Free Republic

Like a lot of folks, the Confederados goofed up at first, but in the end they figured out the proper way to secede from the United States.

Moving to Brazil to escape what they felt to be an intolerable environment in the United States took great courage on the part of the Confederados. I admire them. When they left the U.S., they didn't try to force their neighbors to join them.

Are your pants on? I know how excited that picture makes you.

Ouch! Cut me to the quick again there Ralphie ;-)

States are defined in the USC. You, in post #772

It defines only what a state cannot do. (...)it defines the state and the federal relationship. You in post #792.

Do you understand the difference? As I said before, the Constitution also mentions Natural Born Citizenship. It defines what office a natural born citizen can hold. It doesn't, however, define what a natural born citizen is.

We, the people of the United States have a simple, clear, settled rule:

As individuals, we have the right to renounce our American citizenship, but we don't individually or collectively have the right to renounce the American citizenship of our neighbors.

That's where the secessionists goofed up, albeit they did what they did for what they believed to be a real special cause. ;-)

And, they were damned lucky that President Jackson wasn't still the president.

oooooo, nice come back Potsie.

Which is far, far more than one could say about you.

No (he explained patiently) it's only right when it is done correctly.

You didn’t cry like a little girl to the mods, you’re growing up.

West Virginia became a state following the Wheeling Conventions and broke away from Virginia during the American Civil War. The new state was admitted to the Union on June 20, 1863, and was a key Civil War border state. West Virginia was the only state to form by seceding from a Confederate state and was one of two states formed during the American Civil War (the other being Nevada, which separated from Utah Territory).

It's only ok when you guys do it.

Hey, that reminds me - did you ever go back to see if your stupid picture is still posted? You seemed to be having a heavy flow day over that one ;-)

I see very little difference between a state unilaterally declaring itself to now be a different country and a cul-de-sac unilateral declaring itself to be a different country. Both of them are absolutely illegal under the US Constitution, but both have a natural right of rebellion, and upon winning said rebellion, either would then be independent countries.

A comment both wrong and stupid, a double bagger.

C'mon cva - use your brain! The reason why the secession of West Virginia and the attempted secession of the southern states is not analogous is because West Virginia didn't attempt unilateral secession. It's their adherence to legal process that made and kept it legitimate.

I see very little difference between a state unilaterally declaring itself to now be a different country and a cul-de-sac unilateral declaring itself to be a different country. Both of them are absolutely illegal under the US Constitution, but both have a natural right of rebellion, and upon winning said rebellion, either would then be independent countries.

You still haven’t explained why it’s only states that have the right to declare themselves to now be a different country.

So you think they way West Virginia became a state is silly? Hypocrites....

Perhaps that is why the misspellings and homophony become so amusing.

Hectoring? You deserve worse, much worse.

You might want to look up the meaning of “equivocate,” too. Perhaps you meant “equate.”

Yes equate, not equivocate. I stand corrected. Well answer the question. Do you "equate"?

It defines only what a state cannot do. It defines what the Federal is supposed to do. It defines the limits of both and therefore it defines the state and the federal relationship. IMO it makes the state the superior to the Federal in almost everything. Split hairs with one of your Lincoln butt buddies....

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You might want to look up the meaning of “equivocate,” too. Perhaps you meant “equate.”

But you don’t teach - you hector. And even hectoring might be excusable if you were correct, but you aren’t.

Perhaps that is why the misspellings and homophony become so amusing. ;-)

You still haven’t explained why it’s only states that have the right to declare themselves to now be a different country.

Sorry, but you're still not showing where the Constitution defines what a state is, which is your original claim.

Teaching you is such a waste of time....

Did it ever occur to you that you're the one who needs to be schooled?

cup-de-sac = cul-de-sac

Again, you don't appear to read your own posts. You said that the Constitution defines states. It doesn't.

This post proves once more that you are just plain ignorant. The whole point of the USC is to allow states to "do their own thing". With the only limits being those duties specifically reserved for the Federal. Teaching you is such a waste of time....

Like you compadre, are you going to sully the Confederacy’s secession and equivocate it to a cup-de-sac seceding from the county? If so, don’t wonder why so many people think it is the FR Federal boot licking fools that deserve derision.

I actually work, and cant always proof read everything.

So, any further inaccuracies you wish to share?

No, I think two are enough. Though to be completely accurate we may both be wrong about North Carolina. The account I have states that the convention that met on May 20th was made up of the same people who had been elected to the first convention that voted secession down and not as a result of a new election.

Now good luck in getting your Lost Causer buddy to admit his errors.

Again, you don't appear to read your own posts. You said that the Constitution defines states. It doesn't. It says what states can and can't do, but that isn't the same thing. States can't coin money, but neither can I, and I'm certainly not a state.

The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen," but as we well know, it doesn't actually define that term, either.

And it's "role,' not "roll."

Bubba, are you serious? The entire USC defines the roll of FedGov and state. Even you are not that stupid. I did a search on the word state in the USC, 100 matches.

” In North Carolina the referendum was defeated, but later the legislature took them into rebellion anyway.”

Forgot about the May 13, 1861 elections for convention delegates by the citizens of North Carolina, did ya? The convention voted to secede on May 20, 1861.

So, any further inaccuracies you wish to share?

“South Carolina’s convention was appointed by the legislature.”

Wrong.

South Carolinians voted for their convention delegates on December 6, 1860.

So, are you planning any more inaccurate claims?

cva: “You are neophyte compared to other Lincoln apologists. You should keep quiet and read these posts and try to learn something, you’re not ready for prime time.”

C’mon Tau - don’t you know that your opinion is only valid in direct proportion to your logon date?!

Entire states can move to secede.

Not unilaterally. It was tried before and found to be illegal.

States are defined in the USC.

Really? Which clause is that?

Your refusal to seriously answer the question isn't unexpected. Lost Causers seem to have this persistent notion that the state is the fundamental particle of sovereignty, and nothing below is valid and nothing above is more than an matter of convenience, to be renounced at the slightest whim.

Exactly. So nice of you to concede. They won, so their principles apply, not those of George.

And how exactly does that differ from the "might makes right" argument you were so loudly decrying earlier?

In Ga people voted for their delegates to attend the Secession Convention. So this is what a representative democracy does. If you are implying that somehow this convention did not represent the majority opinion of Georgians then make your case now or STHU.

I admit I read your posts primarily for amusement but I'm beginning to suspect you don't read your posts at all. Your claim was, and I quote, "...every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum..." and I merely pointed out that not only were you wrong, you were badly wrong. Only about a quarter of the claimed rebel states submitted it to a referendum. Now if you're trying to change your claim to "...every state that seceded put secession to the people as a referendum OR through elected delegates at a convention..." then even that is incorrect. Many used elected conventions, but certainly not all. South Carolina's convention was appointed by the legislature. Kentucky's delegates were pretty much self-appointed. Missouri didn't bother with anything; a rump section of the legislature and an impeached governor decided that.

So...are you planning any other inaccurate claims?

Exactly when was that South Carolina referendum on secession? Are you still sure that "that every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum" like you claimed in post 765?

What should we tell the mailman? ;-)

There are 12 homes and about 19 adults living on my cul-de-sac. If 15 of us want our cul-de-sac to secede from the United States so we won't have to pay U.S. taxes anymore, we can vote to create our own nation, I guess?

A childish argument to say the least. States are defined in the USC. Entire states can move to secede. This infantile argument that you espouse shows how little you really understand of US history . It also show contempt for the lives lost in a serious struggle and the honor and integrity of Southerners everywhere.

You are neophyte compared to other Lincoln apologists. You should keep quiet and read these posts and try to learn something, you're not ready for prime time. Please stop; this is embarrassing - to you. You are unworthy of my time.

In Ga people voted for their delegates to attend the Secession Convention. So this is what a representative democracy does. If you are implying that somehow this convention did not represent the majority opinion of Georgians then make your case now or STHU.

You do realize that every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum, and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted for it? Maybe you don't, you could be that ignorant.

I guess the best way to test that claim is to begin at the beginning.

On December 20, 1860, a "convention" of South Carolina bigshot "delegates" approved a secession declaration. When did South Carolina hold this "referendum" that you describe?

There are 12 homes and about 19 adults living on my cul-de-sac. If 15 of us want our cul-de-sac to secede from the United States so we won't have to pay U.S. taxes anymore, we can vote to create our own nation, I guess? And, the 4 who vote no are just going to have to accept our decision as binding on them? What shall we tell the mailman?

As you will learn if you try it, no cul-de-sac, no homeowners' association, no town, no city, no county, no state can declare a "secession" and thereby deprive any other American citizen of his/her citizenship or his/her rights under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution creates political bonds between "we, the people of the United States" and we, the people of the United States, are committed to protecting one another's rights as American citizens.

No, there is no such thing as a legal "secession" even if it's to protect something as important as the institution of slavery. "Secession" is just a parlor word for revolution.

You do realize that every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum, and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted for it?

South Carolina didn't. Their secession was decided by a convention. Kentucky didn't, they went the convention route, too. As did Mississippi. And Alabama. In fact only four states - Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina - submitted secession to a referendum. In North Carolina the referendum was defeated, but later the legislature took them into rebellion anyway. In Virginia the referendum actually was held a few weeks after the state was admitted to the Confederacy.

Maybe you don't, you could be that ignorant.

Or maybe just smarter than you.

This is pure comedy.

I don't think a whole lot of people were laughing at the time.

Yes, had Lincoln arbitrarily surrendered immediately after Davis started his war then the deaths would not have occurred. But when faced with aggression surrender usually leads to further aggression. So Lincoln can hardly be blamed for fighting the war the Confederacy forced on him.

This is pure comedy.

Sigh. I might as well have written nothing. You certainly didn't understand what I wrote.

Apparently not. What rule of law transferred title of Sumter from its lawful owners to the Confederacy? It's a pretty simple question that should, hopefully, require a simple answer.

No, they are responsible for some of it, but it is dishonest to place all the blame on one side. Had Lincoln evacuated Fort Sumter, there would have been no war. It's also Northern Pride and stubbornness that is to blame.

Yes, had Lincoln arbitrarily surrendered immediately after Davis started his war then the deaths would not have occurred. But when faced with aggression surrender usually leads to further aggression. So Lincoln can hardly be blamed for fighting the war the Confederacy forced on him.

The Issue of Slavery was the dominant issue which motivated them to secede. I'm not sure where you count the start of "Rebellion" at the point where they seceded, or at the point where they fired on Fort Sumter.

It's simpler than that. Take away every other cause you care to mention and leave slavery and the South still rebels. Take away slavery and leave all the other causes and the South does not. It's really just that simple.

So you don't count the secession as part of the "Rebellion"? Only the bombardment? Fine, the war was over revenge, not "Preserving the Union" or "Slavery", it was revenge, plain and simple.

(*sigh*) I might as well have written nothing since you clearly do not understand anything I wrote. The South started the war and it was to further their secession, which was motivated by slavery. Therefore, clearly, for the South the war was over slavery. For the North, it was fighting the war forced upon them.

I stand corrected. Do you have a link?

March 6, 1861 - Confederate Congress passed act for establishment of a army of 100,000 men for 12 months service. Link

How is it accurate to keep linking Fort Sumter with Slavery? How? How do you even believe stuff like that?

Because you cannot divorce the Confederate cause from the war that they started.

If your position is that secession is illegal, and it is your duty to stop it, and it is required that you use deadly force to do so, then yes, the War should have started immediately.

That's like saying that if you believe hostage taking is illegal and it is the duty of the police to stop it then rather that negotiate with the hostage taker you should bring in a tank and blow their location away.

Everyone who lived in the South was an American citizen. As American citizens, each of them had rights under the Constitution. The secessionists tried to deprive those American citizens of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and tried to deprive them of their American citizenship.

You do realize that every state that seceded put secession to the people as referendum, and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted for it? Maybe you don't, you could be that ignorant.

People were free to leave anytime they wanted to leave.,

No, Fascists always want the people to leave the USA. That is the rub, the USA is a construct of the states-not the other way around. Seceding states need not worry what little Hitlers think.....

You’re scaring me.

I love these threads!

;-)

Then why deny people the right to leave your plantation?

People were free to leave anytime they wanted to leave. Many Southerners moved to Brazil and became Confederados. Many of their descendants are still down there waving Confederate flags. Many of them still speak some English.

Everyone who lived in the South was an American citizen. As American citizens, each of them had rights under the Constitution. The secessionists tried to deprive those American citizens of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and tried to deprive them of their American citizenship.

Like many of the bigwigs of his day, George Washington was very dissatisfied with the Articles of Confederation because it left the nation weak and indefensible. He pushed for the creation of an indissoluble Union of the States. Our Constitution makes it clear that it was a bond by and between "We the People of the United States" and not just another league of states. In fact, it was for that very important reason that Patrick Henry was opposed to ratifying the Constitution - "Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?"

The secessionists had the right to leave the plantation. They had no right to try to break the constitutional bonds between the American people or to deprive any Americans of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.