themselves into the union??????


Hardly.The existing state of freedom was PURCHASED, by the Union, From France, that surely would not have given it up for the whim of it's inhabitants.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Every state West of the Mississippi had it's Freedom from France negotiated and Paid for , by the Union Government"

You mean Arkansas was a state and held in bond to France before the big purchase? Wow! I had no idea.

Wrong. The feds paid for the territory, but that doesn't negate how states are created and formed. The people of the territory voted to create the states. Congress didn't buy the land and declare the states' existence, placing a gov and assembly into the sates.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Every state West of the Mississippi had it's Freedom from France negotiated and Paid for , by the Union Government"

You mean Arkansas was a state and held in bond to France before the big purchase? Wow! I had no idea.

Wrong. The feds paid for the territory, but that doesn't negate how states are created and formed. The people of the territory voted to create the states. Congress didn't buy the land and declare the states' existence, placing a gov and assembly into the sates.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Do you honestly mean to allege, that without The Louisiana Purchase, the people of said French Province would have been free to Vote themselves into the union??????
"

It doesn;t matter who purchased the land. The state is a sovereign government and territory all to itself. Upon creation of the state, the fed is subordinate to the state. The fed may own land they hold title to, but they also sold enough land to the people for them to create the state.

The fed owns large tracks of colorado land, do they, then own Colorado? Keep in mind, Colorado residents also own more than than the feds.

Show in the US Constitution where the feds may own land and, therefore, gives them title to the state.

[PatrioticAmerican]

If a state may not leave the union, may I?

[JohnGalt]

More likely, the Deep South would have been begging to be let back into the Union within a couple decades. Virginia, would likely have stayed in the Union if the federalis had handled the situation a little more delicately.

But once established that secession would be the ultimate check on the federal government, its doubtable the collapse of federalism would ever have followed.

That includes the imposition of an income tax, a federal war on some drugs, Wilsonian internationalism, World War One, the Bolshevik revolution, the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations, the rise of German nationalism, the resumption of war, the splitting of the atom, the Cold War...

[hobbes1]

No, The people of the Territories voted to Become States, and when they did, sunbmitted themselves to the control of Constitutional Government, Including Art1 Sec10 Clause1.


And Article 3 clearly states that the Congress has control of the territory. The language is unambigous.

[hobbes1]

As a matter of fact, even the Territory of La. recognized Congress' right to govern them before they were admitted to the union..

In 1811 the United States Congress authorized the calling of a state convention to draw up a constitution for Louisiana

The Territories were wholly owned subsidiaries of the Union. Entering the Union changed their nature not a whit.

[hobbes1]

Possibly, but Seeing the secession, France and Spain may have decided that previous agreements, and territorial claims were ripe for renogotiation under arms....


And then the Rest of the Union, would be threatened with War and Hostile neighbors...

[hobbes1]

You mean Arkansas was a state and held in bond to France before the big purchase?

No Arkansas did not become a state until 1836.

I know Fourth Grade was a couple of years ago, but this may help...

The territory named after King Louis XIV of France included all or part of the present states of Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

[Wolfstar]

Secession was not treason. The facts in the posted article are correct, including the assertion that the federal government created by the founders was destroyed by the Civil War (as well as by the income tax and direct, popular election of senators). Speaknig strictly from a point of view that would like to have seen state sovereignty preserved, it's truly, truly unfortunate that South Carolina, and subsequently the entire south, chose violence rather than a secession challenge through the courts. South Carolina gave Lincoln the opening he needed to go to war.

But what's done, is done and we cannot go back. Besides, what's under threat today is our national sovereignty from the internationalist Left, which will never be satisfied until it creates a world super-government.

[Blessed]

When you point out that the Constitution prohibits the States from Seceding, They say, The Constitution doesn't apply because the States seceded.

The interesting thing is that prior to the War of Northern Agression it was a common belief that a state had the right to succeed from the Union. Mass. threatened this action around 1832 over some perceived injustice.

Their were a number of injustices in addition to slavery that had the south upset. One of the major ones was tariffs on finished goods that hampered the south from trading with Europe.These abuses continued into the 1940's (the victors write the laws as well as the history)

[PatrioticAmerican]

"No Arkansas did not become a state until 1836."

So why then you claim that they were freed from France to become a state?

Did the feds create Arkansas?

Didn't the people, who owned land in Arkansas, vote to become a State?

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Territory of La. recognized Congress' right to govern them "

As a territory, not as a state. There is a serious difference between statehood and territories.

[Friend of thunder]

Secession would, certainly, be a huge step. I live in Seattle and have Jim Mcdermott, Patty Murray and, Maria Cantwell representing me, along with a rather whacked out city and county council; for the most part I think things would be worse if this state were to “dissolve the Political Bands which have connected” us to the rest of the country. Whether secession is a right is really a moot point, it would be – as I am sure are aware – resisted by the federal government.

Whether or not it was treason is hard to say. One could argue that it included “levying War against” the United States (or at least some of them). But since charges were never brought one could also argue that treason did not take place.

I have to admit – and I realize that this is not totally fair – that, perhaps because I am a Northerner, I have real trouble separating secession and slavery. I realize it is much more complex then that but that is my gut reaction; it is really difficult for me to see the secession of the Confederacy without seeing slavery.