Abe Lincoln and Thanksgiving

Originally posted by spruce112358
Yes, but you are arguing that this one thing can't be repealed. A state legislature cannot repeal its own decision to join with the union. If that was the understanding, it should definitely have been stated in the Constitution. It wasn't, and so we can hardly complain if a state asserts the right to secede.

They forgot to mention that the sky was blue and water was wet, too.

Originally posted by spruce112358
No, my logic only extends as far as saying I see no obvious prohibition. The topic simply hasn't been addressed. A single word in the title of a superseded document is not enough.

I'm not pro secession at all. Just sayin'.

The fact that the Union was meant to be perpetual was mentioned several times in the body of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Article XIII:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

Nor did those who accurately claimed that individual States have no legitimate power to secede rely on this "single word" as you so disingenuously claim. The whole structure of the Union would be made meaningless if States could freely secede; of what use would prohibitions on their behavior be if they could simply leave and do whatever they please at any time?

The idea of including a clause regarding secession was never discussed at the Constitutional Convention for a simple reason; the delegates were working under established principles of government that rendered the idea of allowing secession unthinkable. A "more perfect union" is not dissoluble at the whim of those in it. By the extension of your logic, no political entity can be maintained if even one person refuses to abide by its decisions and chooses to detach himself (while still living in its geographical confines)- the entity has no legitimate power to compel him to obey its laws. This is anarchy, not a "more perfect Union".

Originally posted by no1marauder

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and [b]the Union shall be perpetual

.[/b]

Yea, it's kinda like joining the mob. If you want out, we will kill you, your family, and your friends, even if it ends up being over 600,000 people.

Originally posted by whodey
Yea, it's kinda like joining the mob. If you want out, we will kill you, your family, and your friends, even if it ends up being over 600,000 people.

Cry me a river. Damn shame all those Germans got killed after the Nazis started WWII, too.

Originally posted by whodey
Yea, it's kinda like joining the mob. If you want out, we will kill you, your family, and your friends, even if it ends up being over 600,000 people.

Of course, the Civil War, like every war, was a tragedy. In point of fact, the US suffered the majority of deaths from the CSA started war. It is also an undeniable fact that the leaders of the US were extremely lenient on the defeated South; treason trials and executions would certainly have been legally justified for many of the CSA's leaders (Virginia was allowed to try and execute John Brown for the raid on Harper's Ferry - a minor incident compared to attacking the US as the CSA did).

The historical facts indicate that the US tried to avoid conflict and offered reasonable compromises to those intent on illegally seceding because their favored candidate lost an election. It was only when arms were taken up against the US that war became inevitable. The onus of that war must lie on those who started it i.e. the CSA.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Cry me a river. Damn shame all those Germans got killed after the Nazis started WWII, too.

Comparing the South to Nazi Germany?

The South had no ambitions to extend their territory. All they wanted was to be left alone.

Originally posted by whodey
Comparing the South to Nazi Germany?

The South had no ambitions to extend their territory. All they wanted was to be left alone.

They wanted to expand to California.

Originally posted by whodey
Comparing the South to Nazi Germany?

The South had no ambitions to extend their territory. All they wanted was to be left alone.

🙄🙄

Absolutely and totally false.

Originally posted by whodey
Comparing the South to Nazi Germany?

The South had no ambitions to extend their territory. All they wanted was to be left alone.

From the CSA Constitution, Article IV, Section 3:

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp


The CSA even accepted representatives from Missouri and Kentucky even though the authorities in those States had rejected secession. Pro-CSA forces had grabbed a chunk of area in each, however, and they were accepted as representatives of those States in the CSA Congress.

So much for the "All they wanted was to be left alone" BS.

Originally posted by whodey
Was it worth 600,000 lives? Is government that important?

Have there been any wars fought by the US that you agree with? Or are you a conscientious objector? The US war against the traitorous South was the most justified war the US has fought.

Originally posted by whodey
Well, at least it would not have set a precedent in that regard. 😛

From my perspective, might makes right. You can twist, ignore, and amend anything away in the Constitution. It's been done time and time again.

Sure, you can do any arbitrary amendment to the Constitution, as long as it gets the necessary votes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
From the CSA Constitution, Article IV, Section 3:

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it ...[text shortened]... the CSA Congress.

So much for the "All they wanted was to be left alone" BS.

You know full well what I meant, the Confederacy had no intention of attacking the North. Both would have been free to acquire new states as both had the intention.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Cry me a river. Damn shame all those Germans got killed after the Nazis started WWII, too.

I'm glad you seem so concerned with over half American men dead.

As far as Nazis go, it reminds me of the what the Nazi Hermann Goring once said. He said, "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."

He is absolutely correct. So what if the South had won and forced the North back into the Union? Would you then defend the South like you are the North?

What can I say, might makes right.

Originally posted by moon1969
Have there been any wars fought by the US that you agree with? Or are you a conscientious objector? The US war against the traitorous South was the most justified war the US has fought.

I find it interesting that the more progressive a president becomes the more war like they seem to be. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR. LBJ, even "W". And yes, "W" was a progressive in my view.

I can perhaps see a reason to fight agression around the world, especially if it is coming your way eventually like during WW2, but I don't view the South as an aggressor. They simply wanted to leave the union, much like the Vietnamese wanted to left alone in their own country.

Today progressives have troops in over 70 countries around the world, and seem to topple Middle Eastern countries without thinking twice. What I do think is if the South had been allowed to leave the Union, the US would not have become the military superpower it has and would not dictate to countries around the world like it does. Naturally, progressives see this as a good thing, but not everyone does. I suppose being the world's policeman is a nice hobby for them.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm glad you seem so concerned with over half American men dead.

As far as Nazis go, it reminds me of the what the Nazi Hermann Goring once said. He said, "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."

He is absolutely correct. So what if the South had won and forced the North back into the Union? Would you then defend the South like you are the North?

What can I say, might makes right.

Quoting Nazis (probably incorrectly since right wingers here almost invariably simply repeat quotes they have seen on their extremist blogs) isn't nearly as impressive a rhetorical device as you think.

Right makes right. The US could have responded to the illegal secession attempts by the Southern States in a number of ways. The one they eventually chose (after those States attacked US troops and sailors) is hardly morally blameworthy.