If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[billbears]

Just that the mythology/propaganda you inherited was most likely a lie. The probability of that story of the gang-rape being true is as close to zero as anything can be.

Because it doesn't fit with your lincoln is God, Sherman was our saviour cock and bull story passed off as historical evidence? I'd fathom there were more than even reported except some poor women didn't live through the experience

[Non-Sequitur]

Jefferson's Inaugural Address comes to mind just in itself.

You mean this part"

" If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of your position to me.

[billbears]

And remembered well by the secessionist movement in 1814 if I remember correctly. Not to mention the outright mercantilist thugs a decade before that

[mdmathis6]

I offer only opinion and a view of history as to how things might have been, I am not in a position to justify any-thing regarding history...that would make me a judge of God himself.
Since Cain, men have always sought to justify murder and in the end evil is always controlled when it is turned against itself. If you want to compare the Civil War deaths as a kind of American Armenia...well that is your point of view.
I am looking at the final result of the civil war as having been like a forest fire that cleared away much of the tangled brush of slavery, outmoded state sovereignty, and injustice; allowing a new sense of federal unity with the blossoming of an economic and military colossus of which the world had never seen before.

Whether this a good thing or whether or not a counter balancing force will be brought into being to counter us as we wax more corrupt, God knows. Nations rise and fall at God's whim but I trust at the end of it all evil will be cut out of the hearts of men!

[Rebelbase]

It never ended.

[Aurelius]

"...you are the one who started with the insults/"

I don't think so.

[Non-Sequitur]

And remembered well by the secessionist movement in 1814 if I remember correctly. Not to mention the outright mercantilist thugs a decade before that.

Yeah but they were all talk and no action, billbears. The rebels were all action and no thought.

[RenegadeNC]

Since the Constitution indicates that each state shall have representation in Congress, the lack of representation seems to point to a lack of U.S. statehood. Is there any provision in the Constitution that allows a state's representation to be suspended for any reason? If not, it would seem that a total lack of congressional representation would indicate a loss of statehood in the eyes of that congress.

[WhiskeyPapa]

This is pointless. You keep harping on the Militia Act and the Prize Cases decision although you have been shown again and again why they do not apply in the case of secession. The matter has been settled.

President Lincoln cites the Militia Act in his proclamation of 4/15/61.

The Supreme Court refers to the Militia Act in the Prize Cases.

The matter has been settled and it involved the collapse of the insurgency and the death of the rebellion.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Is there any provision in the Constitution that allows a state's representation to be suspended for any reason?

Yes.

Article 1, section 5:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

Walt

[Aurelius]

"Right emanates from the muzzle of a gun."
Mao Tse Tung

Obviously a principle shared by Abraham Lincoln.

[Sloth]

Also, the state of West Virginia was formed illegally:

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Since the Constitution indicates that each state shall have representation in Congress, the lack of representation seems to point to a lack of U.S. statehood.

The Constitution guarantees that each state will be allocated two senators and at lease one representative in the House. It doesn't say that such seats have to be filled, or that not allowing representatives from a state to be seated means that the state is no longer a state.

[RenegadeNC]

Sorry...but that addresses each House's dealings with "it's own members" and the authorization to "compel the attendence of absent members"...nowhere does it state that representation can be denied to a state within the Union.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How did you ever get the idea that the government was doing fine under the Articles? It wasn't. It was in a state of collapse. Nor was there any prospect of an amendment of them because of the requirement of unanimity. They had to be ditched. However, many of their ideas were incorporated in the new document.

Far from being a lie your comment indicates you are either unfamiliar with the inaugural address or can't read well. Jefferson ridicules the idea of secession in it.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason if left free to combat it." In other words J. is saying secession is IRRATIONAL. Where did you learn to read?

No, none of the founders of note were involved in the secessionists movements in 1814 or earlier in 1803-4. One of the reasons Hamilton was killed was for opposing Burr's election to the governorship of NY in 1804 for fear he would join the Yankee screwballs and divide the Union.

States have no rights which impact the Union as a whole which secession would certainly do. The rights referenced were merely police powers and issues which ONLY affect a state. This has been repeatedly pointed out and just as repeatedly ignored.

There is NO evidence it included the right to withdraw and the reason Madison and others refused to allow a conditional ratification by any state was to prevent secession. Check the history of the NY convention and his communications to Hamilton on this very subject. He did not want to give any state the ability to come back later and say "We withdraw because our conditions have not been met." It is also why state legislatures were not allowed to ratify since any legislative action can be undone by another legislative action. That was not going to be allowed to happen.

It is so tiresome to have to correct these mistaken ideas and outright lies every time this issue comes up. There is no difficulty in determining the truth when one is concerned with the truth. But that is the last thing those attempting to justify the destruction of America are concerned with except as it is an obstacle to their falsehoods gaining credence among the ignorant, easily deluded or anti-Americans.

There is no constitution if secession is possible. It loses all its meaning and is nothing more than a bunch of words if it is not the Supreme Law of the Land. Union is the only thing which makes it sensible or possible. If a State law or act can trump the constitution then it is nothing of value.

[mac_truck]

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your thinking has no impact on the truth. Re-read the thread, I said nothing insulting to you personally until you started slinging the sh.. .

[Non-Sequitur]

Also, the state of West Virginia was formed illegally...

Why would that be illegal from the confederate standpoint? Western Virginia was not becomming a confederate state. There was nothing in the confederate constitution which prevented a state or a part of a state from seceding from the confederacy. The south had nothing to complain about.

From the Northern standpoint the entire transaction met the constitutional requirements because the U.S. Congress recognized a body of men as the loyal legislature of Virginia, and it was this body which petitioned Congress to approve dividing the state.

[tet68]

secession as practiced by the southern states was illegal

So there would be some instance where secession WAS legal?

Tell me more.

[Aurelius]

"There is no difficulty in determining the truth when one is concerned with the truth. "

That pretty much leaves you out.