Skip to comments.
Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession
vanity ^
| 4/3/02
| Self
Posted on 04/03/2002 9:52:50 AM PST by r9etb
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 741-752 next last
To: WhiskeyPapa
Then you disagree with Robert E. Lee. And this means what? Am I to be cowed by your invoking one man's name? Lee was a great man, a gentleman, honorable, etc., but if he failed to read the Constitution, that was his error. That makes you in good company, I suppose.
LTS
To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
If a State self-determines its way out of the Union, is that okay?
As I said before, if they can form a state militia that can topple the greatest military power in world history, then they can do whatever the heck they want. Who's gonna stop them? However, the laws of the United States still do not allow it. "Self-determination" means the power to choose your representatives in government, not moral relativism.
I see no apples, nor oranges, I merely refuted your single point rebuttal to my question. If despotism is a "moral" prerequisite, of which there are more than one, and the British Empire didn't qualify, that's still an unmet prerequisite.
Who said you, or any group of people, had to meet all moral prerequisites to be justified in what they do? That's nonsense. You don't have to have every reason or X number of reasons to do what's right...in the case of the American Revolution, just one good reason was enough.
To: r9etb
Show us where the Constitution forbids secession.
To: r9etb
OTOH, if the sole basis for government is "consent," then the rule of law becomes meaningless. How so? Look. You just don't beleive in the principles of the declaration of independence. You just don't. Either you believe that people have a right to choose their own government, or you don't. Either you beleive that people have a right to impose government upon those who do not want it, or you don't. I know where I stand.
To: muleboy
Thank you for your exquisitely simple refutation of a shamelessly vain assertion of the legality of state-sponsored terrorism circa 1861. ROTFLMAO!!!
125
posted on
04/03/2002 12:23:50 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: joebuck
"The Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare and the common defense. If secession is inimical to that, Congress may act." Who is to say that secession is inimical to that?
If you deny that Congress itself must not decide, then you are advocating anarchy.
It might surprise you to know that Jefferson Davis cited that EXACT language (identical in the consistution of the so-called seceded states) in saying that Congress could coerce the states in the matter of conscription.
Was Davis wrong?
Walt
To: r9etb
Let's face it, the U.S. Constitution has always been very very very ambiguous -- especially with regard to secession. But the Confederates weren't interested in establishing a Constitutional right to secession -- they were only interested in convincing their constituents that secession would occur without bloodshed because "the Yankees [were] all cowards and would not fight." (Eg. South Carolina Senator James Chesnut offered to drink all the blood shed as a consequence of secession.)
History has proven that the Confederate mentality was as grossly naive as it was morally bankrupt, but that won't stop the Confederate glorifiers (who curiously seem to be all Southerners who rely heavily on rednecks for their financial support) from trying to blame Abe Lincoln for every government abuse that has occurred since 1860. It saddens me to see Walter Williams eroding his credentials as a fine free market economist by buying into the Confederate glorifiers' delusional fantasies, but no one is perfect -- not even Abe Lincoln.
What none of these Lincoln bashers ever bothers to tell us is, though, is how they would have orchestrated the abolition of slavery quicker than he did.
To: WhiskeyPapa
A right to maintain the Union is reserved by the people. So far, they -have- maintained the Union. And that right is outlined where? The Preamble says a lot of things, but it is merely that, a reason for creating the document, not to be confused with the laws within the document.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone ever challenged any law by saying it violated the Preamble? I'm thinking not.
LTS
To: r9etb
This story is full of holes. The founding fathers knew that rebellion was the ONLY way a state would ever leave, as even a statement in the Constitution granting secession would never be upheld. NOTHING in the constitution grants relief. Why is that? Most founding fathers made statements about rebellion being necessary. That is what the Second Amendment is for, not hunting or personal safety. It is designed to allow for rebellion from a tyrannous government, and that can include secession. The states created the union, the states can destroy it. Can you name one thing in the Constitution that says that the entry into the union is one-way?
To: stainlessbanner
Show us where the Constitution forbids secession.
Article 1, Section 10 prohibits, among other things, insurrections by the States. As r9etb asked earlier, how can a secession not be an insurrection?
To: r9etb
Nothing highlighted in the article supports the federal government to uphold the union at all costs. Nothing.
To: ravinson
What none of these Lincoln bashers ever bothers to tell us is, though, is how they would have orchestrated the abolition of slavery quicker than he did. Or, another question is why did Lincoln NOT free the slaves in 1861 at the onset of his war?
To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
Then you disagree with Robert E. Lee. And this means what?
It means you disagree with Robert E. Lee.
I can't imagine why your judgement is better than his, or that of Jefferson Davis, who clearly stated Congress could coerce the states.
How could you know better than they?
Walt
To: r9etb
"I'm just reading the Constitution. Please explain to us how the act of secession -- and the actions of the seceeding states -- do not qualify as insurrection?"
Why does secession if done peacefully, consitute insurrection? The Constitution does not prohibit the states from withdrawing and thus that power is specifically left to the states. If the States peacefully decide to succeed, then the US Govt had no right to use force to prevent it in the first place.
134
posted on
04/03/2002 12:30:34 PM PST
by
joebuck
To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
A right to maintain the Union is reserved by the people. So far, they -have- maintained the Union. And that right is outlined where?
Both the nineth and tenth amendments reserve the right to the people to maintain the Union.
Walt
To: r9etb
You can say what you want about the secession of the South, but the fact is the Constitution has been consistently violated by the federal government whenever it "needed" to. Look how many times it tried to print worthless paper money or start a central bank without amending the constitution. So lets not try to peg the South for a constituional violation when the federal government at the time tried to print worthless money and forcibly draft men against their will. Both at the time were flagrant violations of the constitution.
To: r9etb
Very weak and sloppily presented. A book review is not intended to present the entire case, so it's a bit disingenuous of you to attack Williams for making an incomplete argument. You do understand this is a book review, don't you?
If you want to dispute the book, first read the book.
To: Blood of Tyrants
How could secession be against the principles our founding fathers put in the Constitution when our very first act as a nation was to SECEDE?Our first act as a nation was to REBEL against the authority of the Crown, not secede. Please get your terms straight.
138
posted on
04/03/2002 12:35:21 PM PST
by
Poohbah
Comment #139 Removed by Moderator
To: joebuck
Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal Govt. the right to prevent a State from peacefully deciding to withdraw. As the events at Ft. Sumpter show, the south had no intention of "peacefully withdrawing." Indeed, it was probably never in the cards -- Henry Clay's compromises (1820, 1833, 1850) were all about avoiding a civil war.
At any rate, they expected a fight, prepared for a fight, picked a fight, got a fight, and lost it. The concept of "peaceful secession" was never in play.
140
posted on
04/03/2002 12:36:02 PM PST
by
r9etb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 741-752 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson