Posted on 12/29/2023 7:52:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Nikki Haley slavery tempest in a teapot continues to roil some circles.
For those who have a life and have been spending it with family and friends this Christmas, some background: The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is in political hot water for her answer to a questioner at a New Hampshire campaign event in which she failed to list “slavery” among the causes of the American Civil War.
She’s subsequently admitted slavery was among those causes, while adding that she thought the question was posed by a Democrat plant in the audience.
The New York Times continues to stoke the story, claiming her answer could “dent her crossover appeal to independents and moderate Democrats.”
Three thoughts:
First, NEWS FLASH: For many of us challenged by the cost of living, the rise in crime, the influx of illegal aliens, and the woke agenda being pushed on cultural-social issues, the enumeration and hierarchy of causes for why something happened 163 years ago is something we do not care about. I’ll even venture to say that unless those “independents” caucus with the Democrats in legislative bodies, they also probably are not burning with concern about the ranked causes of the Civil War.
Second, the Democrat reaction to “of course it was about slavery” is rather rich. Given the historical illiteracy that dominates our schools (we have no time to teach history after spending time on gender, sex, and critical race theory lessons), let’s recall a few facts.
It was South Carolina Democrats, not a South Carolina Republican, who initiated the treason of secession.
It was mostly Democrats who, in the last days of the Democrat Buchanan administration, tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the Missouri Compromise and, thus, preserve slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I was dictating into an apple iPad. I blame it.
Fair enough, my issues are with fat fingers. Lol, Happy New Year!
“Of course not. I constitution speaks to that. It says no state may be form from a part of a state without the permission of the larger entity.”
I didn’t write about forming a new state, but what the US Constitution says is: “…no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
If, claiming the power to do so as reserved to the people, a municipality, county, whatever, secedes from a state they are no longer part of the larger entity.so why would such permission be needed?
“Try explaining that to Virginia when it comes to West Virginia.”
West Virginia was admitted to the Union in 1863, well after Virginia claimed to have seceded. The need for Virginia’s permission for West Virginia to become a state is questionable since Virginia claimed it wasn’t one of the United States at the time. Seems like by your tenth amendment argument, the power to secede from Virginia and remain in the Union as a new state would be reserved to the people of what became West Virginia.
Yeah, tell that to Lincoln who said Virginia never seceded or left the union.
Propaganda.
“Seems like by your tenth amendment argument, the power to secede from Virginia and remain in the Union as a new state would be reserved to the people of what became West Virginia.”
By my reading the tenth amendment uses the term “states”, not “counties”.
The Constitution was not created by counties; it was created by states.
States created the federal government and states created counties; states are the parents, the federal government and the counties are children of the parents.
In 2024 this sounds strange but it is true.
When Lincoln was advocating secession I think he did express the personal opinion that part of a state had the right to secede but he backed away from all that when he saw the economic and political advantages of controlling a super federal government with unlimited power.
It also says “or to the people”.
“The Constitution was not created by counties; it was created by states.”
The Preamble to the US Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Who established the States?
Exactly counties owe their existence to states. Therefore, they are subordinate. In fact the federal government owes its existence to the states. If the states would only remember that!
“Exactly counties owe their existence to states.”
And counties are populated by people, as mentioned in the Tenth Amendment.
“Therefore, they are subordinate.”
Does that mean the people of the county can’t secede, which as I recall is what this part of the discussion is about.
“In fact the federal government owes its existence to the states. If the states would only remember that!”
True enough.
To what do the States owe their existence?
Counties aren’t mentioned in the text of the 10th Amendment.
The people are and the people express themselves politically through the states. I’ll give you an example from my personal experience. Years ago my father was asked to serve on a commission to draw up a state constitutional amendment that would allow the reduction of the number of counties in WV. They would merge vote themselves out of exist4nce the state would direct it, I know longer remember the details. In WV it seemed like a very good idea we have way too many counties for our population - 1.4M currently. There were probably a third more people in that state when my father was asked to do this. The amendment was presented to the people of this state, and they voted it down. No change was the result. It’s much worse now, we have counties that can’t even come close to providing county services. The state picks up the tab. Ok the point! The state went to the people to ask to do this not to the counties. The people expressed their collective will to the state. The counties had no say!
The counties are thus just administrative units of the state approved by the people. They are not separate political entities. If the people at a locale asked for a county to be formed the state would ask the people as a whole through the legislature for the necessity of it. I don’t remember now if it would require a statewide referendum to give final permission or not. In both cases the counties are subordinate to the state and the people.
In post 24 I asked a question regarding the following words in post 4 quoting the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (This was offered in support of the position that “The states had an absolute right to withdraw from the union…because of the clear language of the 10th amendment to the constitution…”. Note that the position did not address “the people”.)
My question was: “Does that mean the people of a municipality can, on their own say so, secede from the county and state the municipality is in or that the people of a county in a state can, on their own say so, secede from the state or from the United States?”
In post 150 (which I believe you can track back to post 24) you wrote “Counties aren’t mentioned in the text of the 10th Amendment.” That’s true. It’s also true that counties are populated by people.
Can it be taken from the rest of your post 150 that your answer to my question above is “yes” since “the counties are subordinate to the state and the people”?
No I think I showed by example I gave the opposite.
Thank you for a clear answer there, although I don’t think your example is that clear.
Sorry I thought it was. Must be my writing!
“The Preamble to the US Constitution states: ‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’”
Keep reading: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
But if you want to argue counties as well as states have the right to secede from the union I guess I am obligated to listen with an open mind.
I’m not arguing about that. I started by asking a question about people, not by making an argument about anything. It went South from there, so to speak.
Post 4 quotes the Tenth Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) in support of the position that “The states had an absolute right to withdraw from the union…because of the clear language of the 10th amendment to the constitution…”. Note that the position did not address “the people”.
My question was: “Does that mean the people of a municipality can, on their own say so, secede from the county and state the municipality is in or that the people of a county in a state can, on their own say so, secede from the state or from the United States?”
As I wrote, it went South from there, so to speak.
It might mean that in some universe, but it is foreign to good governance as envisioned by founders of the DOI and Constitution.
Colonies were created by Kings. States were created by colonists on July 4, 1776.
The colonists who signed the DOI did so under the aegis of the colony/state; they were not there representing a crossroad hamlet with one tavern and two houses.
The language of the DOI gives insight into their thinking: “and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
It doesn't seem reasonable to think the founders viewed one small village - or even a local community - capable of sustainably doing these things.
Counties can secede and form a state. West Virginia is an example, where the Yankees fighting against states natural rights and secession use secession to create a docile state of West Virginia. You can’t make this stuff up.
“It might mean that in some universe, but it is foreign to good governance as envisioned by founders of the DOI and Constitution.”
So it might be argued it means that in our universe (/sarcasm (maybe)).
“It doesn't seem reasonable to think the founders viewed one small village - or even a local community - capable of sustainably doing these things.”
But “the people” aren’t limited to “one small village - or even a local community”. I’m pretty sure the Founders knew about the Italian city-states.
But as I wrote, you addressed the question so that’ll do.
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.