General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Statistical
(19,264 posts)That either implies an intent that once it you are in forever or they were complete idiots who failed to write the obvious reverse to "how does a state join the union".
Still it doesn't really matter. History makes precedent. The country used force to prevent secession no other state will ever succeed (baring the union completely breaking apart as a failed state).
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm not a fan of US federalism and don't buy into that the original 13 states were ever sovereign nations. They were creations of Britain. They fought the Revolution as a single nation, not 13 sovereign states. Nor do I believe that states after those original 13 were ever sovereign... through maybe Texas's curious history makes it the exception. But then that's just my take. But those 13 certainly believed and acted as sovereigns... and it's right there in the Articles
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
It would seem logical that even sovereigns can surrender that sovereignty. The Constitution made no such declaration of state sovereignty. It's enough to make one's head spin.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Leaving aside the 13th Amendment, should slavey be legal? Sure, why not.
Framing the question of "was it legal" to exclude the key Supreme Court decision on point is an interesting approach.
Leaving aside Roe v Wade, should states be allowed to ban abortion?
Leaving aside Brown v Board, should states be allowed to run segregated public schools?
Let me ask you this... I was born a US citizen. Should the state in which I reside have the ability to revoke my citizenship in the US?
What, in your sole mind, renders Texas v White "tortured"?
Let me guess... were you by any chance educated in Texas? Because for some reason, this question, and the insistence that Texas has a unilateral right of secession, seems to be very consistent among folks from Texas. I've never understood why.
The question is settled.
UTUSN
(77,725 posts)
Hekate
(100,133 posts)UTUSN
(77,725 posts)friendliness & civility for granted. & if this doesn't make sense, just let it go.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So I would have no idea.
The question is here posed as to what is "legal" relative to US states, and is thus a question of US law.
unblock
(56,188 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I think I was clear from my OP that I see no clear answer here. I think it's pretty much a mess.
But since you're such a mind reader... perhaps you can explain your claim you can see into my mind.
unblock
(56,188 posts)it's an unremarkable talent, really.
10th amendment? really? that's incredibly facile. secession was not simply a "right" that could be otherwise reserved to the states.
secession involves the simultaneous disavowal of all obligations under federal law and the constitution, as well as the denial of all rights guaranteed to its people, who are also subjects of the united states.
so, a citizen of the united states has the right to free speech, a speedy trial, etc., but then if the state that united states citizen happens to be in at the moment decides to secede, then that citizen no longer has any such rights? no recourse under federal law?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Try reading the OP again since you seem to think I didn't state an opposing argument. Better yet I'll repost it here...
But on the other hand when the states ratified the Constitution that were agreeing to a framework where the federal government was supreme, and disputes were to be settled in the courts.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So leaving aside the rather tortured 1869 Texas v White decision... I still have no idea.
So you not only MISSED my arguments AGAINST secession I concluded AS I STARTED that I still have no idea whether it's legal or not.
So I await your definitive proof that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits secession. Because otherwise if the federal government wasn't given the power to stop secession, or unless the states forever surrendered that right... then it would seem the BEST we can go by are those indirect arguments such as I made above.
unblock
(56,188 posts)but the militia clause does give the federal government the right to enforce federal laws and suppress insurrection.
perhaps the problem is that you're insisting on "definitive proof". sometimes the law is cut-and-dried, but the cases that end up in court, particularly that rise to the level of the supreme court, almost by definition aren't cut-and-dried. but that doesn't mean there isn't good, solid legal reasoning involved in deciding such cases.
on the other hand, it's very poor legal reasoning to simply argue that the word "secession" doesn't appear in the constitution therefore one can never know for sure.
but the militia was made up of state militias... and the operative law at the time that fleshed out Art 1 were the Militia Acts of 1792
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm?PageSpeed=noscript though by 1861 the government had largely given up on using the militias for national defense since they performed so poorly in the War Of 1812.
And the Acts say NOTHING about entire states seceding.
As for your "poor legal reasoning" argument... it MIGHT make sense if not for the peculiar construction of US federalism. If the government was NOT given any powers, they were assumed NOT to exist... but reserved to the People and the States.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)It's tortured because it had to come to a conclusion... just as Scalia's Heller decision had to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second even if it's clearly meant to protect state militias.
EDIT... and no, despite what Scalia says that the war made secession illegal... it still seems to be an open question. But you're free to believe that every Supreme Court decision was handed down on a slab.
TexasProgresive
(12,729 posts)Texas has it written in the charter that it can divide into as many as 5 states. The old joke is that it would never happen because they would never agree over who gets the name Texas and the Alamo. Nothing was ever taught about the right to secession- I can't even spell the word.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"Framing the question of "was it legal" to exclude the key Supreme Court decision on point is an interesting approach. "
You don't pay much attention to your own arguments, do you? So you're admitting that secession WAS legal in 1861?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I asked you a simple question, and you have avoided it.
Can a state void my US citizenship. Yes or no?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And it seems you want to avoid the core constitutional issues 1861 and instead try to prove your claim with a side issue about citizenship. My take... US federalism is a concept full of holes that have largely been papered over. Yours is one of them.
unblock
(56,188 posts)it's not "time machine 'logic'" and the fact that the supreme court decision came after the civil war in no way means it "was" legal in 1861.
that's simply not the way our legal system works. the supreme court interprets the constitution and the law and determines what *was* legal, not with *will be* legal.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You're also saying that any decision from the Supreme Court proves X is constitutional?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The question in Texas v White was whether Texas had ceased to be a part of the US after their claimed secession.
The answer was no. It remains no.
Yes, the Supreme Court can indeed change decisions, but it is not as simple as your cartoon impression of it.
Texas v White is by no means not the only case in the subject, and there are other cases built in it.
Are you going to answer my simple question or not?
unblock
(56,188 posts)this happens in law all the time. courts do not generally rule on matters in advance, and people do not generally get permission first.
people do things. then, perhaps, there is a court case and the courts, after the fact, sometimes well after the fact, determine if the actions were legal at the time.
the courts are not making new law when they do so, they are determining what was already was legal, based on the constitution and/or previous laws.
the right to an abortion didn't suddenly materialize in 1973 when roe v. wade was decided. that decision clarified that the right already existed.
it's really not much different than the way science works. newton didn't invent gravity, he simply clarified our thinking about it. gravity existed long before he described it in detail. no temporal incongruity, no time travel machine. just clarification of what already was.
as for supreme court decisions "proving" something is constitutional, well, they can get it wrong and do in fact revise decisions, albeit pretty rarely. usually they just provide further clarifications.
in any event, it is not a "proof", but a decision, albeit the final decision. at least, until overturned by further legislation, or perhaps a constitutional amendment, or maybe even a future supreme court decision.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)the "rebels" won. This is known as the "might makes right" doctrine, which is how independence actually works at
the country level.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"Might" clearly exists... but "might" hardly makes any use of itself "right".
If this is a "doctrine" it's both feeble and pathetic.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Might does not make ANYTHING morally right. Moral correctness is INDEPENDENT of whether it survives or prevails in an fight.
Are you blind to this reality?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)We're talking about what is "legally right" here.
And on the world stage as far as independence "might makes what is legally right".
If you disagree with that please tell me what country has achieved independence from
another country but you think didn't legally do so, and so is an invalid country.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/is-russia-behind-a-secession-effort-in-california/517890/
On paper, the leader of the California secession movement lives in an apartment complex near San Diego’s Golden Hill neighborhood. But in reality, the Calexit campaign is being run by a 30-year-old who lives and works in a city on the edge of Siberia. Louis Marinelli heads the secessionist group Yes California. Following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the organization has gone from an unknown fringe group to one discussed seriously in mainstream media.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)One need not go far to see there were posts here on CA threatening secession back in 04. I know... I posted them
Can't blame Putin, now can we?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Try extra large caps.
The current "Calexit" bullshit is run from Moscow. That is not a "red herring" of any kind. It is an established fact.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)The thing with California "seceding" used to be a joke. Nobody with any brains is laughing about it now.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Check and mate, good sir.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Are you that illogical to note that someone might propose a similar action FOR TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASONS. Are you suggesting that Putin went back in time to 2004 and made me propose California secession for the same reasons: as perhaps the ONLY way to shock our system into democratic reforms?
So what's your next diversionary ploy going to be?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The reasons why someone is spreading foolishness about secession are unimportant. I don't care whether a liberal or a conservative is advocating a crackpot idea.
Provide a link to your 2004 posting on the subject.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'll provide the link to my 2004 post IF you promise to retract what I consider a scurrilous accusation that I'm somehow connected to the Russian Calexit ploy
The current "Calexit" bullshit is run from Moscow. That is not a "red herring" of any kind. It is an established fact.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/texit-forces-welcomed-russian-separatist-conference/
"Texas secessionists aren’t giving up their fight to make the Lone Star State a true lone state, and they seem to be prepared to link arms with unlikely allies. According to the Los Angeles Times, Texas secessionists cozied up with anti-Western separatist groups at a Kremlin-funded conference in Moscow earlier this week, hosted by a seven-foot Russian dude “who wears crocodile leather shoes” and leads Russia’s Anti-Globalist Movement.
...
As the Times notes, Western leaders have long suspected Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration supports separatist and far-right ultranationalist movements throughout Europe, so it’s no surprise that Russia would welcome the opportunity for a Texit to potentially destabilize the U.S., even though such a move is pretty much impossible. "
Response to jberryhill (Reply #66)
Post removed
Hekate
(100,133 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Ya, I'm well aware of some of the irrationality here. And I know damn well that nothing I say will convince them otherwise. So I can't care.
To the rest of you DUers, you have to admit that constitutionally, secession seems to be an open question. And as I've argued elsewhere... threatening secession to demand PROGRESSIVE may be the ONLY leverage we have to finally create a democratic federal system. In fact I've suggested that secession might be the ONLY way to reform an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system that's brought us not just the Bush and Trump Juntas, but an antidemocratic Senate now in the hands of the GOP even though Dem Senators represent 33 million more Americans than does the GOP.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028380818
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Confederacy is long gone, and it frankly doesn't matter one way or the other at this point.
These days, however, attempting to legitimize secession serves another purpose entirely.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Given your last post I can only assume that you believe secession ONLY can serve right wing causes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My take is constitutionality of secession is so muddled we're never going to know. But that the THREAT of secession could be harnessed for progressive reforms.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)No, I'm sure that there are gullible people on the left who could just as easily swallow such bullshit designed to sow division.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm sure Putin is QUITE HAPPY with our antidemocratic system. If not for the EC Trump would not be president.
Your disgusting insinuations are totally uncalled for... but then some can't have rational discussions.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)The issue of secession's legitimacy was settled well over a century ago, at the cost of some 600,000 lives, as brother fought brother.
One has to wonder what the motives are of those who keep pushing the notion that this is an open subject. Or as they like to say, just asking questions. Then not listening to the answers.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)I also live here. No one that I am personally aware of takes California secession seriously, much less desires it. Even the "State of Jefferson" folks are almost universally met with an eye roll.
Imho, we ought to be skeptical of anyone seriously suggesting that California should secede; this is especially true of any such movement originating in Russia.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)To further the discussion, I asked you whether a state can nullify my US citizenship.
For some reason, you don't want to answer that question.
Curious way of having a "discussion".
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Of course you are. Obviously you have nothing better than smoke and mirrors.
And I already addressed your diversionary side issue of citizenship. When someone says they don't know, try reading that answer for comprehension.
But if you're that obsessed with that side issue... please start your own thread instead of trying to hijack this one.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...if you believe that courts regularly opine on facts which have not yet happened. Absent unusual circumstances, such as a preliminary injunction, it is pretty much the ordinary course of events that things happen first, and courts rule on them afterwards.
But given that you joined in 2016, and claim to have been posting in 2004, then I defer to your expertise in the subject of time travel.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Duh!
And yet you STILL want to claim that a decision MADE 8 YEARS LATER can be retroactively applied? Odd since that seems to be constitutionally prohibited by Art 1.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I imagine it was legal when I robbed the bank 3 years ago, because the court didn't find me guilty until last month. But when I robbed the bank, obviously I was not guilty.
But the question in Texas v. White dealt very directly with whether US law recognized the alleged secession of Texas. US law does not recognize secession.
Even if one accepted the premise that this was an "ex post facto law", a phrase you clearly do not understand, then what is your question in 2016, given that an unchallenged decision on the subject has been in place for more than 100 years?
I realize that chronology is not your strong suit, but it hardly needs to be pointed out that Texas v. White certainly precedes any prospective secession you may have in mind.
You might want to get that caps lock key looked at.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"I realize that chronology is not your strong suit, but it hardly needs to be pointed out that Texas v. White certainly precedes any prospective secession you may have in mind."
Cal secession to force democratic reforms IS NOT THE TOPIC HERE. And YOU raised your amusing retroactive argument BEFORE I even mentioned Cal... and that was only to prove all talk of secession was NOT for right wing causes.
But you all know that... yet want to try ANOTHER of your magical time machine arguments... while accusing me of having problems with chronology.
Truly pathetic.
synergie
(1,901 posts)your poor argument on the Constitutional aspects here?
It's an odd, yet consistent deflection here, as is all that projection. Ad hominems are as bad as imaginary time machines when one doesn't like arguments that one cannot understand and fails to counter coherently.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)The very act of succession is a denial by the governed of the federal right to govern them. There is no longer government by the consent of the people.
That philosophical point aside, the Constitution is silent on a state's right to succeed, nor is there any mechanism on how to do so. On the other hand, the federalist form of government was highly controversial from the outset. The Constitution only provides for three powers for the federal government: tax/spend, regulate interstate commerce and provide for the common defense. Thomas Jefferson would have been appalled by the modern federal government.
But the less than perfect "more perfect union" was probably doomed from the day the Constitution was signed because the compromise between federalist and states righters was to simply not resolve the respective rights. Eventually, fueled by a great "wedge issue" (the immoral institution of slavery) an ugly split was inevitable.
The law generally abhors anything that is irrevocably set into perpetuity and doesn't continued governance of a State, vested with what are supposed to be plenary powers, subjected, perhaps into perpetuity, to governance without their consent fly in the face of the concepts liberty and autonomy? Doesn't on the other hand, a compact wit no termination imply an intention to create a permanent government?
So the Constitution had to basically be suspended while the issue could be decided in the court of the battlegrounds. That outcome, as well as the Texas v. White decision (made by the victors) decided in the favor of the union. NOW the law is settled, there can be no sucession. The imposition of the 14th and 15th Amendments implies a constitutional authority for the Federal government to protect EVERY citizen as a citizen of the United States, regardless of the wishes of the State.
Then again, I'm not a constitutional authority...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Especially with the 14th Amendment, which is why our secessionist friend here doesn't want to talk about individual federally guaranteed rights.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I have NO desire to break apart the US. You can believe that or believe your own projections of who you think I am... and ALL of the latter are baseless personal attacks. If they continue I will flag your posts.
But I HAVE suggested that perhaps the only way to reform an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof government TO MAKE IT DEMOCRATIC is to force a constitutional crisis. Why? Because I BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. My values are clear and I really don't give a shit what you think.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)States with as little as 4% of the US population can thwart any amendment and yet states with 40% can ratify any amendment. Want to go into the math of Senate approval when 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats?
Obviously any STATE based amendment formula is antidemocratic because is has nothing to do with vast population disparities between states... which is now about 69:1.
Sorry this is so new to you.
Whether a process is "democratic" and whether it is proportionally representative are two different questions.
Yes, a lot of people have to be convinced to amend the Constitution. And, yet, it has been done repeatedly.
dumbcat
(2,160 posts)He's been down this road many times.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I've NEVER said I was not in favor of a super majority for a constitutional amendment. But this has to be a supermajority OF PEOPLE... not states. I've been on record here that I favor a national referendum to be held on two consecutive presidential election days... 4 years so people have the time to consider a vote, and that to ratify an amendment it should get super majority approval. Whether that's 60% 66% 75%... I have no idea.
Your retraction is noted even if not offered.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Granted, it's hard to imagine the circumstances in which Lincoln would have permitted the South to secede legally. But there was no genuine diplomatic attempt made either. The war started when the CSA fired on Fort Sumter, and at that point Lincoln was putting down an armed rebellion.
Rollo
(2,559 posts)And the Confederacy didn't have a legal leg to stand on after that.
If you take the stand that they were in fact a sovereign nation, then when they attacked US federal property, the USA had every right to defend itself and take whatever measures it saw fit to neutralize the threat. Those measures turned out to include Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Sherman's march to the sea, the capture of Richmond, and Lee's surrender at Appomattox. Although the American Experiment was a product of the Enlightenment, the times were not so enlightened to require that a nation turn the other cheek when attacked.
And while numerous people will argue that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it's clear that the slavery question was the elephant in the parlor before, during, and after the war. It was the fulcrum on which the national balancing act faltered.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)One can only wonder what Lincoln would have done without the attack.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)
Worktodo
(288 posts)The southern states never left the Union. Rather there were states in rebellion -- i.e. open and armed resistance. I will quote the Emancipation Proclamation, in which Lincoln directs his legal power at exactly those states "in rebellion" (I.e. Still under the legal jurisdiction of the President whether they said so or not!):
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..."
To understand whether Lincoln was justified read the articles of secession from one of any of the states. They're all about slavery and how the Northern States aren't returning slaves like they were supposed to... The issue wasn't that the northern states were attempting to interfere with the activity of the southern states (far from it. The emancipation proclamation was more pragmatic than moralistic-- note it did not free slaves in every state). The southern states were attempting to coerce the northern states and petulantly started a war which they then proceeded to lose.
So no secession isn't legal (there ain't no brexit) and yes Lincoln was justified (he took an oath to uphold the constitution), and the South started it because they didn't like the northern states exercising -their- 10th amendment rights (to abolish slavery.)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
So just because Lincoln uses it... it's not as if it has a clear constitutional meaning. And 1792 dictionary states it's insurrection against lawful authority. The Whiskey Rebellion fits... as well as the unlawful attack on Sumter. But what if the South seceded without seizing or attacking federal property?
https://books.google.com/books?id=j-UIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=rebellion&f=false
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)"the consent of the governed" is the operative phrase, and was no mere rhetorical flourish. in the final analysis, the consent of the governed is the ultimate basis of all governmental authority and legitimacy. if the governed do not have the right to change their government, including abolishing it and forming a new government (secession), then they are subjects, not citizens, and if peaceful means of secession are denied them, it would justify the use of force to gain this end, if necessary. at the same time, holding other human beings in slavery would be moral justification for another power using force to free the slaves, regardless of the legality of the slave-holding government. these are two different issues, so the US civil war is not really a good example to justify secession, but it doesn't change the fact that people should be allowed to choose their own government.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So if enough of the governed want to chuck it and have another one, that's fine.
unblock
(56,188 posts)*under the constitution*, secession was not legal.
the constitution provides quite a number of ways to ensure that the government operates with consent of the governed. it's not perfect, but the people provide consent directly or indirectly, through ratification and amendment, and voting for representation in congress and the president and vice-president.
"consent of the governed" doesn't mean that anyone can just stomp their feet and quit the country any time they get pissed. under the "higher law" there is a high bar to justify this sort of thing (e.g., american independence from england) and in practice it's generally considered illegal under the law of the nation that's being seceded from.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for white supremacist southerners to unilaterally separate the slaves from the union.
It's been the north's obligation to drag the south out of the dark ages for over a century now.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)There's a whole bunch of the genuine article in those threads telling us to follow airline orders or get a well-deserved bloodying.
Sheesh.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)This can, of course be decomposed as far as you like. I don't consent to be governed by my state, county, and city, can I secede? Of course not.
Of course, having a means to dissolve such a union isn't unreasonable, but the "consent of the governed" is a precarious argument.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)I would make the following points.
1. The 1869 Supreme Court decision holds no weight with me because it was ex-post facto. What were they supposed to rule? That four years after the war that the south was a separate country. Then what? Not likely.
2. When the Bill of Rights was passed, there were many against it,. They were afraid that by listing individual rights people would think that if a right wasn't written down, then the people don't have it. They wanted it to be clear that if a right was not specifically given to government, then the people retained it and if a power wasn't specifically given to an arm of government, then the states would retain it. That's why the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were put into the Bill of Rights.
3. If it was understood at the time that if a state ratified the Constitution, then they could never leave the union no matter how much the nation or its government changed, under threat of armed invasion, there's no way the Constitution would have ever been ratified.
4. People changing their government wasn't considered so weird back then, at least in some parts of the nation. If you were a Texan
born in 1820, you would have been born in Spain, then became a citizen of Mexico, then the Republic of Texas, then the USA, then the Confederacy all within 40 years.
hatrack
(64,837 posts)Next?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)How many on this website would support California or NY, or whatever Blue State(s) would like to Secede from the current American situation.
And Secession was, and is Illegal.
Buzz cook
(2,896 posts)And doubly no after the Civil War.
If there had been a legal way to leave the Union the Southern states would have used that instead of violent revolution.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sumter wasn't until April 1861. Arguably 7 states had seceded before Sumter... and who knows what would have happened if not for Sumter... because at that point Lincoln had to act.
South Carolina: December 20, 1860
Mississippi: January 9, 1861
Florida: January 10, 1861
Alabama: January 11, 1861
Georgia: January 19, 1861
Louisiana: January 26, 1861
Texas: February 1, 1861
Virginia: April 17, 1861
Arkansas: May 6, 1861
North Carolina: May 20, 1861
Tennessee: June 8, 1861
Buzz cook
(2,896 posts)What bill in congress was passed that allowed their separation. What forms were filled out, what formal notification was made. What agreements were reached for the return of federal properties to the government?
As far as violent revolution, just because guns were not fired till Sumter does not means that revolution had not happened. The seizing of federal property was a revolutionary act and that happened immediately after those states declared independence.
When Andrew Jackson sent troops into South Carolina to quell an earlier secession threat, why didn't that state sue in federal court because of their legal right to secede?
Secession was not legal because there was no legal mechanism for secession.
CTyankee
(68,162 posts)We were a new country and had growing pains in our development. The civil war just clarified the question. We often hear from states wishing to secede and maybe one day some will. I''m not sure we can ever settle the issue with finality.
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)End of story. Whether or not secession was constitutionally allowed is a moot point. The Civil War is over. The South lost.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)jberryhill, unblock, and hekate to name a few.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)Pretty simple in my book. I'm too lazy to go spend hours digging up research, but yea, that's the answer.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)There's only dozens, hundreds, nay, thousands of others that are MORE worthy of debate.
Sorry, no offense to your psychic integrity, but this is a bullshit topic. The worst I've ever seen on DU, and I've been here almost 13 years.
I've seen this type of debate many times over the years, mostly to disagree with the Northern contention that the Civil War was mainly fought over slavery versus being fought over states rights.
There is little reason to debate this in GD. Take it to another forum.