Skip to comments.Should Arizona secede?
Posted on 07/29/2010 6:34:13 PM PDT by SloopJohnB
click here to read article
“Secession is illegal”
The British said that it was “illegal” for the American colonies to secede from the empire.
They changed their mind quite readily after getting their a$$es kicked not once, but twice.
What is “legal” is what can be enforced with the strength of arms.
Government decides what is illegal, and they use force to make sure people obey. Government is the entity which has a monopoly on force. That's what government is. That's what law is.
For revolution, civil war, or secession, any discussion of "legality" is simply misplaced. Either you are strong enough to get your way or you are not. There's nothing more to be said.
And the “issue of secession” was NOT resolved in the 1860s.
The right to secede exists regardless of whether the right was suppressed through the force of arms.
Secession IS legal under the original Constitution, inherently so. The Constitution would not have been ratified without the inherent understanding that if the _created entity_ of the federal government breached the contract, the states could withdraw from that contract.
The government in the 1860s simply enforced an illegal suppression of that legal right.
Good comment, as usual. Thanks.
“Fellow citizens and compatriots;
I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country. Victory or Death.
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comdt.
P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.
One of the greatest patriotic letters in American History. Not too long ago my JHS kids used a text that actually contained this letter. Now we have a new one that barely mentions The Alamo. Here in NYC I had a class of immigrant kids from Asia and Latin America which enthusiastically took a week studying the Alamo, this letter and the motivations of James Bohnam in returning to the mission and certain death. Several of the artistic kids created images of Bohnam’s decision. The History of this American Republic captures people. It is my hope we will someday be allowed again to teach it.
“Will the people in Arizona want to foot the billions it would cost to go it alone?”
AZ will have LOTS of new residents, happy to make it work with their money which would otherwise be confiscated by this clown in the White House. No doubt money will flow in from many other sources also. Besides, I suspect other states would want to join the effort to create a country separate from ObamaNation.
A Civil War! Aye, that’s the ticket! LOL.
I think all 57 states should secede.
Of course, you are right. The delegates to a new Constitutional Convention would not be fit to shine the shoes of the original framers...the Founding Fathers. But, we are going downhill anyway...why not just get it over with? It is too late to stop.
LOL!!! Good one! Hehe.
I think that is exactly what would happen.
The USC is totally silent on the issue of secession.
The further south and male, the more pro-secession a FReeper seems. The farther North and female the more opposed. T Here are many exceptions. I think this axiom would apply nationally thought.
Yes, true. But, if no one in Arizona will defy the “decision” of a loser judge, what makes anyone think they would stand up to Congress, and secede? Or even more so, to the Blue Army?
A constitution is a foundation which can only be changed by the means proscribed within it. It is not an ordinary law. An amendment allowing withdrawal would be the constitutional means to change the Union. The purpose of the document was to make the UNION stronger, more perfect.
Even the foundation it superceded declared the Union to be “perpetual” hence a “more perfect” Union is no less. All the significant Founders: Washington, Hamilton, Madison etc. declared withdrawal impossible. Not even Jefferson suggested the contrary.
Certainly the means of testing the theory, an insane attack on clearly federal possessions obscured the legal issues and made it much easier to rally behind Lincoln as even some Democrats did.
You want to research this fantasy of yours?
* Patrick Henry * Samuel Adams * George Mason * Richard Henry Lee * Robert Yates (politician) * James Winthrop * James Monroe * Mercy Otis Warren * George Clinton
Ive heard these illegals and their Mexican pro-illegal alien supporters, spray painted, "Burn this racist city to the ground" and painted a toilet on Old Glory as they walked all over our flag....
Both Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams initially were opposed to the Constitution and both changed their minds and became strong supporters.
Technically a “Founder” was only one who attended the Constitutional Convention so only Mason would fit the term I used “...major Founder...”. Yates and Clinton were part of the clique of racketeers who made up the principle opposition to a new government in New York and Yates was in no way a major founder and was sent to the CC to ride herd on Hamilton. He failed miserably. Monroe was just a Jeffersonian puppet and not at the convention in any case.
Most of the opposition came from those who saw the Constitution as a threat to their corrupt schemes in their own states.
Your list does not address the issue either since most of them would have opposed secession even though opposed to the constitution.
The point was addressed SPECIFICALLY during the New York ratification convention. Hamilton was beating down the opposition with a brilliant display of oratorical skills (he was after all the greatest lawyer in the country) and asked Madison (at that time more Hamiltonian than Hamilton) his view of a conditional ratification with the right to withdraw later. Madison, in no uncertain terms, wrote back that this was not acceptable and that once in the Union always in the Union. At which point H proceeded to secure NY’s ratification converting a 2/3s against to a narrow victory. This was one of his greatest achievement in a life filled with incredible achievements.
In the future address what I SAY not what you wished I said. You can adapt your canned and ill-researched responses trying to support the RAT Rebellion of 1861 only with those who know little actual history.