Replies

Apparently, some people will see only what confirms their preexisting beliefs, rather than think critically. To wit...

Webster's defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."

What happened was not a revolt against civil authority, it was civil authority, duly elected by the people of the States, voting to go their own way. The "established government" of each state decided to dissolve its link to the Federal government. To claim that a duly elected assembly could not vote to secede would indicate that the work of a similar group eighty years before, when voting to join that union, is invalid. Do any of you actually think that the States would have joined the union if they thought they'd never be able to dissolve it? Not a chance, and that's why there's no language preventing it in the document!

The rights and restrictions on the States are defined in Section 10 The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause -- and would by any standard be considered in a state of insurrection.

Since Article 10 in no place states a State cannot vote to leave the union, once it does, it's no longer a State, so violations of Article 10 become moot.

The actions of the people in secessionist states fit this definition of treason, and it is within the powers of the Federal Government to deal with them.

See above. If you've voted to leave the Union, you cannot commit treason against it.

The Constitution does not outline the steps needed to leave, but nothing exists in the Constitution to prevent any State from peacefully leaving. Sorry to burst the bubble.

LTS

Since Article 10 in no place states a State cannot vote to leave the union, once it does, it's no longer a State, so violations of Article 10 become moot. The actions of the people in secessionist states fit this definition of treason, and it is within the powers of the Federal Government to deal with them. See above. If you've voted to leave the Union, you cannot commit treason against it.

Excellent. What foaming-at-the-mouth South-haters like WhiskeyPapa can NEVER argue is WHY, if it was SO CLEAR that sessession was illegal, did the North not indict or ever TRY President Jefferson Davis? They conveniently forget PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE and who said that RIGHT of session was IMPLICIT. Of course, they also believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights GRANT RIGHTS to the People - which all FReepers know is a crock. The Constitution and Bill of Rights LIMIT Government. So if it isn't stated, it is permited. Period.

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government." Thomas Jefferson, 1798.

"Although the South would have preferred any honourable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. This is an event that has long been sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia." Gen. R.E. Lee, 1866.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, 1848.

Deo Vindice