A Right of Secession?
CorporateWhore
Posts: 1,890
I figured this board could use a change of pace.
Generally, secession is only talked about by hardcore rednecks from Montana. But, it's a topic that interests me (i.e. hardcore redneck from Virginia) because I enjoy reading civil war history.
Did Lincoln have the constitutional authority to keep the states from seceding? Does the constitution grant the federal government the right to force states to remain in the union?
In my view, it doesn't. Nothing in the constitution expressly says that the states cannot secede from the union and since our federal government has ENUMERATED powers, that means the power of secession is left to the states or the people, respectively (article 9). I believe that the southern states did have the right to secede from the union. Granted, their reasons for doing so were not optimal. But, when we talk about states' rights, isn't the right to not be a part of the union the most important one?
I also think the southern states would've eventually given up slavery. It may have taken longer, but most individuals in the South did not own slaves.
We see in other countries that secession is spoken about surprisingly frequently in modern times. Look at Quebec in Canada, Northern Ireland in Britain, Scotland in Britain, and the Balkan states. Those are just western nations too.
Secession sort of received a black eye from the Civil War, but it should be considered a more fundamental right of states than it is. Perhaps that might keep a wayward federal government in check.
Generally, secession is only talked about by hardcore rednecks from Montana. But, it's a topic that interests me (i.e. hardcore redneck from Virginia) because I enjoy reading civil war history.
Did Lincoln have the constitutional authority to keep the states from seceding? Does the constitution grant the federal government the right to force states to remain in the union?
In my view, it doesn't. Nothing in the constitution expressly says that the states cannot secede from the union and since our federal government has ENUMERATED powers, that means the power of secession is left to the states or the people, respectively (article 9). I believe that the southern states did have the right to secede from the union. Granted, their reasons for doing so were not optimal. But, when we talk about states' rights, isn't the right to not be a part of the union the most important one?
I also think the southern states would've eventually given up slavery. It may have taken longer, but most individuals in the South did not own slaves.
We see in other countries that secession is spoken about surprisingly frequently in modern times. Look at Quebec in Canada, Northern Ireland in Britain, Scotland in Britain, and the Balkan states. Those are just western nations too.
Secession sort of received a black eye from the Civil War, but it should be considered a more fundamental right of states than it is. Perhaps that might keep a wayward federal government in check.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
-Enoch Powell
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/06/03/in_vermont_nascent_secession_movement_gains_traction/
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I did not hear of that.
Economically, not a whole lot would change if states seceded. If they built tarriff walls though, that might hurt trade.
-Enoch Powell
I think the average wage earner works something like three months of the year paying federal taxes.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that. I think that figure would have to include Social Security and Medicare tax. I'm not opposed to those two taxes, actually. It's just the rest of it that's BS.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Why are you opposed to the rest of it? What happens to the poor who can't afford insurance or medical care? What happens to those who can't afford housing, school supplies, transportation, condoms, birth control, food stamps, cigarettes?
What about the poor? You don't think they deserve anything?
-Enoch Powell
Um, whatcha talkin' bout willis?
I should refine my statement.
The military budget is beyond any sort of reason I can put into words here. That's the problem right now. That's what I mean about the rest of it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I can take that a step further.
It is the military budget, CW, that is costing you a possible future of peace. And I think you know it. This war is so pervasive, and so costly that you are already warring against your fellow Americans in fear of what the future may bring for you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Are you talking about change for the seceded states or the ones that remained?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
most honest i've ever seen you be on here about your philosophies.
probably not. and i really wish lincoln had let them go. we'd be a lot better off up here.
probably true. it was morally reprehensible and they'd have caught up o the rest of the world eventually.
none of them have achieved it though. except the balkans. but it took the complete destruction and dissolution of another country to do so.
The question of secession has never been tried in a real court nor has it ever been brought before one.
Is that a Machiavelli quote in your sig?
-Enoch Powell
"Watership Down
Tells the story of a motley band of rabbits who desert their ancient warren when the gentle Fiver predicts imminent destruction of all who remain. Led by Fiver's intelligent brother, Hazel, the refugees set out on an epic search for a new home."
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
to the victor go the spoils. you've gotten your revenge by destroying the country with this nationalistic evangelical political thing y'all kick-started down there
I remember a very good animated feature back in the late '70's called, (if I remember right) "The World According to NIMH".
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Fuckin' A. Thought my memory was playing tricks on me. I'd love to see it again. Thanks for the info.
Another great animated feature from back in that day that I won't forget is...shit, I forget the name of it. "American Rock". Is that the name of it?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
But he never said "Republican".
The party of Lincoln was left of the Democrats. I am not well versed in why that flip-flopped, but early in the 20th century, they did. The south stayed Democrat for longer, possibly because of antagonism toward the idea of the party of Lincoln. But those old-school southern democrats were not generally liberal.
He simply implied that the South is a conservative part of the country. And that is what is meant when you call yourselves "the REAL America" right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
"American Pop"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082009/
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i was not talking about political parties, i was talking about falwell and jenkins and the christian coalition and the moral majority and the bloc-solid evangelical pro-life christian right vote that has dominated the south for the last 30 years.
im well aware of the old solid democratic south and the realignment that began with nixon and became set in stone with reagan. a large part of that realignment was due to the southern evangelism i mentioned. nixon played to it (the great silent majority) and reagan owned it and gingrich (contract with america) institutionalized it. and this country's been spiraling downward ever since.
that related to the secret of nimh or the rats of nimh or whatever? watership down is separate i believe.
Yeah, I see that. For a moment I thought they may be the same.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
cos we're inept and incompetent and too diverse to have a singular vision. that's the trouble with accepting others' way of life... not so easy to get consensus. so much easier when yuo have one book telling you the way everyone has to live and the arrogance and fanaticism to vote en masse to enforce it
i never said it was solid, but they do have enough numbers to dominate the political agenda of the entire country. what's the matter with kansas is a pretty good book about the phenomenon.