Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OIFVeteran
There is nothing in the constitution that allows states to just up and leave the Union because they don’t like the outcome of an election.

There is also nothing in the Constitution preventing it either. Had there been, it would have NEVER been ratified.

198 posted on 07/23/2018 7:11:48 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]


To: central_va

And they completely ignore the Hartford Convention (which didn’t make it partly because they were just too late, and it was kind of moot), and the damn near treasonous New Englanders altogether in “1812”. Yet no one questioned their ability to secede. Only whether it was justified. Lincoln basically made it “illegal” to secede. Despite the fact that is exactly what the Founders did - break off from Britain.


201 posted on 07/23/2018 7:21:09 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

To: central_va; OIFVeteran
OiFVeteran: "There is nothing in the constitution that allows states to just up and leave the Union because they don’t like the outcome of an election."

central_va: "There is also nothing in the Constitution preventing it either.
Had there been, it would have NEVER been ratified."

Here's what's important to remember:

  1. Our Founders believed in and practiced "secession" under two, but only two, conditions:
    • "Necessity" as experienced in 1776 and
    • Mutual Consent as they achieved in 1788.

    No Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession "at pleasure", but that's what Deep South Fire Eaters began doing in December 1860.

  2. Neither outgoing Democrat President Buchanan nor incoming President Lincoln considered at pleasure secession constitutional or lawful, but neither considered secession, by itself, an act of treason or war against the United States.
    Both were willing to make accommodations -- short of war or formal recognition -- for what we might call "peaceful coexistence".

  3. Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln were willing to surrender Union forts in Confederate states without a fight.
    Both tried to resupply Forts Pickens & Sumter.

  4. When push came to shove (i.e., Star of the West) Buchanan backed away from a fight.
    Lincoln did not.

  5. After the war neither Presidents Lincoln, Johnson nor Grant wanted or felt necessary to try any Confederates for treason.
    Some insisted that would have been unsuccessful anyway:

    Important to remember that Chief Justice Chase was also a Democrat running for the Democrat nomination for President.
    His opinion here reflects those of Southern & Southern-sympathizing Northern voters of the time.


214 posted on 07/23/2018 8:11:26 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson