Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
It’s 3/4 of the states. Or it used to be before the courts routinely began amending the Constitution by judicial fiat.
The powers listed are the sole powers. The Constitution sets up a federal government of limited powers; that is, the states granted certain powers to the federal government. If the states didn't grant those powers, then the federal government doesn't have those powers. Thus, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the feds don't have the power.
But look, I don't think I'm going to convince you that you're wrong on this one, so I leave it at this: you've got to ask yourself why the Framers chose to explicitly ban secession in the Articles and then did not do so in version 2.0.
So far as I'm concerned, there is no rational way to explain that fact other than that the Framers made a choice to retain with the states the unilateral power of secession.
You are missing the point. Many discussion on the Internet about secession are because Liberals and Conservatives see each other as traitors. This country is headed toward a Second Civil War and so people are reexamining the reasons behind the South's secession, or at least its attempt thereto. How many Liberals see Lincoln as a great man, but after Bush's reelection were advocating the secession of the Blue States. If Hillary is elected President, how many Conservatives will advocate secession? Secession discussions aren't as much academic discussions regarding 1860-1861, as they are about whether it is a viable option today.
Did you mean curse? Not hardly. It helped establish the south as a competitive. The north used slavery to build it's infrastructure. Once it was in place and the factories up and running it was a liability. The south was approaching that point but not quite there yet.
As for the slaves themselves? They have a heritage to be very proud of. Their work built a nation both north and south just as Jewish slavery by Egypt build some of the marvels of the world. Who's skill and labor did it? :>} The end result in both cases was an advancement in a people that would not have came for centuries otherwise. Meaning slavery resulted in the very advancement in blacks. There would have been no George Washington Carvers without slavery. That is a fact.
Slavery as known in the south would not have lasted past 1890-1900. It would have went the same way as the Company owned Coal Towns. Technology would have made it a liability. For example once strip mining began Coal Towns quickly died. But forms of slavery also existed in the mines yes even state sanctioned. Wars were fought over it. Wars you will not hear about in school or read in many history books.
Sigh. They agreed that Texas could not maintain an original suit, ie. that Texas did not have standing to file suit in the US Supreme Court. Why? Because she wasn't a state in the union. If she wasn't a state in the union, it was either due to one of two choices, viz, secession (voluntary withdrawal), or the state was ejected from the union, a violation of Article V ['no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate'].
Despite the absence of the required signature, the US treasury redeemed 4 of the bonds held by Birch, Murray & Company, and 34 held by John A. Hardenberg. So on one hand we have the US Treasury recognizing the validity of the Texas' legislatures Act, and the court denying their political recognition. The Court did not hold that those same bonds be returned to the state of Texas. Justice Grier sums up quite nicely the fact that Texas was not a member of the union.
Justice Swayne had wrote, 'The question, in my judgment, is one in relation to which this court is bound by the action of the legislative department of the government.' Congress had instituted military governments excluding Texas from congressional representation. 3 justices agree that Texas was not a state, not a member of the union.
On the merits, ie. the ownership of the bonds, the justices agreed.
I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've never heard of the book.
However, since he frequently quotes the “OR”, then you would accept his facts, wouldn’t you?
Not without seeing what his fact are. You quote a lot of things but quite often the meaning you imply and the actual meaning are quite different.
“I still don’t understand why it is still a current topic in the south.”
And it’s not a current topic in the North?
Of course it would.
CSS Hunley is a good example.
All the South did was repeat what the North had done with the Turtle during the revolution.
Then you agree that 'perpetual' does not mean permanent, that it simply means 'without a stated end'.
Indulging my curiosity? I'm wondering what it was that the South imported in such massive amounts that they accounted for 83% of the tariff revenue.
Yep. I was thinking of the 2/3 requirement for submission, not the actual ratification. I agree that our judiciary has long since amended it illegally.
Interesting as that is, I would disagree. These arguments have been going on forever. Southerners are stuck on it, and Northerners love to stomp them when they bring it up.
You would be very surprised how much sympathy CSA had in that area. East Tennessee had plantations even in the very county a lot of this occured in. Also from that area came a Confederate General who on a Battle Field even showed up his commander Braxton Bragg. Rather than promote him or thank him for a highly sucessful victory Bragg court martialed him. These people were known as Mountain Rebels. They were very tough and very skilled fighters.
The man mentioned in that article I linked Col Thomas? I haven't been able to pin it all down as far as genealogy goes but I'm pretty well sure his earlier uncles and cousins helped first establish Sevier county in the 1700's.
Yes, he is. The rest of the states can expell another if they so desire. It's happened with territories. Why not with states?
That's what's known as an "invidious comparison." You choose the terms in order to put your own spin on the relationship.
We might say that the states are in the US the way that a soldier is in the army: he may be able to leave at some time, but he can't simply pull up stakes and run. That is to say, a dissolution of the union was possible, but it had to be done at the federal level, not by states on their own. It's not an exact analogy, because ordinary citizens don't have to conform to military discipline in our lives, but it presents the relationship in a more neutral light than your well-spun comparison.
A better analogy: you can move away, but you can't simply decree that your house and yard aren't a part of your town. You and your neighbors can't simply withdraw your town from the rest of your state. So why would your state be able to simply remove itself from the union and disavow common responsibilities and obligations?
I believe that I've said all along that I believe that secession is permissible, just the unilateral manner in which the South chose to pursue it was illegal.
Well, let’s do a fact check then. Feel free to pull out your copy of the “Official Records.”
Who was Gustavus Fox? Was he an active Naval Officer in April of 1861?
Was he ordered onto a ship to sail to Charleston that April, and if so, what date?
What were his orders?
What other ships were ordered to accompany Mr. Fox to Charleston?
What Federal ship was disguised for transit?
Were these vessels traveling in secret?
What Federal ship started firing on civilian shipping as it lay at the entrance to the harbor?
Were Charleston authorities given early warning that Federal ships were on the way?
Was it common knowledge among the people of Charleston that a fleet was coming?
Did the President of the Confederacy state that the new government would protect the city of Charleston from invasion?
It looks like what you're saying is that all the messiness surrounding slavery and race were the fault of Lincoln and the War and Reconstruction. You're implying that we'd have gotten a fine result if things had been left up to the slaveholders and secessionists. That's really assuming a lot.
It's clear to me that if and when emancipation came, maybe 20 or 40 or 60 years after it did in our world, it would have been done on the slaveowners terms with their interests paramount. What you got wouldn't have been better for the ex-slaves than what we did get. The same kinds of quasi-slavery or indentured bondage or serfdom that you criticize would have been the order of the day in an independent Confederacy. So you can't pin the blame on Lincoln.
Also, you assume a lot when you say that the Founders regarded secession as a state's right. That's a very questionable assumption. Washington and Adams, Madison and Hamilton wanted a more secure, stronger union than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. Judging from how Washington treated the Whisky Rebellion and what Madison thought of the Nullification Crisis, I think you're on the wrong track.
Except that Madison did not believe either unilateral secession or unilateral expulsion was permissible. Was he right there as well?
No, not treason. The South did not try to take over the federal government, they tried to separate from it.
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.