I think future history will be full of surprises, and our tribe has made some incredible migrations and comebacks before. Don't count us out.
Posted on 06/06/2012 6:18:45 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
Your post makes no sense. It was the South that fired the shot.
If I were to gather 200 of my fellow statesmen in my yard and have a vote of secession, and we voted 200-0 to secede, would that mean my secession was proven to the Congress of the United States? Hell no. That's what the south did. That's the purpose of Article 4, to allow Congress to provide the manner in which a state is to prove its acts. Having a rabble-rousing rally is not a provable act of a state.
Fort Sumter was a federal property built to defend a main waterway of the continent from foreign invasion. If South Carolina had taken their secession to the Congress do sue for terms maybe they could have worked something out to legally secede and to eventually gain control of Fort Sumter.
Fort Sumter was an island built by the federal government using granite from the northeast states at great expense to the federal government. South Carolina should have taken their secession to the Congress to get terms rather than trying to gain control of something they didn't even build.
You’re still not citing anything more specific than “Article 4”, which contains a lot of provisions. Where exactly in Article 4 are you finding this spelled out, that States need approval from Congress to secede?
Did we consider the forts that the Brits built in America to be their property after we had declared independance? I don’t think so.
Who built them, how much they cost, those are just details. You can’t have a sovereign state with foreign troops stationed on your soil without your permission. That’s called being in a state of war, whether the Northerners want to admit it or not.
If you look at the first secession the ratio was about 35% to 75% also.
Article 4 says that a state must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts. Secession is an act of a state.
We had the military strength to defend our secession, the South did not. Since the South did not have the military strength they should have taken their secession through the Congress.
Who built them, how much they cost, those are just details. You can’t have a sovereign state with foreign troops stationed on your soil without your permission. That’s called being in a state of war, whether the Northerners want to admit it or not.
So we're at war with Cuba?
The reason why this is going to be a massive issue, and why they even put the poll in the field in the first place, is that eventually we’ll be asked to bail out California.
The answer will be a resounding ‘Hell no’ and we will look to kick them out of the union. We will do this to prevent the entire Southeast and most of the midwest (awash in oil and other mineral reserves) from wanting a do-over on the entire federal government thing.
There was a Russian that predicted we’d be at this point within the next seven years. I didn’t think he was that far off then (about a year or so ago).
Since the secession wasn't proven, there was no secession.
The depth of ignorance shown in this post is beyond belief.
We will have to extinguish progressivism ....even the sensitive stuff like racial redress and getting realistic about the inherent behavior in some groups
I doubt we have the stomach for it
And youth are brainwashed and assimilated
When my age dies off no one will care..
Less and less whites.....especially in the heartland and its over
We will never turn so many minorities around on a dime
We did this to ourselves.....laid in place before my own birth in 1957
I think future history will be full of surprises, and our tribe has made some incredible migrations and comebacks before. Don't count us out.
“Nice summation.”
I’ve been posting about this for a number of years now (in another life and time, as well). Here’s a relatively recent post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2866551/posts?page=13#13
“The slavery issue was the one that had divided the nation into two camps that couldn’t stand the sight of each other though. It was what motivated people to be willing to go and fight - although it wasn’t a settled matter in the North either, by any means.”
Fast forward to today.
When you speak of “can’t stand the sight of each other”, you might as well be referring to present-day liberals and conservatives. There seems to be an almost-unbridgeable divide growing between the left and the right, in which common ground is no longer possible because the belief systems of each side have become so dissimilar.
The left will never agree to your (our) principles. Never.
They will crush you (us) if that’s what it takes to force their will down your (our) throat.
Will that be the fuse that “motivates” the new rebels?
“Article 4 says that a state must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts.”
Where does it say this? I can’t find it and I’ve never heard anyone make this claim besides you.
Oh, wait, nevermind. I see you are getting that from the Full Faith and Credit clause. Well, I’m no lawyer, but I believe the second sentence in that clause is subsidiary to the first sentence, absent any other contrary indication, and only applies to “proving” the acts of the state to other states, so that they may know what they have to give full faith and credit to. You can’t extend that language to remove powers that are already inherent in the states independent of the Constitution, it’s ludicrous.
“That was in dispute with many believing that there never was a “CSA” as a legal entity.”
Perhaps, but it’s not in dispute that the state of South Carolina considered it a legal entity. Doesn’t take a genius to realize if you insisted on stationed troops in their borders, THEY were going to view it as an act of war. This is one of those things where you don’t need a mutually agreed upon perception to make something a reality; one side’s perception is all it takes.
“We had the military strength to defend our secession, the South did not.”
Ok, the might makes right argument is sensible, but it’s beside the point if one is arguing about the viability of secession, since it can only be determined after the fact. There’s no way to know ahead of time if you will prevail with force of arms. It also bears no relation to whether the states have an inherent right to secession, since they can have a right to do it even if it’s not feasible for them to exercise the right without fighting a war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.